Making a left turn, traffic and timing...

[Helmet Head]

Wow a second admission quite unusual in nature from you... are you feeling alright?

Perhaps measures should be taken to educate "most adults" about cyclists' rights.
Since most adults don't care about the issue of cyclists rights, how are you going to get them motivated to learn it? It's hard enough to get cyclists interested in cyclist rights.

Besides, the apparent fact that most adults seem to be clueless about cyclist rights does not seem to inhibit motorists from treating a legally operating cyclist properly. They just naturally treat us like the motorcyclists-with-organic-engines that we are (credit to Wayne Pein for that analogy).

The ignorance about cyclists rights only becomes a significant issue when they straddle a bike. They don't think of themselves as motorcyclists-with-organic-engines, but more like pedestrians on wheels, and act accordingly. That's where the problem is.

[Ed Holland]

Since most adults don't care about the issue of cyclists rights, how are you going to get them motivated to learn it? It's hard enough to get cyclists interested in cyclist rights.


Sadly, we might also deduce from this that most adults also do not care to be cyclists... People seem to see cycling from a negative perspective, both from their viewpoint as a motorist and their perception of what it is like to be a cyclist.

Ed

[RobertHurst]

Countless reasonable assumptions have to be made to understand the meaning of anything, including a scientific study.

Most adults do seem to be unsure if not clueless on the issue of cyclist legal rights.

First of all, I don't believe it is a reasonable assumption based on given information, not by a long shot.

Second, even reasonable assumptions should be presented as such, and not as facts backed by solid scientific evidence.

To review: reasonable assumptions should not be presented as scientific facts; wild-ass assertions should not be presented as reasonable assumptions.

Robert

[noisebeam]

People seem to see cycling from a negative perspective, both from their viewpoint as a motorist and their perception of what it is like to be a cyclist.

Ed
The US public seem doesn't think much at all about cycling.

Al

[John Forester]

No, I am saying that the reason that a driver may make a decision may not have a thing to do with logic, but is often emotionally driven... the classic "it seemed right at the time" decision... which upon real examination turns out to be a really poor decision. "well I didn't see a turn signal so I just "gunned it" man... "
snip
.

This argument discloses an emotional but irrational view of traffic law. The description given by genec clearnly condemns the driver who accelerated. That motorist accelerated into the path of a vehicle that began to turn after the acceleration began. That is not an emotional decision contrary to traffic law. Any driver is allowed to consider that another driver will continue in a straight path, and also to consider that a turning driver will yield to other traffic approaching so close as to constitute a danger. Therefore, the accelerating driver operated according to the rules of the road, while the turning driver did not.

It may be that genec is trying to say that the turning driver started his turn and that the accelerating driver attempted to accelerate to get ahead of the turning driver and therefore caused the collision. In that case, both drivers are probably at fault. The turning driver neither signaled nor yielded, while the accelerating driver may have disobeyed the law that a driver who has the last clear chance to avoid a collision must take the appropriate action to avoid or to mitigate the potential collision. Whether accelerating or braking would more likely avoid the collision would be a matter for expert analysis, though braking would more likely mitigate the damage caused by the collision.

[genec]

It may be that genec is trying to say that the turning driver started his turn and that the accelerating driver attempted to accelerate to get ahead of the turning driver and therefore caused the collision. In that case, both drivers are probably at fault. The turning driver neither signaled nor yielded, while the accelerating driver may have disobeyed the law that a driver who has the last clear chance to avoid a collision must take the appropriate action to avoid or to mitigate the potential collision. Whether accelerating or braking would more likely avoid the collision would be a matter for expert analysis, though braking would more likely mitigate the damage caused by the collision.

And thus both drivers broke both the laws and violated the logic that would have kept both out of harms' way... what do you think was their "reasoning" for doing such a thing?

[John Forester]

And thus both drivers broke both the laws and violated the logic that would have kept both out of harms' way... what do you think was their "reasoning" for doing such a thing?

Simple mistakes are more likely than emotional antagonism between the drivers, rather like the aphorism that one should not ascribe to intent what is better explained by stupidity.

[genec]

Simple mistakes are more likely than emotional antagonism between the drivers, rather like the aphorism that one should not ascribe to intent what is better explained by stupidity.

:)

Yes, but clearly logic did not prevail. ;)

[Helmet Head]

:)

Yes, but clearly logic did not prevail. ;)
So what? Reason and logic does not always prevail. This should not be news to you or anyone else.

But efforts based in reason and logic are more likely to prevail in the long run than are other efforts. That's what I mean when I say I'm optimistic about VC advocacy because we have logic and reason on our side.

[Ed Holland]

The US public seem doesn't think much at all about cycling.

Al

How true. Without more cyclists, they don't have much cause to do so :(

[Ed Holland]

OK then We have rational behaviour, affected through:

Mistakes (genuine error in judgement)

Distractions (plenty of examples we can think of for ourselves)

Emotional responses to situations.

Sight of a cyclist ahead

[noisebeam]

OK then We have rational behaviour, affected through:

Mistakes (genuine error in judgement)

Distractions (plenty of examples we can think of for ourselves)

Emotional responses to situations.

Sight of a cyclist ahead

Can I add to this list:
Road signs/symbols and striping

Al

[Ed Holland]

Can I add to this list:
Road signs/symbols and striping

Al

Certainly :)