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

I have been having a real hard time following this argument. Let me see if I have the basic constructs right.

Hurst’s position is if you do Y you get X as a result.
HH’s position is X is primarily the important thing and Y is of secondary importance.

WTF is your problem HH? Why are you so threatened by this conversation?
Robert's contention that maximizing for space relative to noticed hazards results in being positioned as if you are maximizing for conspicuity, and that thinking about conspicuity is dangerous, form the cornerstones of his attack on VC. I'm a VC advocate, and naturally feel defensive in response to this attack, especially given it's insidious nature, like how you've been hoodwinked by it.


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.

Robert wrote a book deriding vehicular-cycling. Pardon me if I don't see any point in working with him on that as a colleague.

With you I have no issue. I believe that vehicular-cycling can be accurately described as conspicuity+space maximizing. You think space should be a higher priority in "high information content" environments, and conspicuity a higher priority in "low information environments". As you've noted, the difference between your approach and mine are almost indistinguishable.

The only relevant disagreement I have with you is with respect to interpreting what Robert is saying. It's clear to me that he promotes space maximizing instead of conspicuity maximizing, period. He makes no mention of priorities. He makes no adjustment for high vs. low information content environments. While his first edition was titled the Art of Urban Cycling, the new edition has no such focus on the urban environment. He's talking about traffic in all kinds of environments. You disagree. You think his beef is with focusing only on conspicuity, as if anyone does that.


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.

A cyclist who positions himself by default (by habit, without thinking) for conspicuity would not be in the bike lane unless he had a noticed a good reason to be so far right (i.e., to allow faster traffic that is present to pass). If he happened to notice a nice looking woman, that wouldn't affect where he was riding, except to maybe delay how soon he noticed that a car from behind was approaching. But since cars from behind don't suddenly appear out of nowhere, a relatively brief distraction like that would not create any practical ramifications with respect to noticing approaching traffic from behind.

Of course I realize that "that maximizing for space can allow a nominal position ... in the lane, biased slightly right". But why are you "assuming there is no bike lane or WOL considerations"? There was a bike lane here, adjacent to the parked cars, and that's where Robert was riding, for no apparent reason, despite the fact that he was approaching a junction with a blind alley, which he clearly knew about, having ridden there "literally thousands of times". And that's the problem with the pure space maximizer like Robert. He had no reason to ride anywhere in particular, as long as he was outside of the door zone. That was his only active constraint. And active constraints are all that guide the pure space maximizer.

And even more interesting is that despite having ridden on this road literally thousands of times, the pure space maximizer had not developed the habit to ride further left, not even in your nominal position, despite knowing about the high frequency of intersections and junctions, and resulting short sight lines.

Anyway, the answer to your question is that the conspicuity+space maximizing vehicular cyclist, like myself (and, hopefully, you), whether distracted by a babe or not, would be MUCH further left, probably out by the LEFT tire track in this case, for that is what conspicuity+space maximizing means.


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.

I've been over this countless times, and my response is always ignored. I find that story to be incredible, for the following reasons. First, Robert neglected to mention the alleged car coming up from behind in his book, which, even if it was there, illustrates how irrelevant he feels lateral lane positioning is. He only "remembered" that car years later, when writing about it on this forum. And, remember, the account in his book is a context in which he felt it was relevant to mention he might have been going a "tad" too fast. He was going a "tad" too fast, which he mentioned, but he was also WAY too far to the right (relative to conspicuity AND space), which he failed to note, much less explain (in his book). Second, what happened to that car? If its driver was in the process of overtaking the cyclist, then why didn't it too crash into the Mercedes? And if it was so far back so as to be unaffected, then why did Robert pull over for it so early, especially considering he was approaching a blind alley? Besides, he was too distracted to notice a car pulling out right in front of him (the point of his story), but sufficiently aware to notice a car approaching from behind, and pull over into the door zone bike lane? That makes no sense whatsoever. Applying Occam's razor, what makes much more sense is that he was positioned like a typical cyclist - using the bike lane because he was not aware of any particular reason to not be in it. There again is the problem with the pure space maximizer who explicitly does not think about conspicuity: he often has no reason to be further left, specifically when conspicuity, just in case, is the only reason to be further left.


Now, let's have a horny Helmet Head (HHH) riding the street. He is right biased centered in his nominal conspicuous position.
First, as I've explained before, I eschew riding in or near the right tire track (your "nominal position") because it's an inherently ambiguous (not visible and predictable) position. Is the cyclist controlling the lane, or sharing the lane? Does he want motorists approaching from behind to prepare to change lanes to pass, or to plan on squeezing into the lane to pass? It's not clear. Therefore, if you're going to be controlling the lane, then be in a position where you are clearly controlling the lane - out in the center, or even by the left tire track. Or, if you're sharing the lane, and it's safe and reasonable to do so, then move to a position where you are clearly sharing the lane - in the margin (whether it is demarcated as a bike lane or not).


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.
I've long ago and repeatedly explained that whether being further left would have saved Robert's skin in this particular case is a) not known and, b) is entirely beside the point. The point is that it didn't even occur to the pure space maximizer to be further left while riding, nor even afterwards while writing about it. Until a few pages back in this thread he didn't even admit he should have been further left, which is a strong indicator that he didn't realize it until then.


Buffer zoning, conspicuity maximizing, they are both strategies for lane positioning, and they both have their uses in different environments.

Agreed.


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.

Except that when confronted, Robert continues to say that it is totally unnecessary and even dangerous to even think about conspicuity, while Forester essentially says of course you need to pay attention and avoid hazards; that goes without saying.


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.
I agree with you (why are you arguing with me?), and I'm sure Forester and every VC advocate and LCI I know would too, and have never said anything to the contrary. The only one who wouldn't agree is Robert, who continues to argue as recently as a few posts back that it is important to not think about conspicuity (though he thinks it's important to mention the reason he says this: that he believes thinking about space accomplishing positioning for conspicuity even better than positioning intentionally for conspicuity - but I've dealt with how that is flawed in previous posts, including one from today).


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're preaching to the choir. I'm in full agreement with you.


You just either don't know it, or you are concious that if you admit as much, you'll "lose" the argument.

You're the one arguing with someone who agrees with you. Your disagreement is with Robert's position, not with mine, whether you realize it or not.

To enjoy this thread to its fullest click here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=354062&page=3) upon reaching this point.

I have been having a real hard time following this argument. Let me see if I have the basic constructs right.

Hurst’s position is if you do Y you get X as a result.
HH’s position is X is primarily the important thing and Y is of secondary importance.
I like the way you think, but that's a little over-simplified.

My understanding of the positions are as follows.

X=choose lateral position based on maximizing for conspicuity and predictability
Y=choose lateral position based on maximizing for space from hazards and potential hazards

Robert's position is

a) if you do Y you get X as a result, therefore doing X is unnecessary.
b) if you do Y you get X indirectly better than if you focused on doing X directly.
c) thinking about doing X directly is dangerous

My position is:

a) Maybe in theory you get X if you do Y without thinking about X, but it does not work in practice much of the time (as exemplified by Robert's Mercedes incident). This is because Y requires noticing a hazard or potential hazard before an adjustment can be made for it, unless it is made by dumb luck.
b) If you do Y for your default position, you will often be accomplishing X indirectly.
c) The ideal (VC) is to use X+Y: Use X by default, and adjust for Y as needed (which can be dominating in what Brian calls "high information" environments).


Brian's position is:
a) Prioritize Y over X in high information environments.
b) Prioritize X over Y in low information environments.
c) Robert does not think doing X is dangerous, he simply emphasizes Priortizing Y over X because his focus is high information environments.

To enjoy this thread to its fullest click here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=354062&page=3) upon reaching this point.

OMG, it's the endless feedback loop! Stop reading while you still can! :D

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.

I'll stand by my statement that adjusting position to maximize visibility is 'a fool's game.' I don't think people should be thinking in those terms when riding down a busy street.

Consider the common admonishment to 'be visible and predictable.' I find this somewhat of a ridiculous statement. A rider cannot Be Visible. Whether the rider is visible or not is up to the person who is supposedly doing the looking. A rider can 'maximize visibility,' but ultimately one's visibility is in the hands (eyes/brain) of someone else. That's the unalterable nature of the business. The implication from HHH that a cyclist can control his/her own visibility through lane position has no basis in experience or available facts. None, zippo, nada.

What I see a lot of here from HHH and some others is an assumption that 'maximizing visibility' through lane position is a reliable strategy. That it works really well. It does not. Lane position has a marginal effect, I'd say, on one's likelihood of being noticed by drivers, but will not alter the fundamental reality that cyclists are often overlooked, no matter how or where they ride. As an experienced rider, I can attest that I have been overlooked while riding in the center of the street, the center of the lane, the center of the universe, the center of the tootsiepop, whereever. Clothing and rider speed both have more effect on conspicuity than lane position, in my experience.

Maximizing conspicuity/visibility is a good thing. We can all agree on that. But you don't need to think about maximizing visibility to maximize visibility. The rider who maximizes space has already maximized visibility. Already done it, game over. So my question is, what's the deal with people who think first and foremost of maximizing visibility? Are they thinking about maximizing space as well? Are they ready for the inevitable? Or are they so over-impressed with the idea of maximizing visibility through lane position that they will be surprised to learn, in a shocking instant, how ineffective that strategy is? My suspicion is that someone who figures they're visible because they're in the middle of the street is more likely to be surprised when the inevitable occurs than someone who's in the middle of the street because they know that, as a cyclist, they're simply not conspicuous.

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.
.


Ideally I'm riding in the middle of the street past that alley entrance. Ah well. Ideally, I have a pony and live in a beautiful green land where everybody is friendly and there is no sadness. Lane position is just one aspect. What HH doesn't understand, perhaps because he has never ridden in cities, is the physical layout which dictates passing some sort of intersection every 3-5 seconds. I could hold the car off past the alley, if I'm situationally aware of the particular hazard posed by the plumber's van blocking the alley entrance, but unless I hold it back there forever or stop, I'm still going to end up in a road-sharing position past some sort of intersection, probably more than one. The suggestion that one could forever avoid compromise by never sharing the road past any sort of intersection shows just what we're dealing with here -- complete ignorance of the physical geography of cities or willful disregard for reality.

Six feet from doorhandles is a useful position for road sharing as necessary. Cyclists shouldn't have to apologize for riding there occasionally to facilitate passing traffic. That's the basic rhythm of cooperative riding in the city. While less than optimal with respect to right side hazards (I recommend maintaining a buffer of ten feet or more from parked cars while zipping down streets with side parking, WHEN POSSIBLE), the road sharing position can be had by a cyclist who knows what he/she's doing and has his/her head in the game. NOT like me that day. That was bad.

One thing to keep in mind as well, in our brief tour through Reality here, which I am enjoying very much btw Brian, is that had this been a typical narrow lane instead of a lane-plus-bike-lane, the same six-foot buffer would have put me in the center of the travel lane, unambiguously left-of-center actually, in what has been glowingly called the 'primary position,' 'clear lane-controlling position,' etc. This has also been tagged the 'optimal position' for maximizing one's visibility, although it is obviously an insignificant distance with respect to right side hazards, and not optimal positioning by any stretch, visibility-wise or any-wise.

Adjust position to maximize space to inevitable intruders, not to maximize visibility for drivers who may not even be looking. If they do happen to be looking, you will be in the most conspicuous possible position anyway. Not that this will mean much for your likelihood of being overlooked.

Robert

Until a few pages back in this thread he didn't even admit he should have been further left, which is a strong indicator that he didn't realize it until then.


What's your deal HHH, are you just some crazy liar?

We've had this same exact 'discussion' several times over the past few years. Your slander gets more outrageous each time, but other than that it's the same discussion, with me saying the same things. I have patiently tried to explain to you that my compromised position was no mystery to me then and it's no mystery to me now. I do understand however, that there are other things in this world besides lane position. And I know when to introduce a concept that, because "we could qualify it, question it, and pick it apart until the sun dies out" (p. 77), deserves IT'S OWN GDAMN CHAPTERS. Are you that fing clueless?

Lane position -- PP. 76 - 83. Instead of making up all manner of insane, wacky BS about what I may or may not imply in my narration of the Mercedes incident, deal with what I have explicitly stated about lane position in the chapters on lane position. These things that I have written explicitly directly contradict what you claim is implied elsewhere in the book.

I've tried to be patient with you, but, obviously, my patience has run out.

I like the way you think, but that's a little over-simplified.

My understanding of the positions are as follows.

X=choose lateral position based on maximizing for conspicuity and predictability
Y=choose lateral position based on maximizing for space from hazards and potential hazards

Robert's position is

a) if you do Y you get X as a result, therefore doing X is unnecessary.
b) if you do Y you get X indirectly better than if you focused on doing X directly.
c) thinking about doing X directly is dangerous

My position is:

a) Maybe in theory you get X if you do Y without thinking about X, but it does not work in practice much of the time (as exemplified by Robert's Mercedes incident). This is because Y requires noticing a hazard or potential hazard before an adjustment can be made for it, unless it is made by dumb luck.
b) If you do Y for your default position, you will often be accomplishing X indirectly.
c) The ideal (VC) is to use X+Y: Use X by default, and adjust for Y as needed (which can be dominating in what Brian calls "high information" environments).


Brian's position is:
a) Prioritize Y over X in high information environments.
b) Prioritize X over Y in low information environments.
c) Robert does not think doing X is dangerous, he simply emphasizes Priortizing Y over X because his focus is high information environments.

Thanks for the feedback and an update/summary of positions, it helps.

I'll stand by my statement that adjusting position to maximize visibility is 'a fool's game.' I don't think people should be thinking in those terms when riding down a busy street.

Consider the common admonishment to 'be visible and predictable.' I find this somewhat of a ridiculous statement. A rider cannot Be Visible. Whether the rider is visible or not is up to the person who is supposedly doing the looking. A rider can 'maximize visibility,' but ultimately one's visibility is in the hands (eyes/brain) of someone else. That's the unalterable nature of the business. The implication from HHH that a cyclist can control his/her own visibility through lane position has no basis in experience or available facts. None, zippo, nada.
Robert is a very good writer. His talent is to sound reasonable, unless you dig into what he's actually saying (which is about the opposite of mine - which is to sound unreasonable until you dig into what I'm actually saying).

Consider the above paragraph. Analysis here reveals he is employing the logical fallacy known as the false dilemma (or false dichotomy, or fallacy of the excluded middle). Such a fallacy "involves a situation in which two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered." [1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy)]

In this case, the two alternative statements that he holds implicitly as the only possible options are:
The cyclist is visible.
The cyclist is not visible.Now, obviously, from the perspective of a given motorist, this is true: either a cyclist is visible to that motorist, or not. But, in general, what is meant by "visible" in ride to be "visible" is general visibility. What is really being addressed is the likelihood the cyclist will be noticed. It is meant in the same sense that we say "use bright clothing" and "use proper lighting at night" in order to be visible, even though doing all of these things does not guarantee being noticed by any one particular motorist. So the options Robert has not considered include:
The cyclist is visible by all drivers without exception.
The cyclist is visible by the vast majority of drivers.
The cyclist is visible by most drivers.
The cyclist is visible by some drivers.
The cyclist is visible by a few drivers.
The cyclist is not visible by any drivers.I think we can all agree that (a) is not practically possible to achieve. So the only reasonable interpretation for the "be visible" VC admonition is to try to achieve (b); "be visible" means try to be visible by the vast majority of drivers.

But Robert takes his false dichotomy fallacy, intent on interpreting "be visible" to absurdly mean "visible to each and every motorist without exception", which is really his set up for a straw man argument against this kind of thinking.

What's your deal HHH, are you just some crazy liar?

We've had this same exact 'discussion' several times over the past few years. Your slander gets more outrageous each time, but other than that it's the same discussion, with me saying the same things. I have patiently tried to explain to you that my compromised position was no mystery to me then and it's no mystery to me now. I do understand however, that there are other things in this world besides lane position. And I know when to introduce a concept that, because "we could qualify it, question it, and pick it apart until the sun dies out" (p. 77), deserves IT'S OWN GDAMN CHAPTERS. Are you that fing clueless?

Lane position -- PP. 76 - 83. Instead of making up all manner of insane, wacky BS about what I may or may not imply in my narration of the Mercedes incident, deal with what I have explicitly stated about lane position in the chapters on lane position. These things that I have written explicitly directly contradict what you claim is implied elsewhere in the book.

I've tried to be patient with you, but, obviously, my patience has run out.
I'm sorry you're running out of patience, Robert, but until post #330 in this thread, I've never heard you acknowledge this point:


Anyway, of course I should have been further left. OF COURSE.
You certainly don't say that in the book, even though you do mention that you might have been going a "tad" too fast.

The lip service you may pay to proper lane positioning on pp 76-83 and elsewhere in your book belies what you actually employ as revealed in your account of the Mercedes incident, and, more importantly, in your analysis of it.

What's your deal HHH, are you just some crazy liar?

No, he's just a simpleton that can't understand things written in plain English. If it was otherwise, this thread would have died pages ago.

I've tried to be patient with you, but, obviously, my patience has run out.

This is about the time he employs the 'smile and wave' to de-escalate the situation.

Robert is a very good writer. His talent is to sound reasonable, unless you dig into what he's actually saying (which is about the opposite of mine - which is to sound unreasonable until you dig into what I'm actually saying).

No Serge. Your talent, such as it is, is to bombard everyone that tries to discuss anything with you with a barrage of pedantry, convoluted explanation, feigned innocence, inconsistency, and just plain stupidity until they give up in frustration and decide that the only rational course for dealing with you is ridicule. And then you act all surprised when you're 'misunderstood'.

And you're also a crappy writer, so at least you got that part of you being the exact opposite of Robert correct.

No Serge. Your talent, such as it is, is to bombard everyone that tries to discuss anything with you with a barrage of pedantry, convoluted explanation, feigned innocence, inconsistency, and just plain stupidity until they give up in frustration and decide that the only rational course for dealing with you is ridicule. And then you act all surprised when you're 'misunderstood'.

And you're also a crappy writer, so at least you got that part of you being the exact opposite of Robert correct.
Okay, Allister. You PMed me that I was misinterpreting Robert "as usual". Explain to me, in good clear English, what exactly Robert wrote and meant, and what my interpretation is, and how it's wrong.

Okay, Allister. You PMed me that I was misinterpreting Robert "as usual". Explain to me, in good clear English, what exactly Robert wrote and meant, and what my interpretation is, and how it's wrong.

No point. If you can't figure it out from Robert's words, nothing I can say will help. Figure it out for yourself.

What I see a lot of here from HHH and some others is an assumption that 'maximizing visibility' through lane position is a reliable strategy. That it works really well. It does not. Lane position has a marginal effect, I'd say, on one's likelihood of being noticed by drivers, but will not alter the fundamental reality that cyclists are often overlooked, no matter how or where they ride. As an experienced rider, I can attest that I have been overlooked while riding in the center of the street, the center of the lane, the center of the universe, the center of the tootsiepop, whereever. Clothing and rider speed both have more effect on conspicuity than lane position, in my experience.

Yes, using bright clothing and conspicuous lane positioning for maximizing visibility is a reliable strategy, in the same sense that using proper lighting at night for maximizing visibility is a reliable strategy. How is it not? In neither case is 100% success assumed. You have to watch out for the exceptions that will still overlook you, of course. OF COURSE. That you can still be overlooked in the center of the lane in the center of the street is completely beside the point.

The use of conspicuous lane positioning for maximizing visibility is standard stuff in defensive driving and motorcycle safety courses. John Franklin has explained why it works for cyclists in his book, Cyclecraft. I've provided citations for the Franklin and DD claims earlier in this thread, and one for motorcycle safety is straight out of the CA motorcyclist manual.

Even Robert, apparently in one of his more lucid moments, understood this enough to manage to emit the following sequence of characters from his keyboard: "centralish default position the] rider will be more visible to motorists and pedestrians on the periphery and will be less likely to have these other road users move into his or her path." (The Art p. 75)

I think it's dangerous to downplay the value of this very important aspect of traffic cycling (just like it's dangerous to downplay the importance of using proper lighting at night by adding to the totally superfluous softening words, "whenever possible"). Why? Because cyclists that underestimate the value of conspicuous lane positioning, like Robert, are more prone to end up using less conspicuous lane positioning, which usually means lane positioning that compromises sight lines and buffer spaces as well. See his Mercedes incident, and how his post-analysis failed to even recognize this factor, for an example of what happens to cyclists who downplay the importance of conspicuous lane positioning.

By the way, it's typical for cyclists who do not go out of their way to ride conspicuously to have a false sense of how ineffective it is. For example, Robert believes that lane positioning has little to do with how likely it is that he is noticed, and, so whenever he is not noticed, he believes he would have been overlooked regardless of where he was riding. His sense of how often he is overlooked is based on his experience as a cyclist who does not believe in or use conspicuous lane positioning.


Maximizing conspicuity/visibility is a good thing. We can all agree on that. But you don't need to think about maximizing visibility to maximize visibility. The rider who maximizes space has already maximized visibility. Already done it, game over.
Bzzt. Try again. The following question is still outstanding:



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.



So my question is, what's the deal with people who think first and foremost of maximizing visibility? Are they thinking about maximizing space as well?
Of course they're thinking about maximizing space as well. OF COURSE.


Are they ready for the inevitable?

That depends on the individual, but I see no reason for the conspicuity+space maximizer to be any less ready for the inevitable than is the pure space maximizer.


Or are they so over-impressed with the idea of maximizing visibility through lane position that they will be surprised to learn, in a shocking instant, how ineffective that strategy is?
Why would you or anyone else every suspect that even might be the case?


My suspicion is that someone who figures they're visible because they're in the middle of the street is more likely to be surprised when the inevitable occurs than someone who's in the middle of the street because they know that, as a cyclist, they're simply not conspicuous.

Ah, now you're back to the absurd definition of "visible" based on the false dichotomy argument. :rolleyes:

No point. If you can't figure it out from Robert's words, nothing I can say will help. Figure it out for yourself.
:rolleyes: Figures.

I do understand what Robert means, Allister. There is nothing for me to figure out. You're the one who claims, without basis, that I misinterpret his words. Show me an example.

Robert's words:

What they mean:

What HH thinks they mean:

Why HH is wrong:

Fill that in, or stop making the baseless claims.

:rolleyes: Figures.


You've skirted around answering plenty of my direct questions, Serge (and no, I'm not going to dig them out for you). I see no reason to get into yet another endless debate with you. Go play your internet games with someone that could give a sh1t. Or better yet, go out on the street and preach to this 'vast majority' of cyclists that you think are so terribly uneducated, because there's none of them here.

You've skirted around answering plenty of my direct questions, Serge (and no, I'm not going to dig them out for you). I see no reason to get into yet another endless debate with you. Go play your internet games with someone that could give a sh1t. Or better yet, go out on the street and preach to this 'vast majority' of cyclists that you think are so terribly uneducated, because there's none of them here.
I may have skipped questions of yours because I didn't have the time to answer, or underestimated the importance to you of me answering the question. And as I've said before to others, if there are any questions I did not answer and you want me to, please PM me.

But I don't think I've ever refused to back up a claim about what you or anyone else failed to understand, or something similar that can be backed up by showing the actual words that have been written.

I'm sorry you're running out of patience, Robert, but until post #330 in this thread, I've never heard you acknowledge this point:
Anyway, of course I should have been further left. OF COURSE.

Once again, kind of like trying to communicate with a hole in the ground. I think this just proves that you absolutely do not consider or notice the words of anyone but yourself. And that's not fertile ground for effective communication.

My very first words to you on this forum were: "It is true that I was too far right in that particular incident, and that this faulty positioning was one main reason for the collision." October 2005. I went on to repeat this basic statement like a dozen times over the past few years.

I went on to explain, as you just didn't seem to get it, "In such a situation it is obviously in the rider's interest to be as far left 'as practicable.' This gives you half a chance to see the play developing as early as possible and to be as far away from it as possible."

When you insisted that being further left would have allowed the driver to see me, I patiently re-explained "it would have been better for me to have been further left, but there is no road position that would have made me visible to this driver, because she did not look." May 2007

I then noted a little later, "Had I been three feet right of the double yellow (where I was a few seconds before the collision, my habitual default position for that stretch of road) I obviously would have been better off" Notice repeated use of the word 'obviously' in these quotes.

"Yes, yes. Further left. You're a super-genius."

Etc. Etc.

It's a wonder anybody gets impatient with HH, eh? Unbelievable.

Or better yet, go out on the street and preach to this 'vast majority' of cyclists that you think are so terribly uneducated, because there's none of them here.

+100 (Emphases mine)

I would also like to add that there has been nothing in this thread that has changed my riding behavor. I have no idea if I think X>Y, Y>X, X+Y or X|Y is the correct answer as most of the time my road position is determend by potholes.

If there is any purpose to this thread it seems to me it is what would be the best way to express VC principles so a newbie can get it (mostly) right. To which I would say all of them, even HH, as there are a lot of different kinds of people out there and what and how things grab people is all different.

the purpose of this thread was head badmouthing, quoting out of context and slandering the author of an excellent bicycling book for making an error in positioning judgement he choose to illustrate in his book.

the caustic (yet soggy) soapbox of the pedantic armchair cyclist HH. A&S's safety nanny.

has head never been caught in a less than optimum road position on a bicycle? If that's the case, what I've gotten out of this thread is that head doesn't ride much.

Yes, using bright clothing and conspicuous lane positioning for maximizing visibility is a reliable strategy, in the same sense that using proper lighting at night for maximizing visibility is a reliable strategy. How is it not?

I can imagine you one day looking back on this, with much more experience under your belt, and saying to yourself, man, what an ignorant tool I was.

I'll tell you one last time how is it not, but I don't know why anyone would bother. I guess for the possible benefit of others who may be reading this.

As a strategy for maximizing visibility, adjusting lane position is not close to being in the same league as using proper lighting at night, which often makes a cyclist more conspicuous than they would be during the day. 'Optimal' lane position provides an advantage for visibility that is marginal, at best, over a right side lane position. I say this based on long experience during which a high percentage of my riding has been in middle three lanes of busy five-lane one way streets. I have been overlooked in every lane position of every lane imaginable. If you get out and ride enough, you'll see it happens to you too, because you're a dude on a bike, and dudes on bikes just aren't that visible. Adjusting lane position to enhance visibility is a fundamentally unreliable method. Adjusting speed and clothing are both more effective; standing on the damn pedals would probably be more effective. Those who think it's 'a reliable strategy' are fooling themselves and headed for a big surprise. Those who try to convince others that it's reliable, without a single fact on their side and counter to the experience of every veteran urban rider, are not just retards but crossing into the territory of dangerous retards.


Even Robert, apparently in one of his more lucid moments, understood this enough to manage to emit the following sequence of characters from his keyboard: "centralish default position the] rider will be more visible to motorists and pedestrians on the periphery and will be less likely to have these other road users move into his or her path." (The Art p. 75)

"...More importantly, " More importantly, what, hhh. You can do it. Don't cherry pick quotes from me without including the context.

I think it's dangerous to downplay the value of this very important aspect of traffic cycling (just like it's dangerous to downplay the importance of using proper lighting at night by adding to the totally superfluous softening words, "whenever possible"). Why? Because cyclists that underestimate the value of conspicuous lane positioning, like Robert, are more prone to end up using less conspicuous lane positioning, which usually means lane positioning that compromises sight lines and buffer spaces as well. See his Mercedes incident, and how his post-analysis failed to even recognize this factor, for an example of what happens to cyclists who downplay the importance of conspicuous lane positioning.

By the way, it's typical for cyclists who do not go out of their way to ride conspicuously to have a false sense of how ineffective it is. For example, Robert believes that lane positioning has little to do with how likely it is that he is noticed, and, so whenever he is not noticed, he believes he would have been overlooked regardless of where he was riding. His sense of how often he is overlooked is based on his experience as a cyclist who does not believe in or use conspicuous lane positioning.




Bzzt. Try again. The following question is still outstanding:




Of course they're thinking about maximizing space as well. OF COURSE.


That depends on the individual, but I see no reason for the conspicuity+space maximizer to be any less ready for the inevitable than is the pure space maximizer.


Why would you or anyone else every suspect that even might be the case?


Ah, now you're back to the absurd definition of "visible" based on the false dichotomy argument. :rolleyes:

So utterly, completely out to lunch. So incredibly wrong. So much ignorance. So amazingly impervious to facts. Impossible to respond. I give up. You win.

Robert wrote in a different thread: http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5590765&postcount=25

"Some cyclists believe that they are able to fundamentally control whether or not they are seen by drivers, just by adjusting position on the roadway. It is a horribly naive yet seductive notion."

I would say instead that:
"Some cyclists believe that they are able to strongly influence whether or not they are seen by drivers, just by adjusting position on the roadway."

Al

Robert wrote in a different thread: http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5590765&postcount=25

"Some cyclists believe that they are able to fundamentally control whether or not they are seen by drivers, just by adjusting position on the roadway. It is a horribly naive yet seductive notion."

Yes, he loves to float that straw man (among so many others), then shoot it down. :rolleyes:


I would say instead that:
"Some cyclists believe that they are able to strongly influence whether or not they are seen by drivers, just by adjusting position on the roadway."

Al
Exactly.

and that's a seductive fallacy, noisebeam. you can block traffic behind you though, unless they plow right into you, and motorists can still right hook you even if you are seen.

the fallacy head uses about not being seen is part of his campaign against bicycling infrastructure and his claims motorists don't look 'outside of the travel lane' when driving. and THAT is sheer and utter lunacy. of course, head himself is an innatentive motorist that doesn't look for bicyclists while backing out of parking spots (he admitted this last week) but that's beside the point.

just because head is a bad driver doesn't make any of his prattle about lane positioning and visibility more valid.

Robert wrote in a different thread: http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5590765&postcount=25

"Some cyclists believe that they are able to fundamentally control whether or not they are seen by drivers, just by adjusting position on the roadway. It is a horribly naive yet seductive notion."

I would say instead that:
"Some cyclists believe that they are able to strongly influence whether or not they are seen by drivers, just by adjusting position on the roadway."

Al

But Al how can you strongly influence drivers that are "blind" due to inattention blindness... if motorists just are not looking... being conspicuous just doesn't matter. You could be an elephant on the road and still not be seen by some drivers.

you can block traffic behind you though, unless they plow right into you, and motorists can still right hook you even if you are seen.

True, did I ever say otherwise? What I am saying is that one can do things to improve the chances of being seen/noticed and if one is seen/noticed one is less likely to be plowed into or right hooked relative to not being noticed.

Al

But Al how can you strongly influence drivers that are "blind" due to inattention blindness... if motorists just are not looking... being conspicuous just doesn't matter. You could be an elephant on the road and still not be seen by some drivers.

I am only talking about averages. Would this be better?
"Some cyclists believe that they are able to strongly influence whether or not they are seen by most drivers, just by adjusting position on the roadway." where most could be 'the average driver'

The point is that one is on average more likely to be noticed. Not always, not by everyone, no guarantees.

And for the expected follow on question of what about those that don't notice: If the signs are not there of not being noticed, respond accordingly. And those signs will be much more apparent from faster same direction driver/vehicles if using a centerish lane position vs a far right position.

Al

Robert wrote in a different thread: http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5590765&postcount=25

"Some cyclists believe that they are able to fundamentally control whether or not they are seen by drivers, just by adjusting position on the roadway. It is a horribly naive yet seductive notion."

I would say instead that:
"Some cyclists believe that they are able to strongly influence whether or not they are seen by drivers, just by adjusting position on the roadway."

Al

In my experience, the influence of lane position on visibility is marginal, not strong. As I said, I do a substantial percentage of my riding in the middle lanes of busy five-laners. I have been overlooked plenty of times while riding in the middle lanes or near the center of narrow streets. I lost my innocence on that issue a long, long time ago. Ask any motorcyclist how reliable is their central positioning in ensuring visibility.

I hear people slipping into dependence on other road users for something that other road users can not be counted on to deliver -- reliable vision and attention. When making lane positioning decisions, consider the things that you YOU can control through lane position, your own sightlines, your safety buffer to inevitable intrusions, and back-burner those things which you can't ultimately control through lane position, like the vision of other road users. In the end you will be in the maximally visible and conspicuous position just the same, so I don't see what all the bluster is about. Eliminate the middleman.

R.

In my experience, the influence of lane position on visibility is marginal, not strong. As I said, I do a substantial percentage of my riding in the middle lanes of busy five-laners. I have been overlooked plenty of times while riding in the middle lanes or near the center of narrow streets. I lost my innocence on that issue a long, long time ago. Ask any motorcyclist how reliable is their central positioning in ensuring visibility.

I hear people slipping into dependence on other road users for something that other road users can not be counted on to deliver -- reliable vision and attention. When making lane positioning decisions, consider the things that you YOU can control through lane position, your own sightlines, your safety buffer to inevitable intrusions, and back-burner those things which you can't ultimately control through lane position, like the vision of other road users. In the end you will be in the maximally visible and conspicuous position just the same, so I don't see what all the bluster is about. Eliminate the middleman.

R.
Can you quantify "plenty of times", Robert, please? In particular, what percentage of motorists would you estimate overlook you when you are in the middle of the lane, versus when you're riding near the right tire track or in the margin?

And how high would that percentage have to be to contradict Al's contention, "Some cyclists believe that they are able to strongly influence whether or not they are seen by most drivers, just by adjusting position on the roadway." ?

In my experience, the influence of lane position on visibility is marginal, not strong. As I said, I do a substantial percentage of my riding in the middle lanes of busy five-laners. I have been overlooked plenty of times while riding in the middle lanes or near the center of narrow streets. R.
Almost all of my riding is on multi lane roads using the centerish position in outer lane. I have not yet been overlooked. The vast majority of drivers move into adjacent lane long before they get to me. A few don't but I still notice them move left within lane or slowing. I do expect that someone may not notice me, I have on rare occasions moved far right evasively if it is not fully obvious if I am noticed or not, in those cases I was passed with good clearance as the driver had noticed me and moved a bit left as well.

Al

To enjoy this thread to its fullest click here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=354062&page=3) upon reaching this point.

In order to understand recursive....

....one must first understand recursive.


:rolleyes:

Almost all of my riding is on multi lane roads using the centerish position in outer lane. I have not yet been overlooked. The vast majority of drivers move into adjacent lane long before they get to me. A few don't but I still notice them move left within lane or slowing. I do expect that someone may not notice me, I have on rare occasions moved far right evasively if it is not fully obvious if I am noticed or not, in those cases I was passed with good clearance as the driver had noticed me and moved a bit left as well.

Al
I have to say, I too have not been overlooked even once in the last 2 or 3 years. Never-the-less, I apply trust but verify to every motorist I encounter upon whose attention my safety is soon to depend.

Before I changed my riding style to use a default lane position that maximizes conspicuity, being overlooked was a fairly regular occurrence, just as it apparently currently is for Robert.

Almost all of my riding is on multi lane roads using the centerish position in outer lane. I have not yet been overlooked. The vast majority of drivers move into adjacent lane long before they get to me. A few don't but I still notice them move left within lane or slowing. I do expect that someone may not notice me, I have on rare occasions moved far right evasively if it is not fully obvious if I am noticed or not, in those cases I was passed with good clearance as the driver had noticed me and moved a bit left as well.

Al

See, you are talking about the possibility of being overlooked by same direction traffic. I'm not.

In urban environments, being overlooked by a driver approaching from behind is extremely rare compared to being overlooked by crossing traffic, incl. pedestrians.

R.

See, you are talking about the possibility of being overlooked by same direction traffic. I'm not.

In urban environments, being overlooked by a driver approaching from behind is extremely rare compared to being overlooked by crossing traffic, incl. pedestrians.


I could have written the same about x-traffic. In fact I find a far from curb position to be much more effective at stopping cross traffic (including left crosses) when they are legally required to vs. a far right.

Even more so I notice this effect when riding with moderate (4-6) size groups where the default position is nearly always far right. In this situation the group has often been overlooked (close calls, but never a collision so far) by left crosses and right entering drivers. Even the larger size of the group vs. me solo does not make up for the far right position.

Al

I could have written the same about x-traffic. In fact I find a far from curb position to be much more effective at stopping cross traffic (including left crosses) when they are legally required to vs. a far right.

Even more so I notice this effect when riding with moderate (4-6) size groups where the default position is nearly always far right. In this situation the group has often been overlooked (close calls, but never a collision so far) by left crosses and right entering drivers. Even the larger size of the group vs. me solo does not make up for the far right position.

Al
That's a really good point, Al. I have to agree that my experience confirms that the conspicuity advantage (to x-traffic) of conspicuous lane positioning trumps the conspicuity advantage of a group over a solo rider.

For the record, I have not been overlooked while riding conspicuously positioned by cross-traffic as well as by traffic from behind in at least 2-3 years. But of course I use trust but verify never-the-less.

Even the larger size of the group vs. me solo does not make up for the far right position.


What must the motorcyclists be doing wrong then, I wonder. Not waggling it enough?

I went over this with HHH a while back (he forgot) and I did a long experiment to determine just how often I am overlooked, by a driver or a pedestrian, while riding in a clearly central position in the roadway. I didn't count those instances which occurred while I was riding in a 'secondary position' or when I was on the sidewalk, riding the wrong way, or otherwise breaking the law. Turns out I am obviously overlooked in a central position, and am forced to take some sort of evasive action, about once for every eight hours of riding. That's a few times per week for me. The frequency could be much less for a rider who commutes through the suburbs, where wayward pedestrians are few, and much much less for a recreational rider who sticks to favored routes. One of these riders could easily go years without encountering such an event.

However rare these events are for any given rider, they will be the most critical moments of that rider's cycling life. You can minimize these instances to an extent (to a very limited extent through lane position alone) but the fundamental reality stays the same. Cycling safety is not about being seen by drivers -- that's an impossible dream -- it's about being ready for those few drivers who will fail to notice your presence, no matter where you happen to be on the roadway.

Robert

I am only talking about averages. Would this be better?
"Some cyclists believe that they are able to strongly influence whether or not they are seen by most drivers, just by adjusting position on the roadway." where most could be 'the average driver'

The point is that one is on average more likely to be noticed. Not always, not by everyone, no guarantees.

And for the expected follow on question of what about those that don't notice: If the signs are not there of not being noticed, respond accordingly. And those signs will be much more apparent from faster same direction driver/vehicles if using a centerish lane position vs a far right position.

Al

The last paragraph then supports exactly what Hurst has said all along... don't ride to increase conspicuousness (jeeze is this even a word), ride to increase your buffer and reaction space to traffic, the conspicuousness increases anyway.

This was noted several pages back when HH admitted that the end results were nearly the same... a conspicuous well "centered" position on the roadway. (centered is in quotes as you may not actually be centered).

I am only talking about averages. Would this be better?
"Some cyclists believe that they are able to strongly influence whether or not they are seen by most drivers, just by adjusting position on the roadway." where most could be 'the average driver'

The point is that one is on average more likely to be noticed. Not always, not by everyone, no guarantees.

And for the expected follow on question of what about those that don't notice: If the signs are not there of not being noticed, respond accordingly. And those signs will be much more apparent from faster same direction driver/vehicles if using a centerish lane position vs a far right position.

Al
The last paragraph then supports exactly what Hurst has said all along... don't ride to increase conspicuousness (jeeze is this even a word), ride to increase your buffer and reaction space to traffic, the conspicuousness increases anyway.
How does Al's paragraph support the idea that you shouldn't "ride to increase conspicuousness"?


This was noted several pages back when HH admitted that the end results were nearly the same... a conspicuous well "centered" position on the roadway. (centered is in quotes as you may not actually be centered).
Huh?

I've argued they might be the same in theory, but not in practice. See the following post for the underlying issue. I contend that the fundamental problem with pure space maximization thinking which excludes thinking about conspicuity is that it depends on the cyclist noticing a hazard or potential hazard, and having time to react, before he adjusts for it. Robert denies this, but won't, so far at least, explain how a cyclist can adjust for something which he has not yet noticed.

Robert, you've not answered this yet. This is the 3rd time I'm asking.

The following question is still outstanding:



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.

How does Al's paragraph support the idea that you shouldn't "ride to increase conspicuousness"?


Huh?

I've argued they might be the same in theory, but not in practice. See the following post for the underlying issue. I contend that the fundamental problem with pure space maximization thinking which excludes thinking about conspicuity is that it depends on the cyclist noticing a hazard or potential hazard, and having time to react, before he adjusts for it. Robert denies this, but won't, so far at least, explain how a cyclist can adjust for something which he has not yet noticed.

How can you ride to increase conspicuousness when the very motorists you are trying to get to notice your conspicuousness may have inattention blindness...

You must then react to that motorist by maximizing space... therefore you are dependent on you the cyclist actually noticing the hazards, not just trying to improve your visibility.

To put it brutally simply... if you are riding centerish to improve your visibility, and a motorist doesn't see you and react accordingly, then indeed YOU have to maximize your space... and you are dependent on noticing that hazard... irrelevant of how visible you thought you were.

Robert denies this, but won't, so far at least, explain how a cyclist can adjust for something which he has not yet noticed.

You can't, no matter where in the lane you're riding. That's why it's important to PAY ATTENTION.

How can you ride to increase conspicuousness when the very motorists you are trying to get to notice your conspicuousness may have inattention blindness...
First, that's like asking, how can you improve the vision of people with glasses when some might be blind? Just because some might not notice you even if you are positioned conspicuously doesn't mean there is no value with riding conspicuously.

Besides, even those with inattention blindness are more likely to notice a cyclist who is relevant to them, and riding where they are most likely to be paying attention is the best way to achieve relevance (though of course it does not guarantee it).



You must then react to that motorist by maximizing space... therefore you are dependent on you the cyclist actually noticing the hazards, not just trying to improve your visibility.
But that's true with one motorist, at most, every few years if you believe me or Al, or one motorist every 8 hours of riding in heavy urban traffic if you believe Robert. But in either case, the vast, vast majority of drivers are not going to hit you even if you never noticed them.


To put it brutally simply... if you are riding centerish to improve your visibility, and a motorist doesn't see you and react accordingly, then indeed YOU have to maximize your space... and you are dependent on noticing that hazard... irrelevant of how visible you thought you were.
The point of defaulting to a centerish position to increase visibility/predictability is twofold:


To maximize your conspicuity so that the likelihood of being overlooked is minimized.
To be near (if not already at) a position of space maximization relative to a hazard or potential hazard even before you've noticed it.

You can't, no matter where in the lane you're riding. That's why it's important to PAY ATTENTION.
Of course you can't adjust for something which you have not yet noticed.

Yet Robert says space maximization relative to a given hazard or potential hazard does not depend on the cyclist noticing it, and having time to react, before he adjusts for it. To me, that implies adjusting for something which you have not yet noticed.

Of course you can't adjust for something which you have not yet noticed.

Yet Robert says space maximization relative to a given hazard or potential hazard does not depend on the cyclist noticing it, and having time to react, before he adjusts for it. To me, that implies adjusting for something which you have not yet noticed.

Just like being visible to those motorists that aren't looking. :rolleyes:

The differences between what you are touting and what Hurst is touting are minuscule... Yeah you say in theory... and I say in practice... So internally the attitude is different. Big deal... I think I am Superman sometimes when I ride... I doubt there is any difference in my actual riding style. (although the red cape does present more drag).

Of course you can't adjust for something which you have not yet noticed.

And yet it is you that claims that lane positioning for conspicuity puts cyclists in a better place to avoid hazards even when their attention wanders. You're adjusting position for something that you not only haven't noticed, but doesn't even exist other than in potential, vis.

To be near (if not already at) a position of space maximization relative to a hazard or potential hazard even before you've noticed it.

Yet Robert says space maximization relative to a given hazard or potential hazard does not depend on the cyclist noticing it, and having time to react, before he adjusts for it.

No he hasn't, and I went looking. That sentence doesn't even make any sense.

What he's saying, I think, is that hazard avoidance is a lesser criteria for choosing your lane position. The most important thing you can do to avoid hazards is to keep your wits about you, and be ready. Lane position may give a small advantage, but other, more important things may override choosing a position more into the lane at the time.

To me, that implies adjusting for something which you have not yet noticed.

You're an idiot, Serge.

In fact, when you claim that these 'only human' riders with fallible attention spans should be riding in a position for maximum conspicuity, so that even if they don't notice a hazard, the hazard will notice them, that is exactly what you are advocating.

Robert, you've not answered this yet. This is the 3rd time I'm asking.

The following question is still outstanding:

I think it was pretty clear by his last response to you that he's not playing anymore. He's taken his ball and gone home.

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:
To this whole thread. Someone PM me when it hits page 70 and someone adds another "whenever possible" or leaves out the words "maximizing conspicuity from a post.

I have to say, I too have not been overlooked even once in the last 2 or 3 years. Never-the-less, I apply trust but verify to every motorist I encounter upon whose attention my safety is soon to depend.

Flippin' HILARIOUS! :roflmao: Head, you have admitted by inference you

a)don't ride much; and

b)must slow down, A LOT, when you ride, to get what you think is a 'verify' from motorists. what do you do, wave at them until they wave back? :rolleyes:

On my ride home tonight, I counted AT LEAST 4 instances I had no way of 'verifying' a motorist had seen me from a side street. Sure, they were stopped, I was running a BRIGHT light on flash, I was in the center of the lane, and even on the yellow stripe, and there is

no way a bicyclist can verify SQUAT about motorists.

a bicyclist doesn't get to 'verify' anything. you need to 'trust' the motorist isn't going to go when you approach their grill, head. even in the middle of the road, you have no ability to 'verify' the motorist isn't going to violate your right of way. trust? necessary to travel on a bicycle. verify? a worthless fallacy you perpetuate.

and not being overlooked even once in 2 years? You are fooling yourself and this forum about both your bicycling skill and experience. what, a half hour commute a couple of times a week during nice weather, and weekend club and 'training' rides with other LCI fumblefoots?

It's dark now at 6 p.m. in San Diego, head. on your occasional commute a half hour to and fro, what lights are you running to not be 'overlooked'? :roflmao:

Bicyclists get overlooked, head. middle of the road, middle of the lane, left crossed, right hooked, despite road position. Of course, it never happens to you. I see the glare of inexperience in your pompous, brash attitude about lane position virtually ensuring your 'visibility' while on a bicycle.

(if you've been muddling your motoring with your bicycling yet again, i can understand your confusion. how much driving this week, head?)

Flippin' HILARIOUS! :roflmao: Head, you have admitted by inference you

a)don't ride much; and

b)must slow down, A LOT, when you ride, to get what you think is a 'verify' from motorists. what do you do, wave at them until they wave back? :rolleyes:

On my ride home tonight, I counted AT LEAST 4 instances I had no way of 'verifying' a motorist had seen me from a side street. Sure, they were stopped, I was running a BRIGHT light on flash, I was in the center of the lane, and even on the yellow stripe, and there is

no way a bicyclist can verify SQUAT about motorists.

a bicyclist doesn't get to 'verify' anything. you need to 'trust' the motorist isn't going to go when you pass their grill, head. even in the middle of the road, you have no ability to 'verify' the motorist isn't going to violate you right of way. trust? necessary to travel on a bicycle. verify? a worthless fallacy you perpetuate.

and not being overlooked even once in 2 years? You are fooling yourself and this forum about both your bicycling skill and experience. what, a half hour commute a couple of times a week during nice weather, and weekend club and 'training' rides with other LCI fumblefoots?

It's dark now at 6 p.m. in San Diego, head. on your occasional commute a half hour to and fro, what lights are you running to not be 'overlooked'? :roflmao:

Bicyclists get overlooked, head. middle of the road, middle of the lane, left crossed, right hooked, despite road position. Of course, it never happens to you. I see pompous inexperience in your brash attitude about lane position virtually ensuring 'visibility'.

Thanks a lot...now we will get a 5 paragraph explanation of what the definition of "overlooked".

I'll get it started...

By overlooked, I am referring to the fact that I have not been run over by a car because I was in the middle of the lane. I stop and wave to each car that is overtaking me and record whether they wave back, thus verifying that I was not overlooked. In Hurst's book, he states that... where did I state or imply...that goes without saying... Figures...But I don't think...straw man...

Just fill in the blanks.