VC vs. Hurst's "Urban Cycling"

[Allister]

But the VC approach doesn't depend on vigilance - it's about ingraining best practices as automatic habits, so that you don't need to be aware of a hazard in order to be optimally positioned for it: it's proactive.

Don't need to be aware?

is the fact that we cyclists, including you, are humans, and are not capable of paying 100% attention all the time to everything.

Keep practicing, newbie. It is entirely possible. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it's impossible. Maybe not Everything, but in terms of cycling in traffic, everything you need to is well within anyone's capabilities, even yours.

Therefore, we need a system, a set of best practices, that works to protect us even when we're not paying attention.

Nothing will do that, Head. At best they are a convention that all road users more or less agree on that gives a bit of predictability to traffic, but nothing will make it 100% predictable, and when it isn't, you'd better be paying attention. 'Best practices' are an excellent supplement to proper awareness, not a replacement.

In the case you so delight in analysing ad nauseum, here's my simple assesment - Robert admits being distracted. If he'd had his wits about him, he would have braked early enough to avoid the collision. No amount of lane positioning would've prevented the collision without also braking. His delayed response on the brakes is what brought him undone, not his lane position. Robert, please correct me if I'm way off base.

Edit: I should say possibly prevented the collision, as there are no certainties in these things.

[urban_assault]

OK, back on topic.

HH,

Let me preface this question by letting you know that I have read the original post stating your argument and your thoughts about the *rules of the road* and so forth. I realize my question involves a very non likely scenario, but please just indulge me. A yes or no answer would suffice.

If a cyclist does not follow the rules of the road, but relies mainly on vigilance and situational awareness and never has an collision with a motor vehicle, traffic citation, or altercations (major or minor) with a motorist, is that cyclist a lucky idiot?

[mrbrklyn]

Most side streets are in the 40' range...I'm talking about the one way side streets here. And in my part of Brooklyn- in fact, in every part of Brooklyn I know- those sidestreets are riddled with proper driveways, garages, curb cuts and all manner of devices by which cars can enter the road perpendicular to traffic. And center lane positioning on streets like Dean, Pacific, Bergen, etc. is the very essence of arrogant ******baggery.

Define ******baggery


Aside from that, your just wrong. Older communities which include Bed Sty, Downtown, Vinigar Hill, The Heights, Old Brooklyn Town, Parts of Crown Heights, Sunset Park,Fort Green, Cobble Hill, Park Slope, South Brooklyn, Williamsburg, Greenpoint much of Flatbush, Coney Island, Brighton Beach and much of whats left of ENY, Brownsville, Ocean Hill, and Bushwick were built prior to the automobile. Those areas have housing, much of it landmarked, which has no driveways and often thinner roads.

Canarsie, Mill Basin, New areas in Flatbush, Marine Park, Bergan Beach, the balance of Flatbush and Ditmas Park, Midwood, the ballance of Crown Heights, Starret City, new areas of ENY, Sheepshead Bay, Newer Coney Island housing, Manhattan Beach, Bay Ridge and Bensohurst were built after the automobile. Not only do they have Drive Ways, but they also have wider streets, step backs in the houses to give visibility and gardens, all of which give the driver and cyclist considerable vision of cars prior to them ramroding you .

If you need photo's I can provide them.

Ruben

[Bekologist]

if you could get pictures of head's posterior talking, that'd be a lot more relevant to this discussion.

[John C. Ratliff]

You guys know what? I've been doing a lot of studying, and really cannot follow all this interrelated dialog.

HH, why don't you spend the time you work on this and write out a manuscript, submit it for publication, and put your views out there for us to read in book form? This seems always to be circling around the same accident that I think we were talking about last spring. You could make wiser use of your time.

John

[zeytoun]

If a cyclist does not follow the rules of the road, but relies mainly on vigilance and situational awareness and never has an collision with a motor vehicle, traffic citation, or altercations (major or minor) with a motorist, is that cyclist a lucky idiot?
Something similar has been brought up before a couple times when different posters asked him about studies that show professional bike messengers with relatively low fatalities.

The only thing that Helmet Head could think of as an explanation was that selective breeding had given them superior traffic jamming genes....

I kid you not.

[Allister]

HH, why don't you spend the time you work on this and write out a manuscript, submit it for publication, and put your views out there for us to read in book form?

I pity the editor unfortunate enough to get that manuscript.

[joejack951]

Keep practicing, newbie. It is entirely possible. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it's impossible. Maybe not Everything, but in terms of cycling in traffic, everything you need to is well within anyone's capabilities, even yours.

If Robert Hurst, the 300,000 mile messenger man, can't pay attention to what's necessary while cycling 100% of the time, how can you expect anyone to pull that off? [This statement is not meant to be disrespectful at all by the way, quite the opposite in case anyone cares.]

Nothing will do that, Head. At best they are a convention that all road users more or less agree on that gives a bit of predictability to traffic, but nothing will make it 100% predictable, and when it isn't, you'd better be paying attention. 'Best practices' are an excellent supplement to proper awareness, not a replacement.

Where are you getting these "100% predictable" statements from? Where was it posted that "best practices" are a "replacement" for paying attention? You are making stuff up.

[Laika]

Define ******baggery

I don't need to... implementing your "rules" for cycling in the streets I named above would do it perfectly.

Aside from that, your just wrong. Older communities which include Bed Sty, Downtown, Vinigar Hill, The Heights, Old Brooklyn Town, Parts of Crown Heights, Sunset Park,Fort Green, Cobble Hill, Park Slope, South Brooklyn, Williamsburg, Greenpoint much of Flatbush, Coney Island, Brighton Beach and much of whats left of ENY, Brownsville, Ocean Hill, and Bushwick were built prior to the automobile. Those areas have housing, much of it landmarked, which has no driveways and often thinner roads.

You mustn't get out much. Even in venerable old Park Slope, there are garages with curb cuts on side streets, and parking garages, firehouses, hospitals, etc, etc, which all have perpendicular midblock access to 40' wide sidestreets. If you need pictures of, for instance, Methodist Hospital, or the beer distributor on Pacific north of Smith, or nearly any corner house in the brownstone blocks of the Slope (you know, the ones with garages & curb cuts?) or any of a thousand other perpendicular midblock incursions, I'd suggest grabbing your camera and going for a ride through Brooklyn... there's apparently a lot you're not noticing from the center of those narrow lanes.


Canarsie, Mill Basin, New areas in Flatbush, Marine Park, Bergan Beach, the balance of Flatbush and Ditmas Park, Midwood, the ballance of Crown Heights, Starret City, new areas of ENY, Sheepshead Bay, Newer Coney Island housing, Manhattan Beach, Bay Ridge and Bensohurst were built after the automobile. Not only do they have Drive Ways, but they also have wider streets, step backs in the houses to give visibility and gardens, all of which give the driver and cyclist considerable vision of cars prior to them ramroding you .

If you need photo's I can provide them.

Ruben

Funny, I grew up in Bay Ridge and have lived in several of the other areas you mention. And plenty of the sidestreets there were in the 40'-50' range. Nothing like the wide-open boulevards you seem to have seen at all. Not saying those streets don't exist- just that your blanket statements about Brooklyn are contrafactual and faintly ridiculous.

[Helmet Head]

Then why the incessant bickering with Robert over it?
Robert's downplaying of the value of learning and adopting best practices in traffic cycling is a serious weakness in his book. Should he have the opportunity to update the book again, for the sake of all future readers, I would like to see this rectified. But if he doesn't, and I ever get around to writing my book, believe me, I will deal with it there.


But the VC approach doesn't depend on vigilance - it's about ingraining best practices as automatic habits, so that you don't need to be aware of a hazard in order to be optimally positioned for it: it's proactive.
Don't need to be aware?
Yes, VC best practices make the cyclist more likely to not need to be aware of a hazard in order to be optimally positioned for it - in fact, the vehicular cyclist is likely to be optimally positioned for many common hazards before even the most vigilant among us could be aware of it. This is what Robert's Mercedes crash illustrates so well, and why I spend so much time talking about it. Even Robert has agreed that he should have been further left. But he wasn't optimally positioned, because his approach requires the cyclist to be aware of a hazard (or dumb luck) in order to be optimally positioned for it, and he wasn't paying attention. His approach requires that the cyclist be aware of a hazard in order to be optimally positioned for it, and thus the cyclist needs to be paying attention and aware of the hazard in order to react to it. The VC approach is proactive - destination positioning in particular is all about habitual road positioning optimization for potential hazards - hazards that cannot even be seen yet, much less actually noticed and adjusted for.


Keep practicing, newbie. It is entirely possible. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it's impossible.

You're fooling yourself if you think you or anyone else can be 100% vigilant 100% of the time.


Maybe not Everything, ...

Seems like you're beginning to realize the absurdity in your own assertion already.


but in terms of cycling in traffic, everything you need to is well within anyone's capabilities, even yours.

Well, it was a good start. You're fooling yourself if you think you or anyone else is capable of being immune to distraction. There is no end to the potential sources that can call on the attention of a cyclist when he needs to be paying attention to something else. These sources themselves can be relevant to his safety. A sudden mysterious noise from your front wheel can cause you to look down to make sure the wheel is not about to lock up on you, just when a truck pulls out of a blind alley, for example. Yes, of course, the particular combination of events is highly unlikely, but we are distracted all the time. In short, well, I can't be any more concise than JoeJack:

If Robert Hurst, the 300,000 mile messenger man, can't pay attention to what's necessary while cycling 100% of the time, how can you expect anyone to pull that off?



Therefore, we need a system, a set of best practices, that works to protect us even when we're not paying attention. This is the foundation for safety in everything from airplane piloting to SCUBA diving, from defensive driving to sky diving. Are any of those systems comprehensive in the sense of being infallible? Of course not. Is any practitioner of these systems even better off if he pays more attention? Of course. But that doesn't mean the value of these systems needs to downplayed. And so it is with vehicular cycling: a set of best practices for cycling safely and efficiently in traffic.
Nothing will do that, Head.

You're confusing "protect" with something like "guarantee safety". Seat belts, air bags, helmets and best practices are all utilized for protection, but everyone realizes they improve safety, but don't guarantee it; that they reduce risk, not eliminate it.


At best they are a convention that all road users more or less agree on that gives a bit of predictability to traffic, but nothing will make it 100% predictable, and when it isn't, you'd better be paying attention. 'Best practices' are an excellent supplement to proper awareness, not a replacement.

Allister, I don't understand what your beef is with me. We seem to be in agreement. Even if you continue to contend that everyone is theoretically capable of paying enough attention to avoid ever crashing, surely you would agree that in practice few if any will actually achieve that level of vigilance (certainly not even Robert), and, so can benefit from the extra protection provided by best practices.

Well, I just realized where there might be some confusion here. Yes, best practices are an excellent supplement to proper awareness. They are not a replacement, in general. But the reason best practices are an excellent supplement, is that in a given situation where the cyclist may not be paying as much attention as he would be ideally, riding in accordance to best practices can literally save his skin. In other words, learning and following best practices can save your arse when you least expect it. That is their value. And the kicker is that in order to achieve that benefit, you have to value, learn and adopt those best practices habitually. It's just like wearing a helmet or a seat belt. You don't strap in or strap the helmet on moments before you realize you're about to crash. By then, it's probably too late. Similarly, you don't suddenly adopt a best practice because you suddenly realize there is a potential hazard right in front of you. Best practices have to be ingrained in your habits in order to protect you. This is what Robert does not seem to realize, and certainly does not convey in his book.


In the case you so delight in analysing ad nauseum, here's my simple assesment - Robert admits being distracted. If he'd had his wits about him, he would have braked early enough to avoid the collision. No amount of lane positioning would've prevented the collision without also braking. His delayed response on the brakes is what brought him undone, not his lane position. Robert, please correct me if I'm way off base.

Edit: I should say possibly prevented the collision, as there are no certainties in these things.
I don't disagree with your analysis, but it totally misses my point. My point is that the incident illustrates that destination positioning, with respect to that blind alley junction, was obviously not a best practice that Robert had adopted. Whether being further left would have prevented that particular crash, which nobody, not even Robert, knows for sure anyway, is entirely irrelevant to my point. Remember, he had ridden on this road thousands of times. Yet he was riding the door zone bike lane as he was approaching a blind alley. That is not an example of someone who has learned and follows best practices. That is an example of someone who relies too much on vigilance alone. And that's exactly the approach he promotes in his book. Robert continues to downplay the value of learning and following best practices on this forum, and even in this thread. He even recently, again, derided the value of the best practice of lane positioning for the sake of conspicuity, something emphasized in motorcycle safety courses (as well as vehicular-cycling courses):

There is thus no need to think about maximizing visibility for motorists ('conspicuous and predictable'), who will inevitably overlook cyclists even if they're in prime lane position (that is, if they look at all).

The fact that it is possible for motorists to overlook even conspicuously positioned cyclists (and motorcyclists) is no reason to not think about maximizing visibility. It's also possible for motorists to overlook cyclists in bright clothing, or for motorists to overlook cyclists at night even when they're using lights and reflectors. But that fact is no reason to discount the value (not think about) of wearing bright clothing and using lights and reflectors for the sake of maximizing (not guaranteeing) conspicuity. Similarly, optimizing lane position in order to maximize conspicuity is also valuable - something Robert is mysteriously unable to recognize or acknowledge.

Could it be that Robert's downplaying of the value of best practices, and in particular, his denial of the value of lane positioning for the purpose of maximizing conspicuity and predictability, is because that downplaying and denial forms the foundation of his argument against Forester and vehicular-cycling?

[Helmet Head]

Could it be that Robert's downplaying of the value of best practices, and in particular, his denial of the value of lane positioning for the purpose of maximizing conspicuity and predictability, is because that downplaying and denial forms the foundation of his argument against Forester and vehicular-cycling?
Another possible explanation for Robert's downplaying of the value of best practices, and in particular, his denial of the value of lane positioning for the purpose of maximizing conspicuity and predictability, is that it is part of his overall discounting of the value of learning and following any rules or principles (with a few exceptions) whatsoever. In other words, it justifies scofflaw behavior. I don't mean to imply that Robert is knowingly doing anything dishonest here or in his book. I suspect the justification is mostly subconscious; that's how denial generally works.

[Helmet Head]

You guys know what? I've been doing a lot of studying, and really cannot follow all this interrelated dialog.

There is no need to read the whole thread to catch up. If you're just coming here, I would recommend reading (not skimming) the first and last two pages. I try to make my posts as "stand alone" as possible, but much can be missed if you merely skim them.


HH, why don't you spend the time you work on this and write out a manuscript, submit it for publication, and put your views out there for us to read in book form? This seems always to be circling around the same accident that I think we were talking about last spring. You could make wiser use of your time.
Part of the reason I haven't started yet is because I haven't figured out exactly what my overall presentation is going to be. I'm approaching this the same way I do software, in which I generally test ideas in small programs until the whole thing "works in my head", and then I write the whole program and debug it.

For example, one of the things I've learned in this thread is that I need to address the cyclist who feels out of place in traffic, and finds the rats in sewers paradigm to be appealing. In other words, I need to help the reader realize what his or her current paradigm is, in order to dismantle it and replace it with the vc paradigm.

[RobertHurst]

What I promote is not always the same as what all LCIs "practice, promote and teach". If fact, no two LCIs teach exactly the same thing in exactly the same way (just as no two SCUBA instructors teach exactly the same thing in exactly the same way). But if it's not vehicular-cycling, then I don't call it vehicular-cycling. For example, I promote mirror use, but I don't promote it on the grounds of it being a vehicular-cycling best practice. I do argue that mirror-use aids one in being able to use vc practices in many situations. Some VC advocates and LCIs disagree with me on that.

But what Robert understands and describes as vehicular-cycling, and criticizes, is merely cycling lawfully.

Vehicular-cycling, because it is based on following the vehicular principles that forms the basis for traffic law for all drivers, by and large, with a few notable exceptions, is a subset of lawful cycling (LC). Therefore, almost any instance of unlawful cycling is an example of non-VC, again, with a few notable exceptions. But Robert flips this around and sees any example of LC failing to protect a cyclist as a failure in VC. He does not undertand VC to be something different from LC (again, VC is mostly a proper subset of LC, with a few exceptions, so if a given behavior is consistent with LC, is legal, it does not mean it is necessarily consistent with VC). He does not distinguish VC from LC: he equates them.


Forester, father of this VC thing that HH is always going on about, emphasized the need for cyclists to simply plug themselves into the normal traffic system that governs all vehicle travel. This system includes destination positioning and speed positioning. IOW, it is Forester himself who does not distinguish VC from LC (although his interpretation of the Uniform Traffic Code is occasionally laughable). Forester emphatically did NOT emphasize maintaining a buffer zone to right side hazards, or to any hazards. Forester emphatically did NOT emphasize the need to maintain vigilance in traffic. What he argued was that simply plugging into the 'near-perfect' system would by itself keep a cyclist safe. Forester in fact derides those who feel that plugging into the wonderful system won't be enough to ensure safety; he suggests that the application of defensive driving techniques in traffic is based on irrational fear. Extracurriculur defensive action is one of these signs of 'cyclist inferiority complex' or some such thing. Cyclists don't need to be defensive 'road sneaks,' he argued, but assertive. That's the VC that I criticize. HH's version of VC -- who knows what the heck that is.

Then, of course, Forester provides a rather comprehensive compilation of statistics which show his assertions about the magical nature of the traffic system to be incorrect. It's an interesting strategy, for sure.

HH's attempted appropriation of defensive driving techniques as 'VC rules,' when defensive strategies were pointedly left out of Forester's Effective Cycling, is ludicrous. So, where did HH get these ideas? We can see that he gets his ideas from books, and from tortured thought exercises, not from actual experience. These defensive 'rules' are apparently something HH first saw applied to cyclists by me, in my book. That he can attack me for not following strategies that he learned from me, based on weird interpretations of other things he found in my book and on the back cover, and call it all a violation of 'VC habits' is triple ludicrous armchair madness run amok. Although it is entertaining.

Real experienced cyclists don't learn 'habits' from books. It is absurd to think that an armchair jockey would do anything on a bike more 'habitually' than someone who is out in traffic five hours a day. That's just another misapprehension that can only exist in the absence of real, on the ground experience.

The ideas in my book are not things I sat around and made up next to the fire, or things I derived from other books or bloviations. They come from my own experience, and the experiences of other high-mileage cyclists.

Robert

[The Human Car]

HH's version of VC -- who knows what the heck that is.
It’s simple, whatever is contentious HH is all over it.

[mrbrklyn]

I don't need to... implementing your "rules" for cycling in the streets I named above would do it perfectly.



You mustn't get out much.

After this is esentialy a troll. I have a photo colleciton of nearly 4,000 different streets in Brooklyn as part of my "www.brooklynonline.com" project with a collection of over 40 years of Brooklyn Photographs and notes. Tell me which street you want to use to support your theory based on your very small frame of reference and I'll whip it up and show you visually how your just wrong.

Ruben

[zeytoun]

Tell me which street you want to use to support your theory based on your very small frame of reference and I'll whip it up and show you visually how your just wrong.
I think he already did.
Methodist Hospital, or the beer distributor on Pacific north of Smith, or nearly any corner house in the brownstone blocks of the Slope

[Helmet Head]

Forester, father of this VC thing that HH is always going on about, emphasized the need for cyclists to simply plug themselves into the normal traffic system that governs all vehicle travel. This system includes destination positioning and speed positioning. IOW, it is Forester himself who does not distinguish VC from LC (although his interpretation of the Uniform Traffic Code is occasionally laughable). Forester emphatically did NOT emphasize maintaining a buffer zone to right side hazards, or to any hazards. Forester emphatically did NOT emphasize the need to maintain vigilance in traffic. What he argued was that simply plugging into the 'near-perfect' system would by itself keep a cyclist safe. Forester in fact derides those who feel that plugging into the wonderful system won't be enough to ensure safety; he suggests that the application of defensive driving techniques in traffic is based on irrational fear. Extracurriculur defensive action is one of these signs of 'cyclist inferiority complex' or some such thing. Cyclists don't need to be defensive 'road sneaks,' he argued, but assertive. That's the VC that I criticize. HH's version of VC -- who knows what the heck that is.

Then, of course, Forester provides a rather comprehensive compilation of statistics which show his assertions about the magical nature of the traffic system to be incorrect. It's an interesting strategy, for sure.

HH's attempted appropriation of defensive driving techniques as 'VC rules,' when defensive strategies were pointedly left out of Forester's Effective Cycling, is ludicrous. So, where did HH get these ideas? We can see that he gets his ideas from books, and from tortured thought exercises, not from actual experience. These defensive 'rules' are apparently something HH first saw applied to cyclists by me, in my book. That he can attack me for not following strategies that he learned from me, based on weird interpretations of other things he found in my book and on the back cover, and call it all a violation of 'VC habits' is triple ludicrous armchair madness run amok. Although it is entertaining.

Real experienced cyclists don't learn 'habits' from books. It is absurd to think that an armchair jockey would do anything on a bike more 'habitually' than someone who is out in traffic five hours a day. That's just another misapprehension that can only exist in the absence of real, on the ground experience.

The ideas in my book are not things I sat around and made up next to the fire, or things I derived from other books or bloviations. They come from my own experience, and the experiences of other high-mileage cyclists.

Robert
I don't know where you get your ideas of what Forester says is vehicular-cycling, for you don't provide any references here (and you don't in your book either). You seem to rely on your impressions that you gathered in internet forum discussions.

As to my impressions of vc, with respect to defensive cycling, I can quickly find many references supporting my view. Doing more research in a few minutes than you apparently did for your entire book, here is what I have found.

This is from VC advocate Fred Oswald's site, bicyclinglife.com:

Remember that drivers are generally looking for cars, not for a much smaller bicycle. Always wear bright clothing and ride in or near the traffic lanes where drivers are looking. Drivers may misjudge your speed and "hook" in front of you. For these occasions, you need the defensive driving skills taught in Effective Cycling -- hard braking and the instant turn. Learn to anticipate problems in order to avoid them.
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/PracticalCycling/commuteguide.htm

This is from ohiobike.org, which bases it's material on John Allen's and John Forester's work, in an explanation for why "you could be dead wrong" is bad safety advice:

You are more likely to be "dead-wrong". This is often part of a fear campaign. We don't teach swimming that way. When you have the right of way, use it. You are much better off riding predictably and acting like you know what you are doing. Of course, defensive driving is always wise -- plan an escape route, just in case.
...
Resources & Materials (both adult - reference & kids or parents info.)
...

Effective Cycling, by John Forester, published by MIT Press, 1993 a terrific reference (but difficult for beginners).




The first time I learned about the writing of Mighk Wilson was when the LCI teaching my Road 1 course handed out a copy of one of his papers. Here is an excerpt from "Freedom from Fear":

"What of the other 50 crashes?" you ask. They resulted in 27 significant injuries; 4 incapacitating. They mostly involved motorists who failed to yield at intersections and driveways, and neither bike lanes, sidewalks nor paths offer protection from such crashes. Indeed, on sidewalks and sidewalk-style bikeways you will be more susceptible to such crashes, not less. On the roadway you’ll be more visible. The same defensive driving skills you use as a motorist will normally keep you out of such crashes.
http://www.floridabicycle.org/freedomfromfear.html

Here is a quote from VC advocate (and BF member) Steven Goodridge:
Cyclists who drive defensively must also leave bike lanes that are striped where parked cars’ doors can extend, or that have accumulated hazardous debris.
http://nicomachus.net/category/published-works/

From a UC Davis bike program:
Defensive cycling is the key to bike safety. In the words of John Forester , “Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.”
http://www.taps.ucdavis.edu/bicycle/general/newucdcyclist.html

And here's a post from me from back in April 6 of 2005, before I read your book (in fact, during the time that I had it ordered and was still waiting for it to arrive from Amazon):
MOST car-bike collisions could have been prevented by the cyclist.

It has nothing to do with stats. That conclusion follows directly from the basic tenet of defensive driving: that almost all (but not ALL) collisions are avoidable/preventable by either of the parties involved. I don't know, perhaps you don't believe in defensive driving, but, if you do, it should be clear that applying the basic tenet of defensive driving to car-bike collisions implies that almost all (but not ALL) car-bike collisions are avoidable/preventable by either the car driver or the cyclist. From that, it should be obvious to the most casual observer that almost all, and certainly most (which is all I claimed) (but not ALL) car-cycle collisions could have been prevented or avoided by the cyclist.

In other words, the credibility of my claim is based on the assumption that the concept of defensive driving is sound. If you want to challenge that, then please do so. If you want to challenge my contention that my claim follows from the basic tenet of defensive driving, then please do that. But simply pointing out that there are no stats that support my conclusion is a strawman postulation, since I make no claim that my conclusion is based (at least not directly) on stats. Whether the claims of defensive driving are based on stats is a different issue.


Or, if all that's not good enough to convince you that there is nothing new or original about tying defensive driving to vehicular-cycling, take it from the horse's mouth:

The vehicular cyclist recognizes that acting as the driver of a vehicle brings most of the problems of cycling in traffic directly under his own control, and that moderate defensive driving skills take care of most of the rest.
John Forester, Bicycle Transportation, p. 20.

By the way, Forester wrote those words well over a decade before your book was published.

The idea that I (or anyone else) got my ideas about the relationship between defensive driving and cycling safety, and it's consistency with vehicular cycling, from your book, is ludicrous. You give yourself a bit too much credit, Robert.

[Allister]

Robert's downplaying of the value of learning and adopting best practices in traffic cycling is a serious weakness in his book.

Your own downplaying of the role of staying aware is yours.

Yes, VC best practices make the cyclist more likely to not need to be aware of a hazard in order to be optimally positioned for it - in fact, the vehicular cyclist is likely to be optimally positioned for many common hazards before even the most vigilant among us could be aware of it. This is what Robert's Mercedes crash illustrates so well, and why I spend so much time talking about it. Even Robert has agreed that he should have been further left. But he wasn't optimally positioned, because his approach requires the cyclist to be aware of a hazard (or dumb luck) in order to be optimally positioned for it, and he wasn't paying attention. His approach requires that the cyclist be aware of a hazard in order to be optimally positioned for it, and thus the cyclist needs to be paying attention and aware of the hazard in order to react to it. The VC approach is proactive - destination positioning in particular is all about habitual road positioning optimization for potential hazards - hazards that cannot even be seen yet, much less actually noticed and adjusted for.

You need to be paying attention and aware of the hazard in order to react to it no matter where you're riding, Serge.

'VC' might give you a slight advantage once you become aware of the hazard, but if your inattention persists, no amount of lane positioning will help you, unless you rely on the other party to see and react to you, and only a fool would do that.

You're fooling yourself if you think you or anyone else can be 100% vigilant 100% of the time.

I'm not saying everyone can or does achieve it, merely that it is possible. It's really just a matter of practice. The more you practice, the closer you get to it. Every collision or near collision should be a reminder to WAKE UP and pay attention. Eventually it becomes second nature. If you start from a postition of thinking that it's impossible, you've defeated yourself before you've turned your first crank.

There is no end to the potential sources that can call on the attention of a cyclist when he needs to be paying attention to something else. These sources themselves can be relevant to his safety. A sudden mysterious noise from your front wheel can cause you to look down to make sure the wheel is not about to lock up on you, just when a truck pulls out of a blind alley, for example. Yes, of course, the particular combination of events is highly unlikely, but we are distracted all the time. In short, well, I can't be any more concise than JoeJack:

If Robert Hurst, the 300,000 mile messenger man, can't pay attention to what's necessary while cycling 100% of the time, how can you expect anyone to pull that off?


In Robert's case, I'm confident he's learned from his mistake, and to date it hasn't been repeated (as far as I know). THAT is the reason he described it in his book. That's how you get closer to perfect attention. Being honest with yourself about whether your own inattention contributed to the crash, and vowing to not let it happen again.

You're confusing "protect" with something like "guarantee safety". Seat belts, air bags, helmets and best practices are all utilized for protection, but everyone realizes they improve safety, but don't guarantee it; that they reduce risk, not eliminate it.

Seat belt, helmets and airbags don't reduce risk, only damage. I think you're the one that's confused.

[QUOTE=Helmet Head;5552167]Allister, I don't understand what your beef is with me. We seem to be in agreement. Even if you continue to contend that everyone is theoretically capable of paying enough attention to avoid ever crashing, surely you would agree that in practice few if any will actually achieve that level of vigilance (certainly not even Robert), and, so can benefit from the extra protection provided by best practices.

My beef is that when you say 'best practices', going by your analyses of the various crashes desribed here, you actually only mean 'move further left'. While it may be advisable in some instances, it is by no means a universal solution. I know you're going to deny ever saying that, but I'm not the only one here that thinks you sound like a stuck record.

Well, I just realized where there might be some confusion here. Yes, best practices are an excellent supplement to proper awareness. They are not a replacement, in general. But the reason best practices are an excellent supplement, is that in a given situation where the cyclist may not be paying as much attention as he would be ideally, riding in accordance to best practices can literally save his skin.


Not if that inattention persists. At some point you must become aware of the hazard to avoid it, hopefully not to late. If you're relying on the other party to do it, you are the one that's fooling yourself.

In other words, learning and following best practices can save your arse when you least expect it. That is their value. And the kicker is that in order to achieve that benefit, you have to value, learn and adopt those best practices habitually. It's just like wearing a helmet or a seat belt. You don't strap in or strap the helmet on moments before you realize you're about to crash. By then, it's probably too late. Similarly, you don't suddenly adopt a best practice because you suddenly realize there is a potential hazard right in front of you. Best practices have to be ingrained in your habits in order to protect you. This is what Robert does not seem to realize, and certainly does not convey in his book.


I don't get that impression from Robert at all. The only argument I see is what those 'best practices' actually are, and that 'riding further left' isn't necessarily always the best or most practicable thing to do. Your own faith in habitual practices is gonna bite you in the arse one day if you don't maintain attention, guaranteed.

[Allister]

I really must get hold of a copy of Robert's book. It sounds like a much better read that Forester's.

I even took a crack at writing one myself a few years ago. I re-read it recently, and I think it could do with a bit of a revision, mainly for style, but here's a link (http://members.optushome.com.au/clanmclaren/The_philosophers_bicycle%20(web).pdf) if anyone's interested.

[Helmet Head]

Your own downplaying of the role of staying aware is yours.
If my words have every conveyed downplaying of the role of the staying aware, then my intended meaning was not conveyed. What I've done is noted that cyclists are humans, and so our ability to pay attention is not infallible. This is where best practices help.

Robert, on the other, does not dispute that he downplays the value of being using conspicuous lane positioning and other best practices, and "rule-following" in general.



You need to be paying attention and aware of the hazard in order to react to it no matter where you're riding, Serge.

Of course you don't. I'm sure I avoid tons of glass all the time that I never notice, simply by riding away from the curb.



'VC' might give you a slight advantage, but if your inattention persists, no amount of lane positioning will help you, unless you rely on the other party to see and react to you, and only a fool would do that.

Do you think I've written anything that implies a disagreement with this? If so, what? If not, why do you feel the need to state this?


I'm not saying everyone can or does achieve it, merely that it is possible. It's really just a matter of practice. The more you practice, the closer you get to it. Every collision or near collision should be a reminder to WAKE UP and pay attention. Eventually it becomes second nature. If you start from a postition of thinking that it's impossible, you've defeated yourself before you've turned your first crank.

Ah, I see your point. I take it as a given that everyone understands and values the need to pay as much attention as they possibly can. Do you know anyone who does not understand that?


In Robert's case, I'm confident he's learned from his mistake, and to date it hasn't been repeated (as far as I know). THAT is the reason he described it in his book. That's how you get closer to perfect attention. Being honest with yourself about whether your own inattention contributed to the carsh, and vowing to not let it happen again.

I understand why Robert wrote about this incident. My whole point is based on unintended consequences that were revealed about him and his approach based on how he described the incident, and analyzed it. What's most revealing is that he completely neglected the potential role of riding too far right, though he managed to remember noting that he might have been riding a "tad too fast", which is relatively mundane.


You're confusing "protect" with something like "guarantee safety". Seat belts, air bags, helmets and best practices are all utilized for protection, but everyone realizes they improve safety, but don't guarantee it; that they reduce risk, not eliminate it.

Seat belt, helmets and airbags don't reduce risk, only damage. I think you're the one that's confused.
They don't reduce risk of collision, but they do reduce risk of serious injury, which is what I meant, and should have clarified. I remember thinking about that, and assuming it would be self-evident. I guess it wasn't. Sorry about that. Hopefully my point makes sense now.


My beef is that when you say 'best practices', going by your analyses of the various crashes desribed here, you actually only mean 'move further left'. While it may be advisable in some instances, it is by no means a universal solution. I know you're going to deny ever saying that, but I'm not the only one here that thinks you sound like a stuck record.

I'm not going to deny sounding like a stuck record. But that's not a criticism of the content of what I say, no matter how often I repeat it.

And the real practice is "conspicuous lane-positioning". It just so happens that most of the time that is accomplished by riding further left than most cyclists typically ride.


Not if that inattention persists. At some point you must become aware of the hazard to avoid it, hopefully not to late. If you're relying on the other party to do it, you are the one that's fooling yourself.

If the hazard is a potential collision with a vehicle, the driver of which notices you and refrains from crossing your path, then there is no actual need for you to ever be aware of the hazard in the first place in order to avoid it. I'm not advocating that anyone rely on that, I'm just pointing out a rather obvious fact. That, combined with conspicuous lane-positioning makes the cyclist more likely to be noticed in the first place, and the fact that it's possible for a cyclist to be distracted makes conspicuous lane-positioning a valuable practice, not to mention that it's advantageous to have people notice and yield to you more often. That's just simple logic and reason.



I don't get that impression from Robert at all. The only argument I see is what those 'best practices' actually are, and that 'riding further left' isn't necessarily always the best or most practicable thing to do. Your own faith in habitual practices is gonna bite you in the arse one day if you don't maintian attention, guaranteed.
Robert scoffs at the value of "rule following" in general, and the value of positioning yourself conspicuously in particular. I've recently quoted him doing so in this thread. Sorry, but I'm not going to take the time to dig it up again.

And I don't have the blind/absolute faith in conspicuous lane positioning and other best practices that you seem to think I have. But if that's what I've conveyed, it's definitely my fault.

[sbhikes]

I really must get hold of a copy of Robert's book. It sounds like a much better read that Forester's.

I even took a crack at writing one myself a few years ago. I re-read it recently, and I think it could do with a bit of a revision, mainly for style, but here's a link (http://members.optushome.com.au/clanmclaren/The_philosophers_bicycle%20(web).pdf) if anyone's interested.

That's not a book, it's a poem. And it contains joy. Joy is not to be tolerated here unless it is an outgrowth of self-righteousness and pompous assed-ness.

[Brian Ratliff]

It's a poem? I thought he was doing the ol' school kid's trick of increasing the number of pages by making the margins bigger. :eek: :D

[Allister]

It's a poem? I thought he was doing the ol' school kid's trick of increasing the number of pages by making the margins bigger. :eek: :D

Sh1t. They're on to me.

Although I am kinda proud that I encapsulated the entire cycling experience (or tried to as best I could at the time) in less words than a single Helmet Head post. ;)

[RobertHurst]

Robert's downplaying of the value of learning and adopting best practices in traffic cycling is a serious weakness in his book. Should he have the opportunity to update the book again, for the sake of all future readers, I would like to see this rectified.


The only thing I feel the need to rectify is your continuous and heinous and occasionally comical misrepresentation of what I have written.

But if he doesn't, and I ever get around to writing my book, believe me, I will deal with it there.


If you do write a book, HH, which we can predict will be as full of glaring errors as your posts on this forum, you should know that it's not like the internet. You can't just make stuff up about people and get away with it. You'll get massively sued. Actually the publisher will get sued, but you'll be responsible for the damages due to clause in your contract. Good luck.

Robert

[RobertHurst]

Yes, VC best practices make the cyclist more likely to not need to be aware of a hazard in order to be optimally positioned for it - in fact, the vehicular cyclist is likely to be optimally positioned for many common hazards before even the most vigilant among us could be aware of it.


'Optimally positioned.'

HH, you wouldn't know 'optimally positioned' if it chomped you on the ass. The optimal positioning for this incident, that wouldn't have been obviously illegal, would be very near the double yellow, as far away from the offending motorist as possible, even in the oncoming lane if the space is available. Are you telling me that you would be 'habitually' positioned near the double yellow? I highly doubt it; nothing you've written here has hinted at that. So quit babbling about 'optimally positioned,' because you don't know what you're talking about.

HH has the typical disease of the VC-addled in which one fails to recognize the advantages and differences of an extreme left position versus one simply described as 'between the tire tracks.' To them it's all the same -- as long as it blocks traffic.

'Optimally positioned.' What a joke. I guess one of the big reasons some folks fail to grasp that compromise is inevitable is that they don't understand what optimal positioning really is. They soldier on under the misapprehension that their mid-lane position is 'optimal,' quite happy with themselves.

With that I actually have to go to work, riding my bike, so I can't sit here and respond to the endless laughers.

Robert

[flipped4bikes]

pwned!

[Helmet Head]

'Optimally positioned.'

HH, you wouldn't know 'optimally positioned' if it chomped you on the ass.
Again with the childish insults?


The optimal positioning for this incident, that wouldn't have been obviously illegal, would be very near the double yellow, as far away from the offending motorist as possible, even in the oncoming lane if the space is available. Are you telling me that you would be 'habitually' positioned near the double yellow? I highly doubt it; nothing you've written here has hinted at that. So quit babbling about 'optimally positioned,' because you don't know what you're talking about.

Oh, now you're going to play semantics with what "optimally positioned" means?
Again, I can't tell you where exactly I would ride on a road on which I've never ridden. We've agreed that you should have been further left. That "further left" position, whatever you were thinking of when you said that, is what I meant by "optimally positioned".


HH has the typical disease of the VC-addled in which one fails to recognize the advantages and differences of an extreme left position versus one simply described as 'between the tire tracks.' To them it's all the same -- as long as it blocks traffic.

False.

How many times have I written how big a difference seemingly subtle adjustments in lateral position can make in terms of how a cyclist is treated? And that's about communicating with traffic, not blocking traffic, a distinction you seem to have difficulty grasping. But, then, rats in sewers don't make much of an effort to communicate with the humans for whom the urban environment they "thrive in" is designed either, so this is not much of a surprise.

And obviously where the issue is sight lines to/from a blind alley, then the two relevant factors are speed and lateral position. The further left you are, the slightly faster you can allow yourself to go. Where exactly you need to ride is a function of how quickly you can slow, stop and evade a potential hazard, which is a function of how fast you're riding. Obviously you're not out there with a measuring tape and calculator. Finding the "sweet spot" combination of speed and position comes with experience. And, I, for one, would certainly not rule out riding very near the yellow stripe which I do regularly when conditions call for it. A less experienced cyclist might just blindly and mindlessly get in the door zone bike lane and not pay any attention to any of this, out of habit. As near as I can tell, that's exactly what you did. But I'm the one "who fails to recognize the advantages and differences of an extreme left position versus one simply described as 'between the tire tracks.' "? :rolleyes: The whole point of saying "between the tire tracks" is because where exactly you need to be depends on the given situation, not because anywhere there is just as good as any other place there. And yes, being even further left than the left tire track is sometimes appropriate too, just as being further right than the right right track. When your only retorts amount to straw man twisting of general guidelines into specific rigid rules and finding instances where they do not apply, that's very revealing.


'Optimally positioned.' What a joke. I guess one of the big reasons some folks fail to grasp that compromise is inevitable is that they don't understand what optimal positioning really is. They soldier on under the misapprehension that their mid-lane position is 'optimal,' quite happy with themselves.

With that I actually have to go to work, riding my bike, so I can't sit here and respond to the endless laughers.

Robert
If all you have to offer is childish insults and silly semantic games, good riddance.

[Bekologist]

hed, the one offering semantic games is you.

wah wah wah, you are insulted? :roflmao:

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Again, I can't tell you where exactly I would ride on a road on which I've never ridden.
But HH has no problem at all preaching where everybody else should be riding on every road, street or alleyway. And is especially adapt at saying where victims of accidents should have been to avoid the consequences of out of control motorists such as asleep, drowsy and drunk drivers

What a silly fellow!

[Helmet Head]

But HH has no problem at all preaching where everybody else should be riding on every road, street or alleyway. And is especially adapt at saying where victims of accidents should have been to avoid the consequences of out of control motorists such as asleep, drowsy and drunk drivers

What a silly fellow!
You're confusing my comments about relatively significant lateral differences (in a sharing position vs. a clear lane-controlling position) with the issue here: relatively small lateral differences (i.e., the difference between being "further left" and "very near the double yellow") determined by immediate sight line conditions and current speed.

[The Human Car]

You're confusing
This whole thread is confusing especially the antagonists’ posts.

[genec]

You're confusing my comments about relatively significant lateral differences (in a sharing position vs. a clear lane-controlling position) with the issue here: relatively small lateral differences (i.e., the difference between being "further left" and "very near the double yellow") determined by immediate sight line conditions and current speed.

The problem is "further left" is hardly a "clear lane-controlling" definition. No one can define "further left." Is it two feet, or is it 6 inches.

I think the dogma most here are tired of reading is just that... you declare so and so would fare better if they rode "further left;" or some situation would never have happened if the rider was "further left... "

But no one can really define "further left."

[Helmet Head]

The problem is "further left" is hardly a "clear lane-controlling" definition. No one can define "further left." Is it two feet, or is it 6 inches.

I think the dogma most here are tired of reading is just that... you declare so and so would fare better if they rode "further left;" or some situation would never have happened if the rider was "further left... "

But no one can really define "further left."

It's the language Robert and I have been consistently using. He has agreed he should have been "further left". He was there. I wasn't. I trust he knows what that means, whether it's the right tire track, the center, the left tire track, or very near the double yellow, or whatever. Whatever Robert means by it, is what I mean by it.

If you want to start a separate discussion about the ambiguity and arguable meaninglessness of the words, "further left" taken totally out of context, sign me up to support your side of the argument. I doubt you'll find anyone who disagrees.

Now, do you have a point that's actually relevant to this discussion where "further left" (as in: "I should have been 'further left'") has a specific meaning to Robert with respect to this particular road and incident?

[Helmet Head]

hed, the one offering semantic games is you.

wah wah wah, you are insulted? :roflmao:
If I was insulted, that would probably make you happy. Pathetic.

[genec]

It's the language Robert and I have been consistently using. He has agreed he should have been "further left". He was there. I wasn't. I trust he knows what that means, whether it's the right tire track, the center, the left tire track, or very near the double yellow, or whatever. Whatever Robert means by it, is what I mean by it.

If you want to start a separate discussion about the ambiguity and arguable meaninglessness of the words, "further left" taken totally out of context, sign me up to support your side of the argument. I doubt you'll find anyone who disagrees.

Now, do you have a point that's actually relevant to this discussion where "further left" (as in: "I should have been 'further left'") has a specific meaning to Robert with respect to this particular road and incident?

Yeah, define further left. Do it in terms that others can relate to by using common terms about the roadway.

I usually define "further left" as in the right tire track.

See it comes down to what further left means for the individual... When you tell someone ride further left, they may nod and move over a couple of inches... in reality you may mean feet... Highly ambiguous.

And yes this is out of context for this thread... but heck the whole thread is out of context and has become a he /said she said point /counterpoint.

[Helmet Head]

Gene, I've already agreed "further left" is ambiguous and even arguably meaningless when taken totally out of context.

Then you ask me to define it? What is the matter with you?

[genec]

Gene, I've already agreed "further left" is ambiguous and even arguably meaningless when taken totally out of context.

Then you ask me to define it? What is the matter with you?

Well is it "out of context" when you are doing the same thing to say Hurst et. al, when you ask if he shouldn't have been "further left."

And define it??? I did, I stated right tire track... I gave it a point of reference... the right tire track.

I removed the ambiguity from the statement by giving it a definitive point of reference that exists on every road. Perhaps you mean the center of the lane, or the left tire track or one foot to the left of a BL stripe... whatever... but "FURTHER LEFT" means nothing simply because it can mean inches or feet or whatever.

We have discussed this before... and yet you still insist that people move "further left." And you went on and on trying to get Hurst to agree that he should have been "further left."

:rolleyes:

[Allister]

We have discussed this before... and yet you still insist that people move "further left." And you went on and on trying to get Hurst to agree that he should have been "further left."

:rolleyes:

Which he did anyway, and yet Serge still goes on and on.

[Helmet Head]

Well is it "out of context" when you are doing the same thing to say Hurst et. al, when you ask if he shouldn't have been "further left."

And define it??? I did, I stated right tire track... I gave it a point of reference... the right tire track.

I removed the ambiguity from the statement by giving it a definitive point of reference that exists on every road. Perhaps you mean the center of the lane, or the left tire track or one foot to the left of a BL stripe... whatever... but "FURTHER LEFT" means nothing simply because it can mean inches or feet or whatever.

We have discussed this before... and yet you still insist that people move "further left." And you went on and on trying to get Hurst to agree that he should have been "further left."

:rolleyes:
I'm totally lost as to what your point is.

In my discussion with Robert, we were talking about a specific incident about which he shared quite specific details. What "further left" clearly meant in that context was outside of the bike lane and far enough left so that the sight lines to the blind alley would be long enough so that he could see the hazard soon enough to avoid it, given his speed. If that meant further left than the double yellow, then he was clearly going too fast for the conditions, even for that lateral position. I don't know, I thought that much of it was pretty obvious. I saw no need for figuring out exactly how many feet left of the bike lane stripe that would have been for every speed between 15 and 22 mph. Do you? Besides, in real time while riding, we just get a feel for where that right position is. Our mind is doing all those detailed calculations subconsciously. In discussions here, I think there is no need to go further than discuss the factors that contribute to the lateral-position decision-making process.

What this has to do with "right tire track", I have no idea. Nor do I understand what else you're trying to get at.

[Helmet Head]

Which he did anyway, and yet Serge still goes on and on.
About Robert needing to be "further left"? No, I don't, except to address seemingly inane inquiries in case I'm missing something and there is something to be added to the discussion.

[RobertHurst]

You're confusing my comments about relatively significant lateral differences (in a sharing position vs. a clear lane-controlling position) with the issue here: relatively small lateral differences (i.e., the difference between being "further left" and "very near the double yellow") determined by immediate sight line conditions and current speed.

The opposite is true. With respect to right side hazards, the distance from a road-sharing position to the rightmost lane-controlling position is insignificant, usually just a few feet. The distance from that lane-controlling position to the optimal position is a much more significant distance.

There are many lane-controlling positions. There is only one optimal position.

Robert

[RobertHurst]

And define it??? I did, I stated right tire track... I gave it a point of reference... the right tire track.


Ah, the right tire track. In this particular instance, the right tire track was about six inches to my left. If that.

Distance between road-sharing position and lane-controlling position: insignificant.

Distance between lane-controlling position and optimal position with respect to right side hazards: huge.

[Bekologist]

and optimal position is never constant on any stretch of road. it will be different every time it's ridden.

Sometimes, optimal position is further right.

[RobertHurst]

The fact that it is possible for motorists to overlook even conspicuously positioned cyclists (and motorcyclists) is no reason to not think about maximizing visibility. It's also possible for motorists to overlook cyclists in bright clothing, or for motorists to overlook cyclists at night even when they're using lights and reflectors. But that fact is no reason to discount the value (not think about) of wearing bright clothing and using lights and reflectors for the sake of maximizing (not guaranteeing) conspicuity. Similarly, optimizing lane position in order to maximize conspicuity is also valuable - something Robert is mysteriously unable to recognize or acknowledge.


As I say in my book and have explained multiple times on this forum, "Adjusting position on the road to maximize visibility is a fool's game. It should not be a guiding principle."

What's this crazy talk? Hurst doesn't want to be visible?! He doesn't understand the value of maximizing conspicuity!! Yeeee-aaarrggg!!!

Down, angry villagers. The reason I say this is simple. The cyclist who mazimizes space for himself and maximizes his own sight-lines to right side hazards has already maximized conspicuity. So if you think in terms of mazimizing space and vision there is absolutely no need to think in terms of mazimizing visibility, because you already have. EUREKA. This I believe is quite liberating and helpful to cyclists in a profound way, to forget about maximizing visibility for motorists. There is a danger, I believe, for the cyclist who thinks in traditional VC terms, that his/her task is to be 'visible and predictable' -- these cyclists may actually start to believe that their strategies for maximizing visibility and conspicuity are reliable strategies. They are not. Even the most conspicuously positioned and brightly dressed cyclists will get overlooked by motorists and pedestrians. And when the inevitable occurs, who will most likely be ready for it? The guy who thinks he's conspicuous because he's in the middle of the street, or the guy who's in the middle of the street because he knows he ain't conspicuous?

This talk of maximizing conspicuity and visibility for motorists is not the language of someone who is trying to hoard all the responsibility that can be hoarded. It is the language of someone who is itching to give that responsibility away to other road users at the first opportunity. Visibility, conspicuity, and predictability are all things that ultimately depend on someone else besides the cyclist. Take the power back. Instead of visibility, vision. Instead of predictability, predict.

I explain all of this in two chapters of my book called 'The Invisible Cyclist' and 'Space Versus Visibility.'

Robert

[Helmet Head]

You're confusing my comments about relatively significant lateral differences (in a sharing position vs. a clear lane-controlling position) with the issue here: relatively small lateral differences (i.e., the difference between being "further left" and "very near the double yellow") determined by immediate sight line conditions and current speed.The opposite is true. With respect to right side hazards, the distance from a road-sharing position to the rightmost lane-controlling position is insignificant, usually just a few feet. The distance from that lane-controlling position to the optimal position is a much more significant distance.

There are many lane-controlling positions. There is only one optimal position.

Robert
The rightmost lane-controlling position is not what I mean by a clear lane-controlling position. By a clear lane-controlling position I mean a lateral position that communicates lane-control with clarity, to drivers still a relatively long way away, and to drivers looking from just about any direction. The difference between a sharing position (approximately 3' to the right of where motor traffic normally travels) and a clear lane-controlling position is significant.

As far as the difference between "further left", which, in the context of this discussion, I assumed to mean far enough left to significantly improve sight lines to the blind alley and buffer zone on the right (otherwise, why did you need to be "further left"?), taking into account your speed, and "very near the double yellow", I see those as very close, possibly even one and the same. That's why I said those lateral differences are relatively small.

[Helmet Head]

and optimal position is never constant on any stretch of road. it will be different every time it's ridden.

Sometimes, optimal position is further right.
Very good, Beck, you're finally grasping the fundamental principle of DLLP. It's taken a couple of years, but better late than never.

[Bekologist]

don't play teacher, head.

I've been aware of this for a loong time. you've just become aware of it a couple of years ago, newbie.

but do you truly realize the optimal position can sometimes be further right or is this anathema to you?

[Helmet Head]

As I say in my book and have explained multiple times on this forum, "Adjusting position on the road to maximize visibility is a fool's game. It should not be a guiding principle."

What's this crazy talk? Hurst doesn't want to be visible?! He doesn't understand the value of maximizing conspicuity!! Yeeee-aaarrggg!!!

Down, angry villagers. The reason I say this is simple. The cyclist who mazimizes space for himself and maximizes his own sight-lines to right side hazards has already maximized conspicuity.

So if you think in terms of maximizing space and vision there is absolutely no need to think in terms of maximizing visibility, because you already have. EUREKA. This I believe is quite liberating and helpful to cyclists in a profound way, to forget about maximizing visibility for motorists.
Yes, and I bought into this argument for a while. I certainly understand it: your belief is that you achieve maximized conspicuity for free, automatically, by maximizing space and sight lines to right side hazards. It sounds nice in theory, but, again, your own "not far enough left" lane position prior to the crash with the Mercedes exemplifies what's wrong with it in practice: it depends on the cyclist paying attention all of the time, and humans are not capable of that.

When you develop habits to maximize lane position for conspicuity, you position yourself "optimally" automatically, by habit, even if you're not necessarily paying attention. And guess what the bonus is? That's right, these habits also automatically position you for maximizing space and sight lines from right side hazards!

In theory, they are one and the same (which is what many readers of both books point out, including, for example Brian Ratliff). But in practice, the Hurst approach only works if the cyclist is paying attention all of the time. In particular, if he happens to not notice a potential right-side hazard, he won't adjust. Also, he won't adjust until he notices it, while the Forester/Franklin/VC approach positions the cyclist "optimally" before he notices the hazard, and even if he never notices the potential hazard! In fact, the in-advance positioning often mitigates hazards that would only have been hazards had the cyclist stayed right until he noticed it. Thus the number and frequency of hazards that a vehicular cyclist encounters are significantly reduced, and that in and of itself also improves safety odds. By the way, while flat tires are only hazardous in extreme cases, people who adopt habits that maximize lateral position for conspicuity also report another nice bonus: significantly fewer flats.



There is a danger, I believe, for the cyclist who thinks in traditional VC terms, that his/her task is to be 'visible and predictable' -- these cyclists may actually start to believe that their strategies for maximizing visibility and conspicuity are reliable strategies.
Are the strategies reliable with respect to what? Guaranteeing safety? Of course not! Are the VC strategies reliable with respect to increasing conspicuity, increasing sight lines and buffer space to right side hazards, and reducing the number and frequency of hazards encountered? Yes, they do all of that reliably. It should be obvious even from an armchair, and it's easily verified empirically on the road.

Is anyone who thinks adopting these strategies makes him invincible a complete moron? Yes.


They are not. Even the most conspicuously positioned and brightly dressed cyclists will get overlooked by motorists and pedestrians.
Sure. But that's no reason to not try to be as conspicuous as is reasonably possible.


And when the inevitable occurs, who will most likely be ready for it? The guy who thinks he's conspicuous because he's in the middle of the street, or the guy who's in the middle of the street because he knows he ain't conspicuous?
Ah, very catchy, but again, it assumes the second guy is even in the middle of the street, which is only going to happen if and after he happens to notice the potential hazard. This is why I call your approach reactive.

As to the first guy being somehow more likely to be distracted (not paying attention), that's a specious argument at best. I can see why you might think that might be true, but I know of no reason to believe it is actually true. Do you?


This talk of maximizing conspicuity and visibility for motorists is not the language of someone who is trying to hoard all the responsibility that can be hoarded.
You speak of this as if there is a finite resource here. You seem to believe that if you use energy or resources "to be conspicuous", then that somehow takes energy or resources from being vigilant. That's a false dichotomy.

You're saying that if you position yourself laterally in order to be conspicuous, then you're somehow offloading some of your responsibility to others. But I don't see it that way. I do depend on being noticed. I don't leave my fate in the hands of others, but my ability to ride in traffic depends on others noticing me. It is their responsibility to not hit me IF they notice me, and I just want to make it more likely for them to notice me and meet their responsibility. But that practical dependency is distinct from a safety dependency. If they don't meet their responsibility, then I have to take evasive action, and that's something I'd rather not have to do. Or maybe I should say that's something I'd rather do less often than more often, because, again, I'm fallible. So the fewer times I have to rely on imperfect evasion to be safe, the more safe I am. And the more conspicuous I am, the less often I have to resort to imperfect evasion to maintain my safety.

To take your argument to the extreme, one would have to conclude that cyclists should wait until it's dark, put on dark clothing and black helmets, and go out without lights and reflectors (as you discuss in your book). Yes, that might induce hyper-vigilance. But is it practical? Is it safe? Again, cyclists are human. They are subject to distraction and inattention.

I'm sure you understand that once you wear a helmet regularly, you stop noticing it. Surely you don't believe that experienced cyclists ride somehow less attentively, simply because they know they are wearing helmets. Similarly, is a cyclist with a conspicuous bright yellow shirt going to be significantly less vigilant than if he wears a darker shirt? I don't understand why you think a cyclist who habitually incorporates conspicuous lane positioning into his riding is going to be somehow less attentive or less vigilant because of that.


It is the language of someone who is itching to give that responsibility away to other road users at the first opportunity.
It's not about giving responsibility away. You're assuming there is a fixed amount of responsibility. Why can't I help the motorists around me meet their responsibilities better, by making myself more conspicuous with clothing, lights and, yes, lane positioning, without giving any of my responsibility away?


Visibility, conspicuity, and predictability are all things that ultimately depend on someone else besides the cyclist. Take the power back. Instead of visibility, vision. Instead of predictability, predict.

I explain all of this in two chapters of my book called 'The Invisible Cyclist' and 'Space Versus Visibility.'

Yes, indeed. You're ultimately arguing that cyclists should ride at night without lights in dark clothing. That's neither safe nor practical. There is no reason to give up even a smidgen of responsibility or safety when you do anything to be more conspicuous.

[RobertHurst]

When you develop habits to maximize lane position for conspicuity, you position yourself "optimally" automatically... "optimally" ...

I see you have 'optimally' in quotes here. That ain't gonna cut it. There is only one optimal position with respect to right side hazards, and let me tell ya bud, it aint the VC 'lane-controlling' position, and it doesn't need quotes. So just quit with the 'optimally' because you're not even close.



You're ultimately arguing that cyclists should ride at night without lights in dark clothing.

What the hell are you talking about. Try writing something, anything, without typing some insane statement.

Robert

[RobertHurst]

The rightmost lane-controlling position is not what I mean by a clear lane-controlling position. By a clear lane-controlling position I mean a lateral position that communicates lane-control with clarity, to drivers still a relatively long way away, and to drivers looking from just about any direction. The difference between a sharing position (approximately 3' to the right of where motor traffic normally travels) and a clear lane-controlling position is significant.

Incorrect. The distance between a CLEAR lane controlling position and a road sharing position is insignificant on many typically sized roads where that road sharing position ends up being very close to the right tire track. To reach a clear lane controlling position from there means a shift of usually just a few feet. With respect to right side hazards, it's an insignificant distance. In contrast, there is usually going to be at at least five feet between the very center of the travel lane and the optimal position with respect to right side hazards. A much more significant distance. Get it right.