Vehicular Cycling (VC) - VC vs. Hurst's "Urban Cycling"

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.

Which in the end makes anyone's analysis of proper lane position purely academic... and at any time someone can critique another's track with wonderful 20-20 hindsight and declare: "further left." And then state... "see, I told you."

Even in this discussion there are only (if even) inches involved... and the reasoning for making the decisions for any particular position are akin to discussing the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. HH confirms this with this very comment: "In theory, they are one and the same... "

'Nuff said.

Sometimes, optimal position is further right.

Almost got left-hooked yesterday morning because I was too far left.

The wanna-be left-hooker had fixated on a pedestrian crossing in the crosswalk on my right. As soon as the crosswalk was clear she cut across in front of me without so much as a glance, as I came into the intersection a lane and a half over from where her attention was directed.

If I had been driving a truck, I doubt it would have got me noticed.

Where would I have had to be to be noticed by this particular motorist? Probably riding in the crosswalk.

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.

Jeez, talk about picking nits. But whatever...

I put it in quotes because we have no precise definition for what "optimal" is, Robert. You yourself wrote: "it 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." You think that's optimal? I say, the sidewalk on the other side is even better, and the next street is even better than that, and staying at home on your couch is even better yet. But if you want to move from ambiguous "optimal" to a more precise optimal in this discussion, we can.

You never specified the exact width of the traffic lane. But if we assume typical 12' wide, and the double yellow is at 0 (measuring left to right), the left track is usually about a foot or two to the right of the double yellow, say at 2', the right tire track about 5 feet more, at 7' (of course wide vehicles track further right), and the BL stripe at 12'. On this road the right edge of cars would be at around 8, give or take, and the ideal VC/Forester sharing position (3' to the right of passing cars) would be at about 11' - a foot to the left of the BL stripe at 12', further right assuming wider vehicles. In other words, you were probably riding in the sweet spot of the classic sharing position, near the BL stripe.

Now, with these assumptions, we can define the optimal position for the 2' wide cyclist who chooses the optimal position that is practical and not blatantly illegal (riding on the wrong side of the road) is approximately at 1' - 1 foot from the double yellow. Okay?

Now a clear lane controlling position is "centerish", between the tire tracks that are at 2' and 7', or at about 4.5'. So the difference between that and the optimal position is 4.5 - 1 = 3.5'.

The difference between the road sharing position you were using, at 12', and the right tire track, at 7', is 5.

But if you want to redefine "optimal" as being in the other lane, or on the sidewalk, or on another street or planet, all bets are off. Can we put this silly aspect of our discussion to rest, or do you still think there is an important point here?



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.

I made a lot of strong valid points that you conveniently ignored, in favoring of a nit pick (above) and basically a side note about the absurd logical conclusion of what you are arguing. But I'll assume you really don't see it, and explain.

Do you not realize that your argument ultimately leads to the absurd conclusion that "cyclists should ride at night without lights in dark clothing"? I'm not saying you've explicitly said that, I'm saying that that is the logical outcome of your argument. But perhaps I'm missing something. Read your own words:

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.
You believe this "danger" (your word) is significant enough that cyclists should avoid thinking in terms of being "visible and predictable", do you not? Well, taking that to its logical conclusion, what better way to avoid thinking in terms of being "visible and predictable" is there than making yourself as invisible as possible: riding at night without lights in dark clothing? Of course that's an absurd conclusion; that's the point. The logical conclusion of what you're saying is absurd.

Again, you conveniently ignored the much more important points and questions in that post (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5562558&postcount=357).

Which in the end makes anyone's analysis of proper lane position purely academic... and at any time someone can critique another's track with wonderful 20-20 hindsight and declare: "further left." And then state... "see, I told you."

Even in this discussion there are only (if even) inches involved... and the reasoning for making the decisions for any particular position are akin to discussing the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. HH confirms this with this very comment: "In theory, they are one and the same... "

'Nuff said.
Robert's whole thesis, and I agree with him on this much, is that the reasoning for making the decisions for positioning matters in practice, even if in theory the resulting lane positioning is the same. This is because what happens in practice is not the same as what happens in theory. Robert thinks it matters in practice with respect to how it affects the cyclist's actual level of vigilance. I think it matters in practice with respect to how often, and how much in advance, the cyclist actually adjusts optimally for a given potential conflict or hazard.

Robert believes that the cyclist who positions for classic Forester/VC visible/predictable reasons is significantly less likely to be paying attention, and that makes him less safe.

I believe that the cyclist who positions for Hurst reasons - adjusting for noticed hazards, is, because humans are fallible, significantly less likely to move sufficiently early (because he has to actually notice the hazard, and react to it, before he moves, by definition), and significantly less likely to move at all in certain cases (because he may not notice the hazard until too late). See Robert's own Mercedes incident for the quintessential exemplification of my point.

If you think we're discussing the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin, then take it up with Robert. He's the one who made it a big issue, in his book.

Mr. Hurst: loved your book. Have recommended it to many people. Keep up the good work.

HH: write a book. See if it sells. If it does,I'd love to see you move to Wash DC and ride on these roads.

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.
Now I would like to tie in our current discussion, about the practical consequences of adopting the VC vs. Hurst lane positioning strategies, which in theory arguably lead to riding in the same positions, with the previous discussion, where Robert tried to usurp defensive driving strategies, as if they were never part of VC. What Robert has never understood is that the fundamental VC principles, including the currently discussed VC strategy to position oneself to be visible and predictable, are inherently consistent with defensive driving.

Rule 14: Drive to Communicate

You want to know the other driver sees you, and this rule will provide you with some ways to make sure they do. Use your lights and horn when necessary to let others know you are there. If you make eye contact with another driver, there is perhaps less chance he will pull out in front of you or make some other error that infringes on your space (although you cannot count on that.) Even more likely, if you are looking at the other driver, and he is NOT looking at you, then you know there is an increased possibility he might not be aware of your presence. But WAIT, there's MORE!

Back in the "olden" days, it was customary when you wanted to pass someone to quickly flash your lights to let them know you were coming around. In fact, that practice is still memorialized in law in many states: if a driver approaching from the rear flashes his lights or uses the horn to communicate his intention to pass, the driver of the vehicle being overtaken is often required by law to give way to the right, and not increase the speed of his vehicle until the other driver's pass is complete. I think it's funny how things change over the years. If you do that same thing today, the other driver will likely think you're a jerk, and often times go out of his way NOT to "give way." About the only folks that practice that kind of courtesy today are the truck drivers; they routinely signal each other when passing, and they even flash their lights—often in unique or "signature" ways—to say thanks.

While you are driving, there are other ways to "communicate." Position yourself in a lane (left or right) so others can see you. Don't drive in other drivers' blind spots. When approaching a signal light, for example, move to the right side of your lane so that oncoming left turners can see you even if traffic ahead and in the lane to your left partially blocks the view.
...

www.roadtripamerica.com/DefensiveDriving/Rule14.htm (http://www.roadtripamerica.com/DefensiveDriving/Rule14.htm)

Vehicular-cycling is, and has always been, defensive driving. Certainly the strategy to be visible and predictable is defensive. It's ludicrous to argue otherwise.

helemt head's "optimal lane position" means "IN HIS CAR"

now we're reading driving a car advice in a bicycling forum? :roflmao:

that paragraph you just highlighted would have us moving RIGHT approaching intersections, head.... :rolleyes: schizophrenic, head, simply schizophrenic of you....

H-I-L-A-R-I-O-U-S!!!

now we're reading driving a car advice in a bicycling forum? :roflmao:

that paragraph you just highlighted would have us moving RIGHT approaching intersections, head.... :rolleyes: schizophrenic, head, simply schizophrenic of you....

H-I-L-A-R-I-O-U-S!!!
Yes, Beck, you should move RIGHT when approaching an intersection if you are in the blind spot of a potential left-turner who may turn across your path if he doesn't see you because the sight line between you and him is obscured by a car in the left lane adjacent to you.

Mr. Hurst: loved your book. Have recommended it to many people. Keep up the good work.

HH: write a book. See if it sells. If it does,I'd love to see you move to Wash DC and ride on these roads.
Hurst's book is popular because it essentially says little more: than do what you are already doing, it's cool, put pay more attention. Disagree? What specifically did you learn from his book that has actually changed anything in the way you ride?

The VC approach is unpopular because it's based on the premise that most cyclists are currently doing it wrong. That's a much tougher sell.

... I think it matters in practice with respect to how often, and how much in advance, the cyclist actually adjusts optimally for a given potential conflict or hazard.

There he goes again with his optimally. I think it is highly unlikely that someone who doesn't know what the optimal position is will be positioned in the optimal position as they claim. Instead, they will be near the center of the lane, and under the mistaken impression that they have optimized position and aren't compromised.

The optimal (vaguely legal) position when riding at decent speed on narrow streets, a position from which a rider will have to drift for a multitude of reasons, not least of which is oncoming vehicles or vehicles gaining from the rear, is near the center of the street, maximizing space to either side. This is significantly different than riding in the center of a travel lane. This is not a semantic exercise. This is someone learning what optimal means.

The rider who thinks in terms of maximizing space will also maximize visibility (as much as road position can maximize visibility -- rider speed is a much more important variable in my opinion). And they may maximize their visibility in ways not envisioned by someone who thinks optimal position is in the center of the travel lane. And they will do it without even thinking about it, which may help them concentrate on more important things.

R.

Yes, Beck, you should move RIGHT when approaching an intersection if you are in the blind spot of a potential left-turner who may turn across your path if he doesn't see you because the sight line between you and him is obscured by a car in the left lane adjacent to you.


BUT HEADDDD, what about the vehicles at all the alleys and driveways and parking spaces that might not be looking for you bicycling that far right and pull out, like you did this week while driving your car?


Schizophrenic, head. schizo. more saddle, less prattle.

I made a lot of strong valid points that you conveniently ignored

I can't begin to answer all your 'strong valid points,' HH. Way too much volume. Do you have a job?

I can only answer a few of the most heinous and ridiculous statements that pop out as I skim your tremendous output. Oh, here's one now ...

Do you not realize that your argument ultimately leads to the absurd conclusion that "cyclists should ride at night without lights in dark clothing"? I'm not saying you've explicitly said that, I'm saying that that is the logical outcome of your argument. But perhaps I'm missing something.

Yeah, you missed where I explicity said not to do that. Listen Stretch, instead of wildly and crazily theorizing about what may or may not be 'implied' in my book, and sounding like an insane person, why don't you look at what I actually wrote in there. Or is that too much of a revolutionary idea.

On night riding: "Night cycling looks very dangerous on paper. In 2001 about half of cyclist traffic fatalities occurred between 6:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. This amazing stat is even more impressive when you consider that relatively few cyclists ride at night. Many of these riders were run down from behind by drunks or sleepers on high speed roads and never stood a chance. Some of these victims, however, as with their daylight counterparts, were riding irresponsibly and erratically, without proper equipment, and had only themselves to blame ... It stands to reason that some of these cyclists-turned-statistics would not have been hit at all had they been using proper lights and flashers. Ideally, a night rider will have a helmet light as well as a handlebar-mounted light, and at least one bright red flashing reflector to clip on the back somewhere... the author must insist in no uncertain terms that night-riding cyclists use proper lighting whenever possible. This means using at least one bright, illuminating headlight (a light that not only makes the cyclist more visible to other road users but also illuminates the road ahead) and at least one flashing red blinker for the rear."

But I thank you for once again giving me an opportunity to set the record straight.

R.

There he goes again with his optimally.
Okay, Robert, you have a point here. But it's a mostly (not entirely) merely a semantic point, based on my non-optimal (pun intended) use of the word optimal. What I wrote was:


... I think [the difference between the Hurst and Forester strategies] matters in practice with respect to how often, and how much in advance, the cyclist actually adjusts optimally for a given potential conflict or hazard.Allow me to correct this: I think the difference between the Hurst and Forester strategies matters in practice with respect to how often, and how much in advance, the cyclist actually adjusts optimally, or near-optimally, for a given potential conflict or hazard.


I think it is highly unlikely that someone who doesn't know what the optimal position is will be positioned in the optimal position as they claim.
Can we agree that you can't know what the optimal position relative to a given hazard is until you've noticed and identified the potential hazard, and have done the requisite subconscious calculations that are required to determine what the optimal position is?

Can we also agree that most hazards are in front of the cyclist, and most hazards come from the right, especially between intersections and junctions? And even with intersection/junction hazards that come from the left, the most common of which are left crosses from either oncoming or cross traffic, the likelihood of such a potential leftside hazard becoming an actual hazard largely depends on whether the given driver notices the cyclist or not, and those odds are significantly improved by riding in a position where the cyclist is more likely to be noticed in the first place.

Thus, whatever the optimal position turns out to be, for either avoiding the hazard, or for avoiding turning a potential hazard into an actual hazard, the cyclist who is centered by default (at least when fsdt is absent, for the presence of fsdt changes the calculus in many significant ways) is much more likely to already be positioned at or relatively near that optimal position at the moment he first notices the hazard than the cyclist who typically does not move left until he has noticed, and reacted to, a hazard.



Instead, they will be near the center of the lane, and under the mistaken impression that they have optimized position and aren't compromised.
Where do you get this idea that any cyclist might feel he is not compromised and shouldn't be paying attention when he's riding out in the middle of a street? I've seen that happen to cyclists under the spell of the false sense security of a bike lane, but out in the middle of a lane?


The optimal (vaguely legal) position when riding at decent speed on narrow streets, a position from which a rider will have to drift for a multitude of reasons, not least of which is oncoming vehicles or vehicles gaining from the rear, is near the center of the street, maximizing space to either side. This is significantly different than riding in the center of a travel lane. This is not a semantic exercise. This is someone learning what optimal means.
Narrow streets are a special and obvious special case.

Where do you get the idea that experienced cyclists, including experienced vehicular cyclists, would do anything other than generally ride near the center on narrow streets? Again, that's what acting like a vehicle driver is all about - that's where you tend to track on a motorcycle. When driving a car on a narrow street with no oncoming traffic it's normal and logical to drive down the center. Doing so is classic vehicular cycling - acting like a driver of a vehicle. Why are you so intent on interpreting vehicular-cycling as some kind of rigid lane positioning practice that has little if anything to do with surrounding traffic and conditions? See the OP.


The rider who thinks in terms of maximizing space will also maximize visibility (as much as road position can maximize visibility -- rider speed is a much more important variable in my opinion).
Ideally, and only in theory. For what actually happens in practice to a "rider who thinks in terms of maximizing space", see where you were positioned prior to the Mercedes incident.

And they may maximize their visibility in ways not envisioned by someone who thinks optimal position is in the center of the travel lane.
Your interpretion of VC as blindly thinking "optimal position is in the center of the travel lane" is without basis.


And they will do it without even thinking about it, which may help them concentrate on more important things.

Again, that sounds good in theory. For what actually happens in practice to a "rider who thinks in terms of maximizing space", see where you were positioned prior to the Mercedes incident. And I keep pointing this incident out because not only did you make the mistake while riding, but you didn't even realize it afterwards. Not even after writing about it. Your words, at least in the first edition, indicate that you, "a rider who thinks in terms of maximizing space", were riding in an appropriate roadway position, even in retrospect. It's only after years of working with you on this that you have finally acknowledged in this thread that you should have been further left.
There is no such acknowledgment in your book. And all of this reveals volumes about the inadequacy of your strategy based on merely "thinking in terms of maximizing space" to manifest itself in practice to actually maximize space, much less position the cyclist to maximize conspicuity and predictability.

I can't begin to answer all your 'strong valid points,' HH. Way too much volume. Do you have a job?

I can only answer a few of the most heinous and ridiculous statements that pop out as I skim your tremendous output. Oh, here's one now ...



Yeah, you missed where I explicity said not to do that. Listen Stretch, instead of wildly and crazily theorizing about what may or may not be 'implied' in my book, and sounding like an insane person, why don't you look at what I actually wrote in there. Or is that too much of a revolutionary idea.

On night riding: "Night cycling looks very dangerous on paper. In 2001 about half of cyclist traffic fatalities occurred between 6:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. This amazing stat is even more impressive when you consider that relatively few cyclists ride at night. Many of these riders were run down from behind by drunks or sleepers on high speed roads and never stood a chance. Some of these victims, however, as with their daylight counterparts, were riding irresponsibly and erratically, without proper equipment, and had only themselves to blame ... It stands to reason that some of these cyclists-turned-statistics would not have been hit at all had they been using proper lights and flashers. Ideally, a night rider will have a helmet light as well as a handlebar-mounted light, and at least one bright red flashing reflector to clip on the back somewhere... the author must insist in no uncertain terms that night-riding cyclists use proper lighting whenever possible. This means using at least one bright, illuminating headlight (a light that not only makes the cyclist more visible to other road users but also illuminates the road ahead) and at least one flashing red blinker for the rear."

But I thank you for once again giving me an opportunity to set the record straight.

R.
Yes, Robert, separately, you've advised against the absurd conclusion that follows logically from what you're arguing about the "danger" of thinking in terms of conspicuity, but this does not negate the fact that that absurd conclusion follows logically from your argument.

EDIT: It is noteworthy in and of itself that you felt compelled to state this: "the author must insist in no uncertain terms that night-riding cyclists use proper lighting whenever possible." I'm glad you said it, because if you hadn't, the logical conclusion from what you are arguing about the dangers of thinking in terms of conspicuity could reasonably lead a reader to the opposite conclusion. It's also revealing that you did not make that sentence exactly two words shorter.

BUT HEADDDD, what about the vehicles at all the alleys and driveways and parking spaces that might not be looking for you bicycling that far right and pull out, like you did this week while driving your car?


Schizophrenic, head. schizo. more saddle, less prattle.
Yes, Beck, positioning yourself for conspicuity is a dynamic process (that's what the D in DLLP stands for), that sometimes involves compromise, especially when you are approaching an intersection or junction with multiple simultaneous potential threats. This is something else that Robert does not seem to understand, and what this thread is about. He seems to think that positioning yourself for conspicuity is a purely static process.

If, as I'm approaching an intersection, I'm moving about the same speed as the car in the adjacent lane to my left that is slightly ahead of me and blocking the sight line between me and the potential left-turner, and moving right will significantly compromise my conspicuity and/or sight line to a potential threat from the right, then I would probably adjust my speed so that I would become visible to the left-turner without having to move right.

I should add that this is the kind of situation that can usually be avoided with judicious mirror use as the cyclist is approaching the intersection. If you can see the potential left-turner approaching the intersection from the other side, and see in your mirror a vehicle being driven in the same direction as you overtaking you on the left, you can extrapolate and note whether you will be in the blind spot to the left-turner (blocked by the adjacent overtaker) if you maintain speed and lateral position, and adjust accordingly if necessary.

This is a trail of PM's initiated by HH; my comments on the whole issue are below.

Hi folks,

I'm writing to you because I respect your opinions, even though many of you usually disagree with me.

I have a favor to ask. Can you please read post 353 from Robert? And my reply in 357?

I really want to know, honestly (without the snide remarks, etc.), if any of you agree with Robert in his view that aiming for conspicuity can entice a cyclist into being less attentive, so much so that we should avoid aiming for conspicuity (that's my take on it obviously, please refer to Robert's post for the actual argument presented in his words).

I really think that's a very weak argument, and his book would be improved if he didn't try to hold to that, but I doubt he's going to take my word for it.

If you have any questions about his argument, or my rebuttal, please ask in the thread. I think it's an important issue, really fundamental to understanding what his book is about, and that we at least all agree on what the arguments are. I don't think Robert would disagree with that.

I'm including Robert on this so he knows I'm sending this out.

Thanks,
HH

I'm going to stay out of this one for the time being. Personally, I think you two are talking about two sides of the same coin; arguing over which is more relevent. I believe the relevancy depends on the environment. Close in city streets favors Mr. Hurst's take; high speed streets favor your approach.

To be clear, are you saying that you agree with Hurst, that at least in city streets thinking in terms of conspicuity can be dangerous?

Yes, in city streets where traffic is coming in at many different angles, one cannot rely mainly on being seen, one needs to think in terms of space and evasion routes.

For example, last night, when I was cycling home, I was out in the middle of the lane when I rounded a bend and saw a car waiting on my right at a stopsign, waiting to turn left. There was another car coming up the opposite direction to me (there was no stopsign on the main road), and I could see that I was going to be exposed to the risk of a pullout by the person who was stopped. I remember thinking that I was going to be passing in front of the stopped vehicle just as the car coming up from the opposite direction was finished passing. I moved further left in the lane, to about the left tire track to give myself space to evade (I was already in a position to be seen, provided the driver was looking), and watched the stopped car for signs it was going to jet out. Sure enough, the person hit the accelerator; at that instant, I yelled and waved my arms (yelling comes naturally; it probably didn't do anything, but it goes with the whole violent waving thing) to get his or her attention, and they hit the brakes. Vigilance by me, and space to evade and lengthen the time available for the driver to correct his mistake saved the day. Conspicuity played a secondary role, as I was already conspicuous, yet I needed more space than conspicuity would demand to evade this potential collision.

My thoughts on this are that in places with highly regulated and fast traffic flow, conspicuity plays more of a primary role. Interacting cars are coming from only a limited number of directions; information content of the environment is low, but speed is high. You must already be in position to avoid an accident because, although the information content of the environment is low (because of the strict regulation of traffic flow), speeds are high and by the time you have seen something threatening, there is no time left to react. So you do everything you need to further regulate the environment and limit the necessity of reaction.

In a dense city or older suburban environment, the information content of the environment is high because the traffic flows are not well regulated. But speeds are relatively low. There is so much information in the environment to be processed, that you cannot gather enough information to "optimize" your lane position. In fact, no road users can, cars or bikes. So you end up using a buffer zone point of view, looking at potention areas of conflict, rather than trying to identify each and every person out on the road who can interact with you and optimizing your visibility to those people. You see a blind ally up ahead, you give that potential area of conflict as much of a buffer as you can afford while maintaining buffers in the other directions. If you, like I did last night, are passing in front of a car who will be looking to go just at the precise moment you pass in front, you give a buffer to that car.

The difference between buffers and conspicuity are subtle, but important. Mainly, in buffer mode, it puts your mind in a state of looking for conflict generating areas in the environment, rather than looking around for people to be visible to. Instead of looking to make sure I was visible to that car to the right of me last night, I was looking to identify indicators that the car would be a threat to me; when I found them, which in this case was a particularity of the car coming up opposite of me and the timing which would make the driver instintively want to pull out while I was in front of him. I found those indicators and gave extra space to give the driver more time to correct his error.

Thinking in terms of buffers in high information content environments also forces the mind to think in terms of probabilities. If, in high speed environments, you are vulnerable because you are relying on other people's eyes, in high information content environments, you are vulnerable because you are forced to make compromises in lane positioning. If you see two problem areas which overlap forcing to act in contradicting ways, you must weigh the probability of one or the other being the bigger threat. With a buffer zone mentality, you assign probabilities to each and dole out the buffer accordingly; and you watch carefully for indicators that your calculation was incorrect. With a visibility mentality, if sight lines are short, then you are forced to assume that there are threats at both areas, and maximize your visibility to both of them. You can, of course, assign probablilities and weigh the visibility calculation just like with a buffer zone mentality, but the visibility mentality doesn't lend itself to the calculation; it lends itself to maximize visiblity to all present and potential comers, while the buffer zone mentality implicitly forces one to think in terms of probabilities since you have to explicitly dole out the buffer zone to each threat.

It comes down to what is mentality to use to naturally place yourself in the optimal lane position to be safe. In tight, high information content environments, the buffer zone mentality is the best; it forces one to look at potentials and probabilities in the environment. Is the car stopped at the stopsign a threat if there is also another car coming up from behind you? Visibility mentality says it is; the driver must be made aware of your presence. Buffer mentality says to not worry about it because the car coming from behind will force the stopped car to stay stopped, and so the car from behind is the bigger threat.

In fast, low information content environments, the visibility mentality is best to keep because events happen too fast for a cyclist to react, so the possiblity of needing a reaction is kept to a minimum. Information content is low, so it is possible to keep track of all road users around you and so optimizing visibility to all commers is possible and recommended.

Good post, Brian, but I don't see the dichotomy that is implied in your post. Regardless of the environment, why can't you position yourself primarily by default, in terms of maximizing conspicuity in general (by riding in space where drivers that you may not even have yet noticed are most likely to be paying attention in general) and then continuously refining your positioning as needed in terms of maximizing conspicuity with respect to particular drivers, and in terms of maximizing buffers?

To me, that describes exactly what you did yesterday. Initially, you were in a default position determined by general conspicuity constraints. Then, as you approached the intersection and anticipated what may happen, you adjusted accordingly.

Not thinking about conspicuity at all, which is what Robert advocates, means delayed lateral adjustments, if any, as is exemplified in his account of the Mercedes incident.

I thought he was checking out a hot chick and was distracted? heck, if she was REALLY hot, even being in the middle of the lane wouldn't have helped.

COME ON, head. you've never had a motorist overlook you or violate your ROW while riding smack dab in the middle of the road? Never had a motorist blow a red light as you tooled up to an intersection in the middle of the lane on green?

like I've said before, you must not ride much.

Good post, Brian, but I don't see the dichotomy that is implied in your post. Regardless of the environment, why can't you position yourself primarily by default, in terms of maximizing conspicuity in general (by riding in space where drivers that you may not even have yet noticed are most likely to be paying attention in general) and then continuously refining your positioning as needed in terms of maximizing conspicuity with respect to particular drivers, and in terms of maximizing buffers?

To me, that describes exactly what you did yesterday. Initially, you were in a default position determined by general conspicuity constraints. Then, as you approached the intersection and anticipated what may happen, you adjusted accordingly.

Not thinking about conspicuity at all, which is what Robert advocates, means delayed lateral adjustments, if any, as is exemplified in his account of the Mercedes incident.

In this case, you can describe my actions in terms of your strategy, but this doesn't change the strategy that I actually used. My anticipatory actions were based on space and evasion, not on visibility requirements; I was already as visible as I could be had the driver thought to look in my direction.

I very much believe the optimal riding strategy changes as one transitions from environment to environment. So much so that I tend to ride different bicycles if I will primarily be dealing with one or the other. I ride a commuter road bike, geared high, for high speed, low information content environments, like in modern suburbia or rural areas, and I ride a lower geared fixed speed bike for low speed, high information content environments of the city and older suburbia.

Your comments above, about having a default position, again assumes that the situation is static enough that "default condition" has any significant meaning; in essence, assumes a high speed, low information content environment. In low speed, high information content environments, the lane positioning is dynamic, never settling into any nominal condition. Short sight lines and the high information content demand that one react to the probabilities of a collision at any particular spot, regardless of if you actually see a motorist there or not. Then you choose your position to maximize the time everyone out on the road who has the potential to interact with you has to react to your presence.

It comes down to, if you are in a high information content environment, you can have maximized visibility but still not be seen because the driver is looking elsewhere at the time. If this is the case, then you have to maximize the space between you and the potential offender in order to maximize the time they have to see you, and possibly enable an evasive maneuver. This was the case with my described situation last night.

In the example from "Art of Urban Cycling", the cyclist, had he been paying attention to his environment rather than oggling a girl, he might have seen the conflict point coming up - he sees the blind alley and the lack of traffic blocking anyone wanting to pull out from the alley, and knows a car might be coming from that position. Provided there was no immediate threat from being run down from behind, he might have moved to a position very near the median. Say he caught a flash of moving metal or heard the sound of tires or the rev of an engine, he might have taken to the other side of the street in a hurry to buy himself enough time to attract the attention of the driver or evade, or, perhaps if there were cars coming up, or the risk of it, he might have squeezed himself as close to the median as possible while avoiding the oncoming car in a bid to maximize the time he had before the potential collision. All of this happens without the cyclist seeing the driver's eyes, or even the driver looking in his direction until he is directly in front of the car pulling out. Visibility plays no role here, because in any position that is still on the right hand side of the road, he is invisible to the car pulling out, so the visibility strategy is silent on this problem; it's hit a plateau where the visibility strategy provides no preference between any two possible lane positions. But the buffer strategy is not silent - it does have a preference between two lane positions, and probably offers a solution that avoids a collision or the chance of a collision.

Now, these are just strategies describing the solutions given in theoretical situations. In the real world, the information content of various environment changes in a dynamic way; you use a combination of both strategies. If one strategy offers no preference, you use the other strategy. My take is that you emphasise one over the other depending on the information content at the particular time and place you happen to occupy. If the environment has a high information content, use the buffer strategy as the primary strategy and visibility strategy as the secondary strategy. Vice verse if you are in a low information content environment. This might result in switching between one and the other many times during a ride; it works because the solution doesn't end up changing much between the two strategies. Experience teaches you when one or the other is appropriate, and while you are building experience, the solutions are similar enough for each strategy that mistakes most often don't lead to collisions with cars. You simply end up surprised, and that surprise is the outcome of making the wrong choice of strategy. You learn from those surprises, and as you learn, you get surprised less and less, and subsequently get more and more confident in your ability to ride in various environments.

Hurst's book is popular because it essentially says little more: than do what you are already doing, it's cool, put pay more attention. Disagree? What specifically did you learn from his book that has actually changed anything in the way you ride?

The VC approach is unpopular because it's based on the premise that most cyclists are currently doing it wrong. That's a much tougher sell.

OK, so what would happen if everyone used the VC approach? Would motorists become more accepting of cyclists on the road? Would infrastructure be built in a way that encourages cycling?

I've never been to Portland, OR but I have seen and read about how the city has become more bike friendly and such. Is this what can be achieved nationwide?

Well, Helmet Head has also asked me to weigh in on this. I have now read some of the discussion, and agree with Brian's discussion above. Bicycling is a dynamic environment, demanding a lot of attention.

I am one who values being conspicuous. I wear a yellow shirt most of the time, have lights on my helmet (yellow also), have placed reflecting take and patches all over the bike (a recumbant). Yellow was shown by none other than Jacques Cousteau to be the most conspicuous color available, and now we have florescent green and international, florescent orange, as even more conspicuous colors. But while I value these colors, I never take for granted that I am seen.

Why? Well, there are a few reasons. We had a discussion a while back in the A&S forum about "inattentional blindness." Here is a website about it:

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/inattentionalblindness.html

This will happen to all of us at times, so we cannot simply rely upon being conspicuous. We need to be aware of our surroundings, and act to ensure our own safety.

As an example, several years ago I was bicycling to work, coming off a bike path onto a roadway in a back street. I rode to an intersection, then went through it to a busier area. About half a block down the road (a hundred yards or so) was a coffee house with a drive through. I could see a pickup truck with a driver looking right at me. He had a coffee cup in one hand, and a cell phone in the other. He was stopped, waiting to go out, but his coffee hand on the steering wheel. I nodded to him, and he seemed to acknowledge me as I came closer to him. I was very near when he gunned the pickup and shot out in front of me. I had to break to ensure no collision. At the next intersection, he went right, as did I. He was stopped behind about four other cars, and I had a bike lane to the stop light, which I took. I got along side of him, stopped, and with my arm asked that he roll down his window, which he did. I then said that he really should not be driving while talking on his cell phone, and asked him to put it down. He looked at me, said "Okay," then rolled up his window and continued talking on the cell phone. I don't think he even heard me, and he had not seen me either when he pulled out. So we cannot take being conspicuous as our only measure.

On top of that, many drivers are impaired in some manner. I once stopped at a busy, four lane intersection (Evergreen and 185th, Brian) and simply looked at each driver coming through. I counted about one-in-ten impaired in some manner, usually with a cell phone, but also eating, attending to kids, or doing something inside the car rather than looking out. This may not hold up in all conditions, but it is there.

I also know that there are many drivers out there who have medical conditions which should keep them from driving. For instance, I know of one person who was partially blind in one eye who continued driving. These people are out there as there are no good alternatives to their driving in our culture in most places.

Therefore, while I like being conspicuous (and I may carry that to an extreme), I don't depend upon it.

John

Thus, whatever the optimal position turns out to be, for either avoiding the hazard, or for avoiding turning a potential hazard into an actual hazard, the cyclist who is centered by default (at least when fsdt is absent, for the presence of fsdt changes the calculus in many significant ways) is much more likely to already be positioned at or relatively near that optimal position at the moment he first notices the hazard than the cyclist who typically does not move left until he has noticed, and reacted to, a hazard.

Again, I call BS. The cyclist who doesn't understand where optimal position is is not going to be optimally positioned except by accident. Your VC 'lane controlling' position is not often going to be near the optimal position, but a world away from it. You're living in a fantasy.

Where do you get this idea that any cyclist might feel he is not compromised and shouldn't be paying attention when he's riding out in the middle of a street? I've seen that happen to cyclists under the spell of the false sense security of a bike lane, but out in the middle of a lane?

Oh, quit with the innocent act. Every post of yours contains some 'where did you get this idea, certainly not from me' routine. You must be the most misunderstood man west of the Pecos, right?

I got this idea from you and others on this forum and other forums, who proudly state you 'won't compromise your safety' when what you mean is you'll be in the center of the lane. There is an obvious disconnect there about when and how you are actually compromised in that position. You can pretend otherwise but it's plain to see. Except for the past few days, there has been absolutely zero acknowledgment that optimal position with respect to right side hazards is as far away from those hazards as possible -- not in the center of the lane. You are now trying to pretend that you understood this all along, but there's no evidence of that that I've seen.

This is the danger of armchair learning. Get out there and do some actual riding, HH, and you will soon figure this stuff out for yourself. Until then, your pronouncements mean very very little.


Where do you get the idea that experienced cyclists, including experienced vehicular cyclists, would do anything other than generally ride near the center on narrow streets?

Edit: Experienced cyclists? Experienced cyclists know that the optimal position on narrow streets is in the middle of the street. But I got the idea from you and other VC advocates that you didn't grasp that concept. I will admit that I'm wrong if you could provide a quote of yours which shows your real understanding of optimal position on narrow streets. It would have to be a quote that predates this week's discussion, when I suspect you started grasping this idea for the first time. If you had read my book with an open mind instead of skimming it with malicious intent, you could have grasped this idea much sooner.


Ideally, and only in theory. For what actually happens in practice to a "rider who thinks in terms of maximizing space", see where you were positioned prior to the Mercedes incident. ... Again, that sounds good in theory. For what actually happens in practice to a "rider who thinks in terms of maximizing space", see where you were positioned prior to the Mercedes incident.


No, that's an example of what happens when you're not thinking in terms of maximizing space. Not thinking in terms of anything traffic-related while out in traffic. Not thinking, got it? Anything can happen when you're distracted that thoroughly. A rider could find himself doing something that he would never do with attention properly directed. He could violate his own 'rules.' Even riders who think they have the 'habit' of staying left may not when actually faced with real world conditions, especially if that habit isn't a habit at all but something they read in a book.

You see, to build habits of any kind requires actually getting out there and riding on a regular basis. So when you talk about the habits you've developed, I'm pretty sure you're fooling yourself.

Robert

Yes, Robert, separately, you've advised against the absurd conclusion that follows logically from what you're arguing about the "danger" of thinking in terms of conspicuity, but this does not negate the fact that that absurd conclusion follows logically from your argument.

EDIT: It is noteworthy in and of itself that you felt compelled to state this: "the author must insist in no uncertain terms that night-riding cyclists use proper lighting whenever possible." I'm glad you said it, because if you hadn't, the logical conclusion from what you are arguing about the dangers of thinking in terms of conspicuity could reasonably lead a reader to the opposite conclusion.

To say the least, it's not a good sign for your arguments if they depend on ignoring my actual words.

It's also revealing that you did not make that sentence exactly two words shorter.


'Whenever possible.' You see, HH, there is this thing called Reality, which dictates that we may actually have to ride some time without optimal lighting, or ride in a less than optimal lane position.

R.

You know as I read all of this I have to ask... do motorists even come close to any of this sort of analysis while they drive? Do motorists even consider conspicuity or buffers or any of the minutia being discussed here?

Going one further... looking at all this "stuff" really makes me wonder about the safety of cycling in general. The implication of conspicuity, buffers, and the "need to think in terms of space and evasion routes" makes me wonder about the inherent safety of cycling in general.

Can one just jump on a bike and get right into the traffic flow as one might in a car... I think not. Is it possible that all the safety statistics are skewed by cyclists, in fact "acting as rats" in the urban environment, busily scurrying about "evading" the behemoth metal beasts while embracing conspicuity and evasion routes.

And you call this a "successful system..." SIGH.

This sounds to me more like survival techniques...

Is it any wonder why so many people (like the Dentist of HH) reject the whole notion of cycling in traffic vice driving?

how could HH's Dentist take the idea of cycling in traffic seriously when the subject was broached by a guy that drove rather than rode to the dentist?

I can picture the exchange....

HH "you should bike to the office"

Dentist "did you bike here?"

HH "No, I drove"

Dentist " :roflmao: "

You know as I read all of this I have to ask... do motorists even come close to any of this sort of analysis while they drive? Do motorists even consider conspicuity or buffers or any of the minutia being discussed here?
I do when I motor. I think if far more motorists did, then driving would be even safer.

Al

I do when I motor. I think if far more motorists did, then driving would be even safer.

Al

Sure it might... but the issue is, few motorists do think in this way... and how often, even as a defensive driver, do you really consider "conspicuity?"

and how often, even as a defensive driver, do you really consider "conspicuity?"
Every time I go thru an intersection.
Every time I am on a multilaned road and consider my position relative to a similar speed same direction driver.

Al

Every time I go thru an intersection.
Every time I am on a multilaned road and consider my position relative to a similar speed same direction driver.

Al

As a driver in a motor vehicle?

Do you then have your car painted in Chartreuse? Or even bright yellow?

Here is a great example of hoarding responsibility
http://www.azcentral.com/community/tempe/articles/1105tr-policesue1105-ON.html

Al

As a driver in a motor vehicle?

Do you then have your car painted in Chartreuse? Or even bright yellow?
Yes as a motor vehicle driver. Arizona leads the nation 2x rate for both the number of running red light fatalities and crashes (which include left crosses and other 'attention vs. conspicuity' problems.) Yes I maximize sight lines to side streets at intersections with poor sight lines. Yes I avoid the far right lane at some intersections (which have a no right on red for the entering street due to complete lack of sight line, but this is more often that not violated)

My motor vehicles are white, which show up best at night and low light (ANSI yellow would be better, but not available and I would draw the line ;) )

Al

Yes as a motor vehicle driver. Arizona leads the nation 2x rate for both the number of running red light fatalities and crashes (which include left crosses and other 'attention vs. conspicuity' problems.) Yes I maximize sight lines to side streets at intersections with poor sight lines. Yes I avoid the far right lane at some intersections (which have a no right on red for the entering street due to complete lack of sight line, but this is more often that not violated)

My motor vehicles are white, which show up best at night and low light (ANSI yellow would be better, but not available and I would draw the line ;) )

Al
Do you "draw the line" on your bicycle or do you wear safety yellow?

At any rate... you (as we have discussed in the past) probably don't represent most drivers, do after all tend to drive at or below the speed limit.

Now if most drivers did drive like you... I think the roads would be far safer than they are now.

Your comments above, about having a default position, again assumes that the situation is static enough that "default condition" has any significant meaning; in essence, assumes a high speed, low information content environment.
No, the comments simply assume that IF there is no particular hazard avoidance information to guide you, THEN you default to your default position. Of course any actual hazard, once noticed, trumps the default. Again, in Robert's Mercedes incident, he did not recognize any immediate hazard. In that situation I would have been in my default position - out in the center of the lane, probably left-biased, whether I recognized the blind alley as a hazard or not, while he was in his default position: in the margin (bike lane). As usual, the left-biased centerish position turned out to be much closer to the optimum crash-avoidance position than defaulting to a position in the road margin.


In low speed, high information content environments, the lane positioning is dynamic, never settling into any nominal condition. Short sight lines and the high information content demand that one react to the probabilities of a collision at any particular spot, regardless of if you actually see a motorist there or not. Then you choose your position to maximize the time everyone out on the road who has the potential to interact with you has to react to your presence.
The notion that any environment is so replete with hazards that the cyclist can be constantly guided by noticed hazard avoidance is delusional. Of course you need to be constantly scanning for hazards, but what happens if you don't see any? Where do you ride? In the door zone bike lane like Robert (yes, yes, I know he was outside of the door zone, but since most of the bike lane is a door zone, it's still a door zone bike lane, and he was in it)? Riding further left and centerish makes you more likely to notice most hazards sooner. This is why it's so important to adopt the practice of habitually biasing towards a more conspicuous (default: centerish) position.


It comes down to, if you are in a high information content environment, you can have maximized visibility but still not be seen because the driver is looking elsewhere at the time. If this is the case, then you have to maximize the space between you and the potential offender in order to maximize the time they have to see you, and possibly enable an evasive maneuver. This was the case with my described situation last night.
And there is nothing about thinking about lane-positioning for conspicuity that precludes the cyclist from doing this.


In the example from "Art of Urban Cycling", the cyclist, had he been paying attention to his environment rather than oggling a girl, he might have seen the conflict point coming up - he sees the blind alley and the lack of traffic blocking anyone wanting to pull out from the alley, and knows a car might be coming from that position. Provided there was no immediate threat from being run down from behind, he might have moved to a position very near the median. Say he caught a flash of moving metal or heard the sound of tires or the rev of an engine, he might have taken to the other side of the street in a hurry to buy himself enough time to attract the attention of the driver or evade, or, perhaps if there were cars coming up, or the risk of it, he might have squeezed himself as close to the median as possible while avoiding the oncoming car in a bid to maximize the time he had before the potential collision. All of this happens without the cyclist seeing the driver's eyes, or even the driver looking in his direction until he is directly in front of the car pulling out. Visibility plays no role here, because in any position that is still on the right hand side of the road, he is invisible to the car pulling out, so the visibility strategy is silent on this problem; it's hit a plateau where the visibility strategy provides no preference between any two possible lane positions. But the buffer strategy is not silent - it does have a preference between two lane positions, and probably offers a solution that avoids a collision or the chance of a collision.
Had he been paying attention, indeed. The cyclist who defaults to a centerish position to increase conspicuity would have been centered, and probably left-biased, perhaps even in the center of the road, at any rate much closer to the optimal position to avoid the crash, whether he was paying attention or not. Had riding further left helped in this situation, it may not have been because of increased conspicuity. But the further-left positioning that results from the practice of positioning yourself for conspicuity would have automatically put the cyclist at a more advantageous position (closer to the optimum, if not at the optimum), simply because that's where he rides out of habit (a habit that Robert obviously does not have).


Now, these are just strategies describing the solutions given in theoretical situations. In the real world, the information content of various environment changes in a dynamic way; you use a combination of both strategies. If one strategy offers no preference, you use the other strategy. My take is that you emphasise one over the other depending on the information content at the particular time and place you happen to occupy. If the environment has a high information content, use the buffer strategy as the primary strategy and visibility strategy as the secondary strategy. Vice verse if you are in a low information content environment. This might result in switching between one and the other many times during a ride; it works because the solution doesn't end up changing much between the two strategies. Experience teaches you when one or the other is appropriate, and while you are building experience, the solutions are similar enough for each strategy that mistakes most often don't lead to collisions with cars. You simply end up surprised, and that surprise is the outcome of making the wrong choice of strategy. You learn from those surprises, and as you learn, you get surprised less and less, and subsequently get more and more confident in your ability to ride in various environments.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see this as two different strategies. I don't see any reason why a cyclist who adjusts himself by default to maximize conspicuity, and adjusts as needed given the information content of whatever environment he's in, suffers even an iota of compromise in safety over the cyclist who just wings it based on reacting to the hazards that he sees, once he notices them.

Well, Helmet Head has also asked me to weigh in on this. I have now read some of the discussion, and agree with Brian's discussion above. Bicycling is a dynamic environment, demanding a lot of attention.

I am one who values being conspicuous. I wear a yellow shirt most of the time, have lights on my helmet (yellow also), have placed reflecting take and patches all over the bike (a recumbant). Yellow was shown by none other than Jacques Cousteau to be the most conspicuous color available, and now we have florescent green and international, florescent orange, as even more conspicuous colors. But while I value these colors, I never take for granted that I am seen.

<snip>

Therefore, while I like being conspicuous (and I may carry that to an extreme), I don't depend upon it.

John
Thank you for your input, John. But I'm a bit puzzled. Are you under the impression that I or anyone else has said or implied that the cycling environment is not dynamic? That it doesn't demand a lot of attention? If so, what are the comments that make you think this?

I'm glad that you value conspicuity. I value you in it my clothing, lights at night, and in my lane-positioning too. I understand that your value of conspicuity does not mean that you ever take for granted that you are seen. Nor do I. What Robert is arguing is that simply thinking about conspicuity is dangerous, such that we should avoid thinking about it, at least in terms of lane-positioning.

Why he thinks it's important to not think about conspicuity in terms of lane-positioning, but it's okay to think of conspicuity in terms of clothing and lights, is beyond me. I mean, either thinking about conspicuity is dangerous, or it's not. I don't see how it is, regardless of whether the context is clothing, lights, or lane-positioning. Do you? I mean, it doesn't make me pay any less attention to potential hazards. Apparently not you either. Does thinking about conspicuity make anyone less likely to notice hazards?

Again, I call BS. The cyclist who doesn't understand where optimal position is is not going to be optimally positioned except by accident. Your VC 'lane controlling' position is not often going to be near the optimal position, but a world away from it. You're living in a fantasy.

Where conditions warrant being in whatever position, so be it. In those situations, assuming the cyclist is paying attention, has noticed the relevant conditions, and has had time to react to them, default position is irrelevant, by definition. But in all other situations, and even in the moments leading up to a cyclist noticing and reacting to a potential hazard, default position is what determines where he is riding. The vast majority of cyclists default to the road margin by default. That puts them at a disadvantage over the cyclist who defaults further left, to a centerish position, primarily for conspicuity (because by definition that reason applies even before the cyclist notices a potential hazard), but also because being there improves his sight lines and buffer space to all potential hazards.



Oh, quit with the innocent act. Every post of yours contains some 'where did you get this idea, certainly not from me' routine. You must be the most misunderstood man west of the Pecos, right?

I got this idea from you and others on this forum and other forums, who proudly state you 'won't compromise your safety' when what you mean is you'll be in the center of the lane.
No, when I say I won't compromise my safety, I mean I won't compromise my safety. For example, that means I won't ride in a door zone, in order to make it easier for someone to pass. In more general terms it simply means that if it's safe and reasonable to move aside to allow someone to pass, I will; if not, then I won't.


There is an obvious disconnect there about when and how you are actually compromised in that position.

The only disconnect is in your bizarre interpretation of it.


You can pretend otherwise but it's plain to see.

Yes, if one is prone to delusions.


Except for the past few days, there has been absolutely zero acknowledgment that optimal position with respect to right side hazards is as far away from those hazards as possible -- not in the center of the lane. You are now trying to pretend that you understood this all along, but there's no evidence of that that I've seen.
What kind of moron doesn't understand that?


This is the danger of armchair learning. Get out there and do some actual riding, HH, and you will soon figure this stuff out for yourself. Until then, your pronouncements mean very very little.

Give me a break.


Edit: Experienced cyclists? Experienced cyclists know that the optimal position on narrow streets is in the middle of the street. But I got the idea from you and other VC advocates that you didn't grasp that concept. I will admit that I'm wrong if you could provide a quote of yours which shows your real understanding of optimal position on narrow streets. It would have to be a quote that predates this week's discussion, when I suspect you started grasping this idea for the first time. If you had read my book with an open mind instead of skimming it with malicious intent, you could have grasped this idea much sooner.

This is so obvious I don't think I've ever had to state it. The only example I can think of where the trivial topic of narrow streets was even discussed was when Diane brought up the issue of some narrow streets of Santa Barbara where two oncoming cars couldn't go by each other at the same time. The street right around the corner from my house is like that. Everyone drives their cars down the center of these streets, and, acting like a vehicle driver means cycling down the center. Duh. I mean, you have to do that just to avoid the door zones, if nothing else.

By the way, default centerish means riding near center between left and right tire tracks. On a street so narrow that cars generally drive down the center, the tire tracks are left and right of the center, and a default centerish position means right down the center of the street.

It's bizarre to me that you don't see how that falls out logically, automatically, from the basic VC principles. It's equally bizarre to me how you don't see that opposing using lights at night falls out logically, automatically, from your position that thinking about conspicuity should be avoided.



Again, that sounds good in theory. For what actually happens in practice to a "rider who thinks in terms of maximizing space", see where you were positioned prior to the Mercedes incident.

No, that's an example of what happens when you're not thinking in terms of maximizing space. Not thinking in terms of anything traffic-related while out in traffic. Not thinking, got it? Anything can happen when you're distracted that thoroughly. A rider could find himself doing something that he would never do with attention properly directed. He could violate his own 'rules.' Even riders who think they have the 'habit' of staying left may not when actually faced with real world conditions, especially if that habit isn't a habit at all but something they read in a book.

We're talking about two different things. I'm talking about the rider who in general relies on thinking about maximizing space for appropriate lane positioning (e.g., you) vs. the rider who in general habitually positions himself for conspicuity by default, without thinking, and then adjusts from that as needed based on hazards and potential hazards that he notices, including in terms of maximizing space, and often reacting instinctively (e.g., me). The first rider is screwed, or, at best, depending on good luck, until the moment he notices a potential hazard and has had time to react, while the second rider is often protected against many hazards even before he notices them. Even if they are paying the same level of attention, the second rider has several advantages:

He is more likely to notice the hazard sooner, because he is likely to be further left with better sight lines. He is more likely to be further left because that's where he tends to ride by default, even when he has not yet noticed a particular potential hazard that most other cyclists require noticing before they move left.
The potential hazard itself is less likely to manifest itself as an actual hazard to the second rider, since he is likely to be more conspicuous and thus less likely to be overlooked.
The second rider is more likely to avoid the hazard, since not only is he likely to notice it sooner, but he is likely to be in a more advantageous position in terms of buffer space at the moment the hazard is noticed.



You see, to build habits of any kind requires actually getting out there and riding on a regular basis. So when you talk about the habits you've developed, I'm pretty sure you're fooling yourself.

Don't be ridiculous. Good habits don't require decades of riding and hundreds of thousands of miles to establish. Repeating a behavior a few times is all most people require to develop a habit, good or bad. The purpose of best practices is to repeat behavior that develops good habits.

HH, we are saying the same thing. You are simply washing over the two strategies that I describe by bringing them both under the same umbrella. You are arguing simply to argue. There is no logical reason why there cannot be more than one strategy for optimal lane positioning, and there is value in describing lane positioning in terms of several types of optimization strategies. Instead of trying to win debate points, why don't you consider that whenever you say:

Of course any actual hazard, once noticed, trumps the default.

or

It comes down to, if you are in a high information content environment, you can have maximized visibility but still not be seen because the driver is looking elsewhere at the time. If this is the case, then you have to maximize the space between you and the potential offender in order to maximize the time they have to see you, and possibly enable an evasive maneuver. This was the case with my described situation last night.

And there is nothing about thinking about lane-positioning for conspicuity that precludes the cyclist from doing this.

You are talking specifically about switching from a conspicuity based optimization strategy to a buffer zone based optimization strategy. This is exactly what my last paragraph in post 379 was saying; all you've done is taken the buffer zone idea and pushed it into the bubble of the conspicuity based optimization strategy. Because hazard and potential hazard avoidance are very different than conspicuity, pushing the two optimization strategies under the same heading is not very useful as a way to think about the subject, or as a way to teach it.

If you have never been in an environment which is so replete with hazards that you jump smoothly from one hazard to another hazard, then you have not been exposed to all the relevent cycling environments to make sweeping generalizations. Inner city cycling is a different skill than the open suburban cycling that primarily makes up Southern California. It is not to say that you never use a conspicuity strategy for optimizing lane positioning in the inner city. You do this when the buffer strategy returns a non-preference between two lane positions. Likewise, in Southern California type environments, you will primarily be using a conspicuity strategy for lane positioning, and only use the buffer strategy when the conspicuity strategy returns a non-preference between two lane positions. It is a smooth continuum between the two extremes of, on one hand, a wide, open road lacking significant minor, uncontrolled intersections and a tight urban environment on the other hand, where there are cars entering and exiting the street many times at many minor intersections between short blocks.

You seem more intent on proving Mr. Hurst wrong than in trying to untangle the problem of optimizing lane positioning. How about you stop with the word games and the "you don't understand me" complaints, and enter into the conversation?

To say the least, it's not a good sign for your arguments if they depend on ignoring my actual words.

'Whenever possible.' You see, HH, there is this thing called Reality, which dictates that we may actually have to ride some time without optimal lighting, or ride in a less than optimal lane position.

R.
I understood their meaning, Robert, I just find it revealing that you chose to include those two words.

You could have written:
The author must insist in no uncertain terms that night-riding cyclists use proper lighting.
Do you really think that the fact that "we may actually have to ride some time without optimal lighting" doesn't go without saying "whenever possible"?

Is adding "whenever possible" really necessary? What does it add? What's revealing about your choice to add "whenever possible" is that you are very quick to provide an out, to justify a compromise. Is the idea of a principle is so abhorrent to you, that even a guideline as innocuous as "use proper lighting" needs to be qualified with "whenever possible"? Very revealing, especially in the context of a chapter in which you arguably pay homage to invisible cycling.

HH, we are saying the same thing. You are simply washing over the two strategies that I describe by bringing them both under the same umbrella. You are arguing simply to argue. There is no logical reason why there cannot be more than one strategy for optimal lane positioning, and there is value in describing lane positioning in terms of several types of optimization strategies. Instead of trying to win debate points, why don't you consider that whenever you say:



or



You are talking specifically about switching from a conspicuity based optimization strategy to a buffer zone based optimization strategy. This is exactly what my last paragraph in post 379 was saying; all you've done is taken the buffer zone idea and pushed it into the bubble of the conspicuity based optimization strategy. Because hazard and potential hazard avoidance are very different than conspicuity, pushing the two optimization strategies under the same heading is not very useful as a way to think about the subject, or as a way to teach it.

If you have never been in an environment which is so replete with hazards that you jump smoothly from one hazard to another hazard, then you have not been exposed to all the relevent cycling environments to make sweeping generalizations. Inner city cycling is a different skill than the open suburban cycling that primarily makes up Southern California. It is not to say that you never use a conspicuity strategy for optimizing lane positioning in the inner city. You do this when the buffer strategy returns a non-preference between two lane positions. Likewise, in Southern California type environments, you will primarily be using a conspicuity strategy for lane positioning, and only use the buffer strategy when the conspicuity strategy returns a non-preference between two lane positions. It is a smooth continuum between the two extremes of, on one hand, a wide, open road lacking significant minor, uncontrolled intersections and a tight urban environment on the other hand, where there are cars entering and exiting the street many times at many minor intersections between short blocks.

You seem more intent on proving Mr. Hurst wrong than in trying to untangle the problem of optimizing lane positioning. How about you stop with the word games and the "you don't understand me" complaints, and enter into the conversation?
You're right, Brian, you and I are saying the same thing, but Robert is saying something very different. Robert says that merely thinking about conspicuity is dangerous. I don't hear you (or your dad) saying that at all. And Allister is telling me via PM that I misinterpret Robert when I say this, but I don't see him denying it. He has far too many statements in his book as well as on this forum saying as much. That's the point in contention here.

The point I've read from Mr. Hurst's work isn't that "thinking about conspicuity is dangerous". The point I've understood him to make is that only thinking about conspicuity is dangerous; I agree with him. I have had times when I am properly positioned in my lane, riding in kind of a zone with my head down, and have looked up and have been surprised by someone doing something I wasn't expecting them to be doing. The qualifying statements I've quoted from you says that you are thinking along the same lines as well.

The conflict here is utterly manufactured. Basically, you are arguing about how to label a set of strategies which all experienced cyclists use. Shoving a set of fundamentally different lane position optimization strategies all under one umbrella term is not very useful.

I understood their meaning, Robert, I just find it revealing that you chose to include those two words.

You could have written:
The author must insist in no uncertain terms that night-riding cyclists use proper lighting.
Do you really think that the fact that "we may actually have to ride some time without optimal lighting" doesn't go without saying "whenever possible"?

Is adding "whenever possible" really necessary? What does it add? What's revealing about your choice to add "whenever possible" is that you are very quick to provide an out, to justify a compromise. Is the idea of a principle is so abhorrent to you, that even a guideline as innocuous as "use proper lighting" needs to be qualified with "whenever possible"? Very revealing, especially in the context of a chapter in which you arguably pay homage to invisible cycling.

HH, you've never been caught out before, or had a light die on you? Had to pick your way around invisible potholes or ride knowing that there is a decent chance that the car coming up from behind you will not see you?

Stop politicing for a moment; stop with the word games, and just have a simple, non-confrontational conversation about a subject sometime, will you?

Stop politicing for a moment; stop with the word games, and just have a simple, non-confrontational conversation about a subject sometime, will you?

+1 billion. If you need or want to express clarification you can do so in a non-confrontational manner.

HH, you've never been caught out before, or had a light die on you? Had to pick your way around invisible potholes or ride knowing that there is a decent chance that the car coming up from behind you will not see you?

Stop politicing for a moment; stop with the word games, and just have a simple, non-confrontational conversation about a subject sometime, will you?
Yes, I've been caught out before. That's why I said "whenever possible" goes without saying.

It's kind of like saying, "Don't run with scissors whenever possible", "Don't be argumentative whenever possible", or "Don't lie whenever possible". In each case, the "whenever possible" softens the admonition, if you will. Consider a SCUBA diving instructor that would say, "You should dive with a buddy whenever possible". Even though solo diving is quite common, it would be considered highly irresponsible for a SCUBA expert to write or teach in such wishy-washy language. He would write, "You should always dive with a buddy", period. No SCUBA expert would rationalize the use of such language by noting that it's common for divers to get separated during a dive, or to even go diving solo because they can't find anyone to go with them (edit: SCUBA expert know that's a lame excuse to go solo, and don't want to appear to condone that with soft language like, "whenever possible"). I think a willingness to soften the admonition to use proper lighting at night is revealing, particularly in the context of a section that pays homage to invisible cycling.

This thread is about differences between VC and what Hurst writes about. No LCI I know, and certainly not Forester, would write or say "When riding at night use proper lighting whenever possible". They would write or say, "when riding at night use proper lighting", period. I think the difference is significant and, like his lane positioning in the Mercedes incident, and his analysis of it in the book, reveals a general lack of appreciation for the value of best practices, and developing good habits based on those best practices. It's like he has an instinctive revulsion to the very approach. He's even stated explicitly that he's not fond of principles. If you don't see that when reading Hurst, and when comparing Hurst to Forester (or to Franklin or Allen), I think you're missing something very important.

The point I've read from Mr. Hurst's work isn't that "thinking about conspicuity is dangerous". The point I've understood him to make is that only thinking about conspicuity is dangerous;

If that's how you understood him then one of us has a reading comprehension problem, Brian. If Robert's point was merely that only thinking about conspicuity is dangerous then I would say "no, duh", and there would be no argument.

Here are just some of his statements.

"Adjusting position on the road to maximize visibility is a fool's game. It should not be a guiding principle". (p. 78)

If Robert was advocating doing things in addition to thinking about conspicuity, then he would not refer to maximizing visibility as a fool's game. He would say, as you did, something like, "only adjusting position to maximize visibility is a fool's game." But he goes out of his way to not say that. Read on.

"Visibility, conspicuity, and predictability are all things that ultimately depend on someone else besides the cyclist. Take the power back. Instead of visibility, vision." (post 353)

Last I checked, instead of does not mean in addition to.

"There is thus no need to think about maximizing visibility for motorists ('conspicuous and predictable'), ..." (post 235 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5543529&postcount=235)). No need does not mean "some need, as well as need for something else". By the way, I replied to that in 253: (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5546131&postcount=253)


'Conspicuous and predictable'. It's as good as an ear tag. When you hear those words you can be pretty sure you're dealing with someone who doesn't actually ride very much.

People, move left to maximize space to inevitable right-side hazards like speeding Mercedes. Move left to maximize your own sightlines and space. There is thus no need to think about maximizing visibility for motorists ('conspicuous and predictable'),
...

That's why relative inexperience is a common trait among those who tout 'Vehicular Cycling' as a comprehensive system. Something to think about for those capable of thought.

RobertYour need to insult belies a lack of confidence in your position. The value of being conspicuous and predictable is understood by experienced cyclists worldwide, Robert. It's not something, I, Forester, or the League of American Bicyclists made up. It's a major reason we wear bright clothing and use lights and reflectors at night (practices the value of which you downplay in your book). Here's a British version of explaining the value of conspicuity.Away from junctions, you should ride in one of two standard positions, according to circumstances. The primary riding position is in the centre of the leftmost [rightmost in the U.S.] moving traffic lane for the direction in which you wish to travel. Here you will be well within the zone of maximum surveillance of both following drivers and those who might cross your path, and you will have the best two-way visibility of side roads and other features along the road.
...
The primary riding position should therefore by your normal riding position when you can keep up with traffic, when you need to emphasise your presence to traffic ahead, of when you need to prevent following drivers from passing you dangerously. It is often the best position, too, on roads where there is no following traffic and on multi-lane roads where the traffic flow is light.
-- John Franklin, Cyclecraft, p 58
What Franklin means by the zone of maximum surveillance - the area where drivers focus most of their attention most of the time - is a concept that I believe you don't even mention in your book, except perhaps to downplay it.

Then there is this: "there is absolutely no need to think in terms of mazimizing visibility," (post 353 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5562034&postcount=353)). I mean, how much more clear can he be than "absolutely no need"?

And finally: "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." (post 353 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5562034&postcount=353)). There is a danger to think in terms of being "visible and predictable". A danger! And there is no italicized only as there is in your re-interpretation of his words and meaning.


Brian, if I had your understanding of what Robert was saying, then I wouldn't have a beef with it either.

Yes, I've been caught out before. That's why I said "whenever possible" goes without saying.

I'll simply observe that for someone who parses words in the posts of others down past syllables, past characters and to some sort of linguistic quantum level, this is somewhat rich.

"There is thus no need to think about maximizing visibility for motorists ('conspicuous and predictable'), ..." (post 235 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5543529&postcount=235)). No need does not mean "some need, as well as need for something else". By the way, I replied to that in 253: (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5546131&postcount=253)



Then there is this: "there is absolutely no need to think in terms of maximizing visibility," (post 353 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5562034&postcount=353)). I mean, how much more clear can he be than "absolutely no need"?

...


Nice snip job there buddy. Let's complete those sentences.

"there is absolutely no need to think in terms of maximizing visibility," Why again?

Because the rider who maximizes space has automatically maximized visibility along with it.

This is a pretty basic idea. Even if I don't think in terms of maximizing conspicuity through lane position, that doesn't mean that I'm not in the most conspicuous possible position.

It also seems to me that someone who thinks in terms of maximizing space and who knows where the optimal position is would have a much better chance of actually maximizing visibility than someone who thinks optimal position is in the middle of the travel lane. I think we have a lot of people out there patting themselves on the back for maximizing their conspicuity through lane position when in fact they have done no such thing.

Robert

And finally: "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." (post 353 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5562034&postcount=353)). There is a danger to think in terms of being "visible and predictable". A danger! And there is no italicized only as there is in your re-interpretation of his words and meaning.

Nice snip job there buddy. Let's complete those sentences.

"there is absolutely no need to think in terms of maximizing visibility," Why again?

Because the rider who maximizes space has automatically maximized visibility along with it.

Yes, Robert, I know your theory about why you think it's not necessary to think about conspicuity. But that's beside the point. The point is you think it's not necessary to think about conspicuity, regardless of the reason, and, not only that, but you believe that it's dangerous to think about conspicuity at all. This is contrary to Brian's understanding:

The point I've read from Mr. Hurst's work isn't that "thinking about conspicuity is dangerous". The point I've understood him to make is that only thinking about conspicuity is dangerous;

----


This is a pretty basic idea. Even if I don't think in terms of maximizing conspicuity through lane position, that doesn't mean that I'm not in the most conspicuous possible position.

Yes, Robert, that's your simplistic theory. You think a pure space maximizer who thinks only about maximizing space and avoids thinking about conspicuity will still end up riding in "the most conspicuous possible position", despite the glaring practical counter-example of your Mercedes incident (about which the analysis in your book is even more revealing than the incident itself). And if you use the "I wasn't paying attention" excuse one more time, I'm going to throw up. That excuse makes my point: the conspicuity+space maximizer (a.k.a. the "vehicular cyclist") who thinks in terms of determining default position for general visibility/predictability reasons, positions himself out in the lane by default, out of habit. He's out there even when he's momentarily distracted. The pure space maximizer who positions himself by thinking exclusively about maximizing space relative to hazards depends on all kinds of conditions that the conspicuity+space maximizing vehicular cyclist has often already adjusted for before he even notices the relevant hazard. That's why you were in the door zone bike lane instead of out in the lane like you would have been had you been a conspicuity+space maximizer rather than a pure space maximizer. That's why, even afterward when you wrote about the incident in your book, it didn't occur to you that you should have been further left, well outside of the bike lane, even though you thought to mention you should have been riding "a tad" slower. And it didn't occur to you despite the fact that you gave your lateral position considerable thought, writing that you were as "as far left as possible" while still remaining in the bike lane, as if remaining in the bike lane was somehow important. That, my friend, is the thinking of a typical "pure space maximizer", and speaks volumes about the problem with that kind of thinking, and how radically different it is from the thinking of the conspicuity+space maximizer, and how radically different are the ultimate lateral positions of the two types of cyclists, especially whenever the pure space maximizer has not yet consciously noticed some hazard or potential hazard.


It also seems to me that someone who thinks in terms of maximizing space and who knows where the optimal position is would have a much better chance of actually maximizing visibility than someone who thinks optimal position is in the middle of the travel lane.
Yes, Robert, so it seems to you, but, as you like to say, the proof is in the pudding. As a pure space maximizer who "thinks in terms of maximizing space and who [having ridden on that street 'literally thousands of times'] knows where [the hidden alley is and thus where] the optimal position is" you were clearly not riding anywhere close to a position of maximizing visibility. Not surprisingly, your position was based on space maximization relative to the only potential hazard you happened to be aware of: opening doors, so you were just outside the door zone. And that's the problem with pure space maximization thinking which excludes thinking about conspicuity: it depends on the cyclist noticing a hazard or potential hazard, and having time to react, before he adjusts for it.


I think we have a lot of people out there patting themselves on the back for maximizing their conspicuity through lane position when in fact they have done no such thing.

You have a vivid imagination. What we have is one guy patting himself on the back for using and espousing a method to maximize space, which allegedly also maximizes conspicuity as an automatic byproduct, when in reality it often does neither. And he's so oblivious to these shortcomings that he doesn't even notice their blatant manifestations when he writes about an incident that illustrates this problem in spades.

And that's the problem with pure space maximization thinking which excludes thinking about conspicuity: it depends on the cyclist noticing a hazard or potential hazard, and having time to react, before he adjusts for it..

Of course it doesn't. No matter how many times you repeat this, it just won't come true.

And that's the problem with pure space maximization thinking which excludes thinking about conspicuity: it depends on the cyclist noticing a hazard or potential hazard, and having time to react, before he adjusts for it.
Of course it doesn't. No matter how many times you repeat this, it just won't come true.
If you've explained how pure space maximization thinking, which (contrary to Brian's understanding) excludes thinking about conspicuity, does not depend on the cyclist noticing a hazard or potential hazard, and having time to react, before he adjusts lateral position to maximize space relative to it, either in your book or on this forum, I've missed it. Now would be a good time, if you don't mind.

WTF is your problem HH? Why are you so threatened by this conversation? You are approaching this not as an engineer working with a collegue to optimize a solution strategy, but as a lawyer fighting for a client. It is quite obvious that there are two valid strategies for lane positioning. Each has it's place.

In the infamous "Mercedes incident", explain to me, HH, how you'd be maximizing for conspicuity in a dynamic environment when you are staring at a nice looking woman. You do realize that maximizing for space can allow a nominal position as well, right? And the nominal position will be in the lane, biased slightly right (think right tire track), assuming there is no bike lane or WOL considerations, because threats that you have to give space to are to both the left and right.

Mr. Hurst was to the right to let a car pass, which is appropriate given that you do exactly the same thing when a car is coming up from behind; he was caught looking elsewhere other than up front, missed the alley approaching, thus not adjusting for the presence of the alley, thus getting hit by a car.

Now, let's have a horny Helmet Head (HHH) riding the street. He is right biased centered in his nominal conspicuous position. Sees a car in his mirror, looks around, starts moving over, sees the hot woman, stares for a bit, misses seeing the alley, thus not adjusting lane positions to be conspicuous to the alleyway, thus getting hit by the car.

It works (or rather, doesn't work) for both Mr. Hurst and a HHH. The continuation is exactly the same for both strategies given the distraction being thrown in. Both get hit by the car.

Buffer zoning, conspicuity maximizing, they are both strategies for lane positioning, and they both have their uses in different environments. Mr. Hurst focuses on buffer zoning because his main environment under consideration is the urban environment, it said so on the title of his first edition, and indeed, much of the advice is specific to the urban environment. Mr. Forester and most other VC'ers focus on conspicuity because it is most appropriate for suburban environments. Mr. Hurst tells his readers to focus more on buffers than on conspicuity because Mr. Forester has been telling his students that his methods for for all environments big and small, and is the one truely universal way of riding a bicycle; Mr. Hurst is countering this attitude.

I am here to say that a rider uses both strategies, and it is more useful to think in terms of using both strategies than to try to be "right" and win the argument.

And HHH, you definitely can think about conspicuity while you are thinking about space. You can adjust to give a potential puller outer space while you are looking for their eyes. You can let give the left hooker space while you are thinking about your visibility to that car and others. And as the comments I quoted from you suggest above, you can also think in terms of space while you are thinking in terms of conspicuity. You just either don't know it, or you are concious that if you admit as much, you'll "lose" the argument.