Replacing the old memes with new/VC memes

[Helmet Head]

I started these lists in another thread:


The main effort is to replace the old memes, like
The main rule is: stay out of the way of cars.
Always assume you're invisible.
Bike lanes keep motorists from hitting cyclists.
Cyclists need their own separate space.with VC memes:
Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.
Position yourself to be conspicuous and predictable.
Trust, but verify.
Ignore bike lane stripes - that is, decide where to ride as if the bike lane stripe is not there (which may or may not result in you riding in the bike lane, or even on the stripe, depending on conditions).
At junctions and intersections and their approaches, use destination positioning (left if going left, right if going right, in between if going straight).
Use speed positioning between junctions and intersections (slower traffic keeps right).

Let's try to identify all of the old memes we're trying to replace, and the new memes we're trying to replace them with.


To start, here is another old meme that needs to be tossed: There is often/usually one particular appropriate lateral position for bicyclists to use, largely independent of the current situation and conditions. (note that this is part of the basis for bike lanes and sharrows).

The new VC meme is: The appropriate lateral position for bicyclists often varies based on the current situation and conditions.


References:


A meme (pronounced /miːm or mɛm/) consists of any unit of cultural information, such as a practice or idea, that gets transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another. Examples include thoughts, ideas, theories, practices, habits, songs, dances and moods and terms such as race, culture, and ethnicity. Memes propagate themselves and can move through a "culture" in a manner similar to the behavior of a virus. As a unit of cultural evolution, a meme in some ways resembles a gene. Richard Dawkins, in his book, The Selfish Gene,[1] recounts how and why he coined the term meme to describe how one might extend Darwinian principles to explain the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. He gave as examples tunes, catch-phrases, beliefs, clothing-fashions, ways of making pots, and the technology of building arches.

Meme-theorists contend that memes evolve by natural selection (similarly to Darwinian biological evolution) through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance influencing an individual entity's reproductive success. So with memes, some ideas will propagate less successfully and become extinct, while others will survive, spread, and, for better or for worse, mutate. "Memeticists argue that the memes most beneficial to their hosts will not necessarily survive; rather, those memes that replicate the most effectively spread best, which allows for the possibility that successful memes may prove detrimental to their hosts."[2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme)


Memetics is a neo-Darwinian approach to evolutionary models of cultural information transfer based on the concept of the meme. Started from a metaphor used in popular writings of Richard Dawkins, it has later turned into an approach in the study of self-replicating units of culture. It has been proposed that just as memes are analogous to genes, memetics is analogous to genetics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics)

[genec]

I started these lists in another thread:



Let's try to identify all of the old memes we're trying to replace, and the new memes we're trying to replace them with.


To start, here is another old meme that needs to be tossed: There is often/usually one particular appropriate lateral position for bicyclists to use, largely independent of the current situation and conditions. (note that this is part of the basis for bike lanes and sharrows).

The new VC meme is: The appropriate lateral position for bicyclists often varies based on the current situation and conditions.

Are we maintaining that slower traffic should still keep to the right??? If that is the case, then there may indeed be a somewhat preferred lateral position for cyclists.

[Helmet Head]

Are we maintaining that slower traffic should still keep to the right??? If that is the case, then there may indeed be a somewhat preferred lateral position for cyclists.
Yes, but the old meme is that cyclists should keep right whether the condition of faster same-direction traffic is present applies or not.

The new meme (actually this and most of these are very old tried and true memes of traffic behavior - what is new is the acceptance of their application to cyclist behavior) is that slower traffic keeps right and the recognition that slower is a relative term which can only apply when faster same direction traffic is present.

[genec]

Yes, but the old meme is that cyclists should keep right whether the condition of faster same-direction traffic is present applies or not.

The new meme (actually this and most of these are very old tried and true memes of traffic behavior - what is new is the acceptance of their application to cyclist behavior) is that slower traffic keeps right and the recognition that slower is a relative term which can only apply when faster same direction traffic is present.

OK but then we may be creating the meme that cyclists should always get out of the way...

[Helmet Head]

OK but then we may be creating the meme that cyclists should always get out of the way...
Yes, and that (except for the always part) is a new meme too.

Old meme: Cyclists should never be in the way of motorists.

New meme: When faster traffic is present and it is safe and reasonable to do so, cyclists (like all drivers of slow moving vehicles) should try to get out of the way of faster traffic.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

Ill stick with the old ones that really work, thanks.
Leave the theory stuff to the students.

[Allister]

Do not unreasonably obstruct other roads users.
Be visible, but don't rely on always being seen.
Bike lanes are just another lane.
Cyclists prefer, but shouldn't rely on their own separate space.


Fixed them for you. Now, what did you want to change?

[Allister]

The new meme (actually this and most of these are very old tried and true memes of traffic behavior - what is new is the acceptance of their application to cyclist behavior) is that slower traffic keeps right and the recognition that slower is a relative term which can only apply when faster same direction traffic is present.

Actually, I just check my local regs, and there's not actually a law defining that. Seems to me it's more a convention than a hard and fast rule.

Just where do you ride that you get such gaps in traffic with any regularity anyway? The only time I ride in conditions like that is in the middle of the night. In that situation, no passing traffic usually also means no crossing traffic, so ride wherever you damn well please. Sometimes I slalom down the dashed centre line just for fun. Such conditions hardly seem to be a worthwhile basis for lane positioning whilst riding in traffic.

[genec]

Actually, I just check my local regs, and there's not actually a law defining that. Seems to me it's more a convention than a hard and fast rule.

Just where do you ride that you get such gaps in traffic with any regularity anyway? The only time I ride in conditions like that is in the middle of the night. In that situation, no passing traffic usually also means no crossing traffic, so ride wherever you damn well please. Sometimes I slalom down the dashed centre line just for fun. Such conditions hardly seem to be a worthwhile basis for lane positioning whilst riding in traffic.

Exatamondo!

[buzzman]

Let me just address this one:

Position yourself to be conspicuous and predictable.


here's something from a posting of mine in "How was your commute today?" (BTW a far less contentious forum and far more informative than A&S without all the vitriol)

I don't know what it is for some people about bike riders and how we become invisible.

I was riding into work in Boston yesterday coming through Kenmore Square on Commonwealth Ave.. As I cross the intersection a cop is directing traffic past some construction site surrounded by orange cones. Three lanes of traffic are moving towards him and another lane moving in from his left. He waves all three lanes of cars past him and the cones and lets two cars ahead of me go right through- I'm taking the full right lane at the same speed as the traffic and a safe distance behind the second car, I'm wearing a bright orange jacket, yellow helmet and I'm 6'3 and really visible. The cop looks right at me and then turns to his left and waves the merging traffic right into my path!

I couldn't believe it- I veer hard to the left, around the other side of the cones but man! I really think there's something called "bike blindness".

So I was as conspicuous and predictable as a cyclist can get, acting very much as a driver of a vehicle. Had I not been a cyclist who "assumes invisibility" despite riding predictably and conspicuously I might have suffered a serious collision.

How does your new meme serve me in the above situation?

[genec]

Getting back to the discussion though, consider that the memes that exist now are due to that issue of slower traffic having to stay to the right... whether that slower traffic has to move there (and indicate "always" moving aside... in the eyes of the motorist...) or already be there, (again being "out of the way" for motorists...) then the conditions will remain pretty much the same... motorists will continue to feel like the superior road user and cyclists will have to give way to this "superiority."

If you really want to explore new memes... consider assigning superiority to humans and human powered vehicles, vice machines. Consider that the bicycle and rider are far more efficient than the motorcar for delivering a single passenger to a location. Consider for instance a situation where driving an automobile was considered wasteful and harmful to the planet. Consider a situation where driving was the last choice that most of us would make for transportation... due to cost, either as a consequence of say a "carbon footprint" or other evaluation that really looked at the entire cost of supporting individual cars as personal transportation.

Something we really don't consider is the public support of the use of the individual motor car. We don't consider the subsidies provided in the form of tax incentives for oil companies and the land alloted just for the storage of the individual car... what is the largest room in your house, for instance, if you have a garage and house... is it your garage perhaps?

So considering those extremes, perhaps a new meme could be that human transportation has the highest priority, followed by any other form of animal energy for transportation, followed by commercial vehicles, with individual motor vehicles having lowest priority and generally limited to freeways and well located parking structures. (yeah yeah, dream on... but consider, you mentioned "new memes..." ;) )

Consider a ROW and priority similar to that given sailing boats and other boats...

When the sailboat is sailing, it has ROW over just about any other powered boat... (yes, there are rule 9 (http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/boating/colregs.html) considerations.)

Humans should have ROW over powered vessels. Consider that meme.

[genec]

Let me just address this one:




here's something from a posting of mine in "How was your commute today?" (BTW a far less contentious forum and far more informative than A&S without all the vitriol)



So I was as conspicuous and predictable as a cyclist can get, acting very much as a driver of a vehicle. Had I not been a cyclist who "assumes invisibility" despite riding predictably and conspicuously I might have suffered a serious collision.

How does your new meme serve me in the above situation?

Amazing... full "Casper mode." You were a ghost that only the believers could see... invisible to everyone else.

[Sixty Fiver]

"Let's try to identify all of the old memes we're trying to replace, and the new memes we're trying to replace them with."

What exactly is this "we" you speak of ?


"The main effort is to replace the old memes, like

1. The main rule is: stay out of the way of cars.
2. Always assume you're invisible.
3. Bike lanes keep motorists from hitting cyclists.
4. Cyclists need their own separate space.

with VC memes:

1. Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.
2. Position yourself to be conspicuous and predictable.
3. Trust, but verify.
4. Ignore bike lane stripes - that is, decide where to ride as if the bike lane stripe is not there (which may or may not result in you riding in the bike lane, or even on the stripe, depending on conditions).
5. At junctions and intersections and their approaches, use destination positioning (left if going left, right if going right, in between if going straight).
6. Use speed positioning between junctions and intersections (slower traffic keeps right)."

I live by some of those old rules like assuming I am invisible because there are drivers out there that cannot seem to see other cars, let alone me on my bike.

I love my bike lanes and my bike paths because then I only have to deal with meat pylons and other cyclists and I tend to get to where I am going much faster and it is much safer.

If cyclists had their own space in certain areas, it would work better for them and motorists... we have routes like this here and they work.

I do position myself to be as conspicuous as possible and would like to be treated like the driver of another vehicle but that isn't happening all the time.

I ride where I am going to be the safest and sometimes that means I am in the bike lane and sometimes I will be vehicular... it's not a black and white thing.

I don't have an issue riding with traffic because I can usually keep up and not impede the traffic flow but sometimes being in the middle of traffic is not the best place to be.

[Helmet Head]

Let me just address this one:




here's something from a posting of mine in "How was your commute today?" (BTW a far less contentious forum and far more informative than A&S without all the vitriol)



So I was as conspicuous and predictable as a cyclist can get, acting very much as a driver of a vehicle. Had I not been a cyclist who "assumes invisibility" despite riding predictably and conspicuously I might have suffered a serious collision.

How does your new meme serve me in the above situation?
Sounds like typical inattentional blindness to me, and you did not pay heed to the but verify part of the trust, but verify meme, the purpose of which is to anticipate this. A traffic cop is particularly prone to inattentional blindness because he's standing in one position looking at thousands of cars coming from a fixed number of positions, over and over. He naturally gets attuned to looking for cars, because, well, that's what he's dealing with. A motorcyclist would probably be just as likely to be overlooked in that context.

The new memes are about improving conspicuousness, not guaranteeing it, and, so, they're also about being prepared for being overlooked in the rare(r) cases when you are still overlooked.

[Helmet Head]

I live by some of those old rules like assuming I am invisible because there are drivers out there that cannot seem to see other cars, let alone me on my bike.

If you take assuming you are invisible to heart -- that is, you program your subconscious to truly assume you are invisible -- that's quite different from being prepared to be overlooked. Being invisible would be much like riding at night without lights or reflectors, no ambient light, and in black clothing. In other words, it would be almost impossible to get anywhere effectively unless traffic was very light. So if you really assume you are invisible, that's quite debilitating in terms of being able to travel in traffic. People call it assuming they're invisible, but they must be doing something else. I suggest being clear about what it is you're actually assuming is a good idea.


I love my bike lanes and my bike paths because then I only have to deal with meat pylons and other cyclists and I tend to get to where I am going much faster and it is much safer.

Believing that you don't have to deal with motorists just because you're in a bike lane is a dangerous delusion. It's funny how many cyclists admit to doing this, while others deny it happens.


If cyclists had their own space in certain areas, it would work better for them and motorists... we have routes like this here and they work.

My dream is to underground all motor traffic, leaving all surface streets to peds and bikes. In the mean time, I accept that total segregation is not going to happen, and that I need to be good at integrated traffic cycling.


I do position myself to be as conspicuous as possible and would like to be treated like the driver of another vehicle but that isn't happening all the time.

Actually positioning yourself as conspicuously as reasonably possible and loving bike lanes have never been characteristics of any one person I've ever met, but maybe you're an unusual exception.


I ride where I am going to be the safest and sometimes that means I am in the bike lane and sometimes I will be vehicular... it's not a black and white thing.

Your words imply that being in a bike lane is necessarily not being vehicular. Why?
I too sometimes ride in bike lanes and sometimes not. I don't know any cyclists for whom that is not true.


I don't have an issue riding with traffic because I can usually keep up and not impede the traffic flow but sometimes being in the middle of traffic is not the best place to be.
Indeed. I try to be in the alternative place when that is the case. I assume you do as well.

[Helmet Head]

Do not unreasonably obstruct other road users.
Be visible, but don't rely on always being seen.
Bike lanes are just another lane.
Cyclists prefer, but shouldn't rely on their own separate space.


Fixed them for you. Now, what did you want to change?
1 and 2 are fine. 4 is probably true for the majority of cyclists, but not for all.

3 is not true for the following reasons:


The design of "just another lane" that is nearest the curb does not discourage right turning motorists from merging into it prior to turning right. The design of a bike lane that is nearest the curb does discourage right turning motorists from merging into it prior to turning right.
"Just another lane" nearest the curb that allows through traffic is not adjacent to another lane from which right turns are allowed.
Because "just another lane" has regular motor traffic in it that sweeps debris out of it, "just another lane" does not collect debris. Because bike lanes do not have regular motor traffic traveling in them, puncture and crash-causing debris does collect in them (we recently had a bicyclist fatality in San Diego caused by debris that collected in a bike lane).
Most drivers don't subconsciously think and treat "just another lane" like a striped shoulder or gore area; most drivers do subconsciously think and treat a bike lane like a striped shoulder or gore.


A bike lane is not just another lane. So:


Do not unreasonably obstruct other roads users.
Be visible, but don't rely on always being seen.
A bike lane is NOT just another lane.
Though many if not most cyclists prefer their own separate space, they shouldn't rely on it, and should strive to learn to ride effectively, safely and comfortably in space shared with motor traffic.

[Helmet Head]

The new meme (actually this and most of these are very old tried and true memes of traffic behavior - what is new is the acceptance of their application to cyclist behavior) is that slower traffic keeps right and the recognition that slower is a relative term which can only apply when faster same direction traffic is present.

Actually, I just check my local regs, and there's not actually a law defining that. Seems to me it's more a convention than a hard and fast rule.

Just where do you ride that you get such gaps in traffic with any regularity anyway? The only time I ride in conditions like that is in the middle of the night. In that situation, no passing traffic usually also means no crossing traffic, so ride wherever you damn well please. Sometimes I slalom down the dashed centre line just for fun. Such conditions hardly seem to be a worthwhile basis for lane positioning whilst riding in traffic.
Interesting. We definitely have it in the states. Here is the California version:



Slow-Moving Vehicles

21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
...

Turning Out of Slow-Moving Vehicles

21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.


www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21654.htm (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21654.htm)
www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21656.htm (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21656.htm)

[Helmet Head]

Amazing... full "Casper mode." You were a ghost that only the believers could see... invisible to everyone else.
Being completely and totally overlooked by someone looking right at you is not that unusual, should be expected once in a while, and is definitely not amazing. This is something Robert Hurst got across to me quite clearly, and I am indebted to him for that. Didn't you read his book as well?

Allister gets it:


Do not unreasonably obstruct other roads users.
Be visible, but don't rely on always being seen.
...

[Sixty Fiver]

I don't assume that just because I am riding as conspicuously and as safely as possible and am as well lit as anyone that people in cars will see me... because quite often they still don't. This is not limited to motorists as there are some bad cyclists out there and they actually account for more accidents than do the cagers. I have come close to hitting quite a few other cyclists who were not following the rules of the road or making like ninjas.

Is that clear enough ?

I have no dangerous delusions... bike lanes run parallel to traffic where I live and I ride with my radar on high and with my head on a swivel but the bicycle paths and what we affectionately call bike highways (because that is what they were designed for) provide for long stretches of riding with very little interaction with cars. These routes are very popular and effective for many types of non vehicular traffic to get around safely and quickly. 50 - 60% of my daily commute can be done on routes that I don't share with cars and I have to applaud our city for taking cyclist's needs into consideration.

Well designed bike lanes are also a good thing and I use them when they are effective but do not feel bound to use them if they put me in a compromised situation.

I equate vehicular as riding with and in traffic... taking the lane is often really effective while at other times one can safely take up a position where you are 3 feet from the curb or 3 feet from parked cars which allows faster moving vehicles to pass.

When I approach intersections I take a position in the through lane if I am going through (if I am not already there) so that I am more visible to oncoming cars and will move into the turning lanes if I am turning.

I rode 16,000 mostly urban kilometres last year and managed to get though all that with one incident of being clipped by a passing truck while I was in the lane and matching the speed of the traffic and hit a car when it shot out of an alley and cut me off.

In both cases the drivers of these vehicles should have been able to see me since I was positioned correctly and there was nothing to obstruct their view.

If there had been a bike lane where I got clipped it is very unlikely I would have been hit... the second incident was unavoidable as even if there was a bike lane, the car would have still been moving to cross it and my path.

So again...I use what works best in a given situation.

In the winter I often take the sidewalks as there is is often no curb lane due to heavy snow, the main lanes are generally treacherous, and the sidewalks tend to be cleared long before the roads are.

[Helmet Head]

Yes, but the old meme is that cyclists should keep right whether the condition of faster same-direction traffic is present applies or not.

The new meme (actually this and most of these are very old tried and true memes of traffic behavior - what is new is the acceptance of their application to cyclist behavior) is that slower traffic keeps right and the recognition that slower is a relative term which can only apply when faster same direction traffic is present.

OK but then we may be creating the meme that cyclists should always get out of the way...
Upon futher reflection, this early comment deserve more attention, I think.

For a meme to survive and prosper in the culture, it needs to have the characteristic of being spread without significant fundamental mutation. That doesn't mean the concept needs to be spread around exactly word for word, but the underlying concept needs to be clear enough so that what is fundamental to it is transmitted from person to person without corruption. The most successful memes are self-correcting. That means if A passes it to B who passes it to C, anything that B gets wrong can be corrected by C. One example that Dawkins uses is origami, the point being that if A teaches B how to fold a piece of paper into a facsimile of a duck, B can pass on those instructions to C such that C's rendition of the origami duck could be better (closer to A's) than B's.

The relevance here is that for the new memes to be successful they should be tight concepts that are clear enough to be resistant to mutation/corruption and, ideally, are self-correcting. What you seem to be suggesting above is that "slower traffic keeps right" or "bicyclists when slower keep right" can easily mutate to "bicyclists should stay out of the way". That's true, and is of course what probably has actually happened. I'm not sure how to get around this. Allister's wording, do not unreasonably obstruct other road users, seems to reflect essentially the same concept, and is probably equally prone to this mutation/corruption into cyclists should get and stay out of the way of motorists.

Another example of a mutation in this realm is how the "cyclists must keep right" rule reflected in the law get mutated into "cyclists must ride single file" memes that are often repeated by LEOs, but for which there is no explicit basis (in most states, including CA).

There may be no solution and we will just have to accept that. I essentially have on this point, though I still strive to counter the false notion whenever possible, including opposing efforts that reinforce it, including most bike lanes. It is my belief that having a few bike lanes here and there no more reinforces the notion that bikes should not be on the road where cars are driven any more than a few truck lanes here and there reinforce the notion that trucks should not be on the road where cars are driven. But, the more widespread bike lanes -- and they are already far more prevalent than trucks lanes -- the more just their presence works to reinforce this very anti-cycling notion/meme that we are trying to replace.

[Sixty Fiver]

Perhaps this can explain it better...

When I leave my home I take a service road for several blocks until I hit an extremely busy 4 lane road at which point I join the traffic and take up a middle position in the right lane... I ride this way for 4 blocks until I hit the bike highway.

The bike highway takes me 18 blocks and while on it I only have to cross 3 intersections that have crossing lights for pedestrians/ cyclists. These are not bike lanes... these are routes that are car free except for the intersections.

Then I have another 4 blocks of riding in traffic and again, because the 4 lane is narrow and the traffic is dense, I take the lane and also ride my ass off so no-one can get too pissed about me slowing them down.

And then I am back on the bike path for another 18 blocks where again, I only have two crossings. These paths are 8 to ten feet wide and have plenty for room for cyclists and pedestrians.

Then I get to ride 10 blocks on a two lane one way road that has varying degrees of width and eventually transitions into a two lane road... since there is no decent shoulder I take the lane.

20 blocks of riding south is done on another 4 lane where I am most often in the lane since there is no shoulder and the final 6 blocks is done on a service road that is nicely paved and has little traffic... this is where I usually cool down after putting the hammer down for nearly 8 miles.

My best time on this commute is 23 minutes.. I can't make this kind of time in a car as when I did drive I did not have some 36 blocks where I was the only person on the road.

We have another central corridor that will take you across the city east / west and because a good deal of it is isolated bike path / multi use you can ride knowing that you are only sharing your road with other cyclists and pedestrians.

I am fortunate to live in a city that has been working on improving it''s transportation infrastructure for several decades and for the most part and it's a blend of bike lanes, multi use trails, and dedicated paths that makes getting around safer. Although there will be times we have to play in traffic that time is much less than it would be in other cities.

[Helmet Head]

I don't assume that just because I am riding as conspicuously and as safely as possible and am as well lit as anyone that people in cars will see me... because quite often they still don't. This is not limited to motorists as there are some bad cyclists out there and they actually account for more accidents than do the cagers. I have come close to hitting quite a few other cyclists who were not following the rules of the road or making like ninjas.

Is that clear enough ?

Yes, but that's quite different from assuming you are invisible. It's much closer to what Allister wrote: Be visible, but don't rely on always being seen.

I would like to suggest that a motorist or cyclist who looks right at you and doesn't "see" you is not necessarily a bad driver or cyclist, as your words seem to imply. Many if not most or even all humans are prone to inattentional blindness at least once in a while.


I have no dangerous delusions... bike lanes run parallel to traffic where I live and I ride with my radar on high and with my head on a swivel but the bicycle paths and what we affectionately call bike highways (because that is what they were designed for) provide for long stretches of riding with very little interaction with cars. These routes are very popular and effective for many types of non vehicular traffic to get around safely and quickly. 50 - 60% of my daily commute can be done on routes that I don't share with cars and I have to applaud our city for taking cyclist's needs into consideration.

Yes, truly segregated paths and "bike highways" can be a good thing. But the fact is that we're limited on where they can be built in developed urban and suburban areas. We have a pretty cool bike highway in San Diego that Gene likes to write about as if it should and could be clone in other areas, but what he neglects to mention is that 10 years ago the location of that bike highway (and adjacent freeway) was rolling rural hills. So yeah, in a situation like that there was room to build a bike highway (not to mention a 6 lane freeway with a broad median), but in most existing urban/suburban areas paths and bike highways are not a practical option.


Well designed bike lanes are also a good thing and I use them when they are effective but do not feel bound to use them if they put me in a compromised situation.

What is good about a "well designed" bike lane that would not be true on that same road if everything stayed the same except the bike lane stripe were removed?


I equate vehicular as riding with and in traffic... taking the lane is often really effective while at other times one can safely take up a position where you are 3 feet from the curb or 3 feet from parked cars which allows faster moving vehicles to pass.

When I approach intersections I take a position in the through lane if I am going through (if I am not already there) so that I am more visible to oncoming cars and will move into the turning lanes if I am turning.

Okay, but that's just one aspect of vehicular cycling. Vehicular cycling includes riding integrated with other traffic, but is not limited to that.


I rode 16,000 mostly urban kilometres last year and managed to get though all that with one incident of being clipped by a passing truck while I was in the lane and matching the speed of the traffic and hit a car when it shot out of an alley and cut me off.

It's revealing that you write about a clipping incident without mentioning whether the lane was wide enough to be safely shared side by side by bike and vehicle, both fully within the lane, nor where in the lane you were positioned laterally. I mean, merely not providing these particular very relevant details indicates a probable lack of appreciation for the role these particular factors play in reducing the likelihood of being clipped like this.

As far as the car that shot out of the alley and cut you off, which you hit, was it a Mercedes being backed out of a Denver alley by a woman by any chance (that's an inside joke for anyone who has read Robert Hurst's book)? But seriously, Hurst describes essentially the same thing, but accepts some responsibility for it. Again, it's revealing that you don't talk about where you were positioned laterally. I assume there was no other same direction traffic at the time (or they would have presumably crashed into the same car).


In both cases the drivers of these vehicles should have been able to see me since I was positioned correctly and there was nothing to obstruct their view.

Again, being totally and completely overlooked from time to time should not be surprising, including by overtaking same-direction traffic if you are riding in a bike lane or even in a lane sharing position near the outside edge of the lane.

Also, note that being visible in terms of sight lines is not the same as being conspicuous in terms of being in space where drivers pay most of their attention.

Not to gloat, but I have not had a crash in over 30 years, and I would be looking at a serious revamp of my behavior if I had two close calls in one year, much less two actual crashes. Perhaps that's why you've been subconsciously motivated to come to A&S?


If there had been a bike lane where I got clipped it is very unlikely I would have been hit... the second incident was unavoidable as even if there was a bike lane, the car would have still been moving to cross it and my path.

I wasn't there, but I would suggest that there are probably much more significant factors than the presence or absence of a bike lane stripe that determines whether you are clipped.

[Helmet Head]

Perhaps this can explain it better...

When I leave my home I take a service road for several blocks until I hit an extremely busy 4 lane road at which point I join the traffic and take up a middle position in the right lane... I ride this way for 4 blocks until I hit the bike highway.

The bike highway takes me 18 blocks and while on it I only have to cross 3 intersections that have crossing lights for pedestrians/ cyclists. These are not bike lanes... these are routes that are car free except for the intersections.

Then I have another 4 blocks of riding in traffic and again, because the 4 lane is narrow and the traffic is dense, I take the lane and also ride my ass off so no-one can get too pissed about me slowing them down.

And then I am back on the bike path for another 18 blocks where again, I only have two crossings. These paths are 8 to ten feet wide and have plenty for room for cyclists and pedestrians.

Then I get to ride 10 blocks on a two lane one way road that has varying degrees of width and eventually transitions into a two lane road... since there is no decent shoulder I take the lane.

20 blocks of riding south is done on another 4 lane where I am most often in the lane since there is no shoulder and the final 6 blocks is done on a service road that is nicely paved and has little traffic... this is where I usually cool down after putting the hammer down for nearly 8 miles.

My best time on this commute is 23 minutes.. I can't make this kind of time in a car as when I did drive I did not have some 36 blocks where I was the only person on the road.

We have another central corridor that will take you across the city east / west and because a good deal of it is isolated bike path / multi use you can ride knowing that you are only sharing your road with other cyclists and pedestrians.

I am fortunate to live in a city that has been working on improving it''s transportation infrastructure for several decades and for the most part and it's a blend of bike lanes, multi use trails, and dedicated paths that makes getting around safer. Although there will be times we have to play in traffic that time is much less than it would be in other cities.
Seriously, that sounds great. I would probably use the paths in your city too. I'm involved in local cycling advocacy in San Diego and I can tell you there is just not much room (much less money) for dedicated paths. Also, in most of San Diego the surface streets provide ample and efficient cycling routes.

The biggest impediment to cycling here is arguably the terrain: the relatively high "mesas" and many canyons create relatively physically challenging cycling routes between most destinations, which is significantly different from most cycling "meccas" like relatively flat Amsterdam and Davis. Even San Francisco with its famous steeps hills has many relatively flat routes between many destinations. Flat routes in San Diego are mostly limited to relatively small areas.

[genec]

Yes, truly segregated paths and "bike highways" can be a good thing. But the fact is that we're limited on where they can be built in developed urban and suburban areas. We have a pretty cool bike highway in San Diego that Gene likes to write about as if it should and could be clone in other areas, but what he neglects to mention is that 10 years ago the location of that bike highway (and adjacent freeway) was rolling rural hills. So yeah, in a situation like that there was room to build a bike highway (not to mention a 6 lane freeway with a broad median), but in most existing urban/suburban areas paths and bike highways are not a practical option.




The reality is that there is more room then you imagine... The existing freeways generally have wider land areas dedicated as the freeway right of way. There may actually be enough room to parallel existing freeways with bike freeways. The freeways themselves already lead to the areas of town cyclists want to go to, as those areas were developed based on freeway access. Of course this sort of idea would take dedication to that task by the government to pay for this.

Consider that nearly all freeways could have one more lane added either way... instead of adding those two lanes, one 10 foot lane would serve cyclists as a two way path... of course additional ramps and bridges would also have to be built to serve this division of traffic, but the US is good at ramps and bridges (we have plenty of freeway to prove it). All it takes is elevating the cyclist to the same or higher priority in the minds of the public and transportation agencies. I already provided a possible meme for that (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6412607&postcount=11).

[buzzman]

Sounds like typical inattentional blindness to me, and you did not pay heed to the but verify part of the trust, but verify meme, the purpose of which is to anticipate this. A traffic cop is particularly prone to inattentional blindness because he's standing in one position looking at thousands of cars coming from a fixed number of positions, over and over. He naturally gets attuned to looking for cars, because, well, that's what he's dealing with. A motorcyclist would probably be just as likely to be overlooked in that context.

The new memes are about improving conspicuousness, not guaranteeing it, and, so, they're also about being prepared for being overlooked in the rare(r) cases when you are still overlooked.

I did anticipate his "inattentional blindness" otherwise I'd have been involved in a collision. I made an evasive move to my left (his right) that I was prepared to do.

Despite the fact that he literally made eye contact with me and he saw me he basically ignored my existence. I have had this happen so many times that it is ingrained in me to expect to be ignored or "to assume that I am invisible". To "trust and verify" requires way too much guess work and leaves way too much room for interpretation and error. Not that it doesn't work in some situations- like a 4 way stop sign but for quick decision making I'll stick with "assume invisibility" and "expect the unexpected".

And by the way, "memes" evolve they are not imposed. A true meme cannot be replaced by conscious effort. Insisting that others accept these phrases turns them into dogma.

[Bekologist]

Here's MY new safety 'memes' for bike forums

Anyone who's claimed to have ridden a bike for thirty years and and hasn't crashed yet is

1)actually not ridden much in the last 30 years,
2) is a paranoid safety nanny
3) lending itself to pontificating armchair athlete syndrome, and that
4)armchair advice about dangerous activities should be summarily discarded.

[The Human Car]

A couple of memes I would like to introduce:


Look for opportunities to be considerate to your fellow road user.
As far as road position for safety bicycles have more in common with motorcycles then pedestrians.


Just some thoughts bouncing around in the back of my head.

[The Human Car]

The reality is that there is more room then you imagine... The existing freeways generally have wider land areas dedicated as the freeway right of way. There may actually be enough room to parallel existing freeways with bike freeways. The freeways themselves already lead to the areas of town cyclists want to go to, as those areas were developed based on freeway access. Of course this sort of idea would take dedication to that task by the government to pay for this.

Consider that nearly all freeways could have one more lane added either way... instead of adding those two lanes, one 10 foot lane would serve cyclists as a two way path... of course additional ramps and bridges would also have to be built to serve this division of traffic, but the US is good at ramps and bridges (we have plenty of freeway to prove it). All it takes is elevating the cyclist to the same or higher priority in the minds of the public and transportation agencies. I already provided a possible meme for that (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6412607&postcount=11).
+1

[Sixty Fiver]

HH - I have to conclude that trying to have any conversation with you is a nearly complete waste of electrons... you seem to have a reading comprehension problem combined with an elitist attitude that doesn't work well for engaging in any kind of productive two way dialogue.

Your behaviour borders on trolling and I would look forward to you changing your approach as it would work better for everyone... perhaps you are a very bright individual and as such you should not assume that the people you are talking to are any less intelligent... as that is how you come across.

I see that you can appreciate that I live in a pretty good city and seem to understand where I am coming from.... thanks.

But... how much clearer do I have to be for you to understand things ?

If I am riding in the lane (just right of centre) and a truck clips me... do I have to tell you it was a mirror that hit me and that I was riding my fixed gear at 40 plus kmh to stay with the traffic, and that it was only my mad bike handling skllls that saved my ass from being seriously injured?

I'd like to see other folks pull off a nose wheelie on a fixed gear at 40 plus kmh after being hit and pushed forward and sideways into a giant pothole... :)

If I had been travelling at a lower speed the relative speed between myself and the truck would have been such that the little clip/push would have been a fairly violent hit... I understand physics.

And again, if a car cuts you off it is because they didn't see you... period. If you have 10 feet to stop and needed 12... then you are going to hit the car. Because I was paying attention and saw the car I had already applied my brakes in anticipation of the driver not seeing me and if I had not I would have hit the car full on at speeds in excess of 30 kmh.

I don't think I can trust anyone who says they haven't had an accident in thirty years and have to say you're probably way overdue and when it does happen, I hope you aren't seriously injured, and then you can come and tell us all about it so we can second guess every aspect of the incident.

And that little yellow stripe and the signs that say "Bike Lane" seem to work pretty well here to let drivers know that they aren't supposed to drive in them or park in them and that this lane is for bicycles... and I think they appreciate the fact they don't have to wait for slower cyclists when they are running ten minutes late.

Remove the signs and the lines and you just have a wider road with an abundant curb area where people will drive (and this tears up the road) and makes enforcement impossible... the police hand out a lot of lane violations here.

The problem with bike lanes is that many cyclists are not well educated enough to know they do not need to stay in a bike lane if it poses a hazard as it does at intersections... you need to move left or right to position yourself in the though lane if that is where you are going. This allows cars that are coming up behind you to make safe turns as long as there are no cyclists present.

Anyways...you really come off as a non cyclist as the way you express yourself is much like those who would like to assign blame to cyclists every time there is an accident.

Really...you just don't seem to be one of us.

[Bekologist]

i take issue with the purported notion of "c: trust but verify."

a vacuous concept when applied to cycling. using a cold war propaganda slogan is even more innefective describing bicycling in traffic. worthless.

you place a lot of BLIND trust in the actions of others on the roads while bicycling. I cannot imagine looking for or ascertaining 'verification' from every motorist they are not going to suddenly violate your ROW DESPITE ones' best road positioning. Cycling past EVERY car with its' nose pointed at you, wether at a parking lot intersection, street, or oncoming, requires and dictates no chance of 'verification' of anything.

unless your method is to stop and wait, and hold your hand up in a stop signal while you dismount and walk your bike as a pedestrian past them, helemt head.


trust but verify? drop that worthless sloganeering.

[Fear&Trembling]

And by the way, "memes" evolve they are not imposed. A true meme cannot be replaced by conscious effort. Insisting that others accept these phrases turns them into dogma.

Beware Buzzman, you will be invoking mutating memeplexes next and HH will be in sub-Dawkinsian mode before you have time to say: "The Selfish Gene".

[Helmet Head]

The reality is that there is more room then you imagine... The existing freeways generally have wider land areas dedicated as the freeway right of way. There may actually be enough room to parallel existing freeways with bike freeways. The freeways themselves already lead to the areas of town cyclists want to go to, as those areas were developed based on freeway access. Of course this sort of idea would take dedication to that task by the government to pay for this.

Consider that nearly all freeways could have one more lane added either way... instead of adding those two lanes, one 10 foot lane would serve cyclists as a two way path... of course additional ramps and bridges would also have to be built to serve this division of traffic, but the US is good at ramps and bridges (we have plenty of freeway to prove it). All it takes is elevating the cyclist to the same or higher priority in the minds of the public and transportation agencies. I already provided a possible meme for that (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6412607&postcount=11).
It is my understanding that the SD County Coalition was formed in the 1980s to advocate for a "bike highway" along 52 between 805 and 5, but that effort was quashed by environmentalists.

It's not nearly as easy as you seem to think, for whom just showing up to a monthly meeting appears to be too hard. :rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

I did anticipate his "inattentional blindness" otherwise I'd have been involved in a collision. I made an evasive move to my left (his right) that I was prepared to do.

Despite the fact that he literally made eye contact with me and he saw me he basically ignored my existence. I have had this happen so many times that it is ingrained in me to expect to be ignored or "to assume that I am invisible". To "trust and verify" requires way too much guess work and leaves way too much room for interpretation and error. Not that it doesn't work in some situations- like a 4 way stop sign but for quick decision making I'll stick with "assume invisibility" and "expect the unexpected".
Well, "trust, but verify" essentially means "don't depend on the assumption that you've been noticed until you have good reason to do so", so maybe we're saying the same thing. But if it comes down to making an evasive maneuver to avoid a crash I usually take that as an indicator that I did not plan/prepare as well as I could have.



And by the way, "memes" evolve they are not imposed. A true meme cannot be replaced by conscious effort. Insisting that others accept these phrases turns them into dogma.
Since biological evolution can be affected by artificial selection (dog breeds, other domesticated animals), I don't see why meme evolution can't be. In fact, the very concept of a meme was introduced by Dawkins specifically to see if it itself would turn into a meme. Call it "planting a meme seed" if you will. I'm just saying maybe we could do something similar in the context of traffic cycling.

[Ed Holland]

Just in case anyone missed it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

Ed

[Ed Holland]

Besides, these are only memes if they spread through culture, and this is a very unlikely springboard indeed ;)

Perhaps we should be careful with the whole meme theme anyway, as if the analogy with genetics is continued, one might recognise that genes contain a fantastic quantity of redundant information...

[genec]

It is my understanding that the SD County Coalition was formed in the 1980s to advocate for a "bike highway" along 52 between 805 and 5, but that effort was quashed by environmentalists.


But what if such a bike hiway was used to support cycling over the potential construction of more freeway lanes...

If bikes were given priority due to their low carbon footprint, then perhaps such a thing could happen.


It's not nearly as easy as you seem to think, for whom just showing up to a monthly meeting appears to be too hard. :rolleyes:

Of course it is not an easy thing... but consider how much effort went into 56 and the widening of the 5/805 junction... as autos are considered "superior..." Turn that same mindset onto cycling and we would have the same or better project priority over automobiles. But as long as bikes are thought of as "second class" or as "toys," I would not expect any better treatment.

As far as the meetings... The ones I did attend were rather boring... sorry... parliamentary procedure is not my idea of fun... but I know it has to be done. Now that they have moved the office to downtown, it is considerably more difficult for me to get there on time. C'est la vive.

[Helmet Head]

HH - I have to conclude that trying to have any conversation with you is a nearly complete waste of electrons... you seem to have a reading comprehension problem combined with an elitist attitude that doesn't work well for engaging in any kind of productive two way dialogue.

Your behaviour borders on trolling and I would look forward to you changing your approach as it would work better for everyone... perhaps you are a very bright individual and as such you should not assume that the people you are talking to are any less intelligent... as that is how you come across.

Those are serious accusations. I would appreciate some specific examples of what you're talking about, where you believe I have not comprehended what you feel you clearly stated, for example.


I see that you can appreciate that I live in a pretty good city and seem to understand where I am coming from.... thanks.

But... how much clearer do I have to be for you to understand things ?

I don't know. What do you think I did not understand?


If I am riding in the lane (just right of centre) and a truck clips me... do I have to tell you it was a mirror that hit me and that I was riding my fixed gear at 40 plus kmh to stay with the traffic, and that it was only my mad bike handling skllls that saved my ass from being seriously injured?

Yes. If you want me to know it was a mirror that hit you and that you were riding your fixed gear at 40+ kph, etc., then yes, you have to tell me those things. I'm good, but I'm not a mind reader. Until this point there was no mention of any of this. And you still have not made clear whether the truck was encroaching in the adjacent lane as it was overtaking you, how wide the lane was, etc.


I'd like to see other folks pull off a nose wheelie on a fixed gear at 40 plus kmh after being hit and pushed forward and sideways into a giant pothole... :)

If I had been travelling at a lower speed the relative speed between myself and the truck would have been such that the little clip/push would have been a fairly violent hit... I understand physics.

Okay. Not sure what your point is, but okay.

Maybe it's me, but I consider the distance with which overtakers pass me to be my responsibility. That's one of the reasons I use a mirror... I can see how much room I'm getting long before they've reached me. I have learned that many drivers are not sure how to pass cyclists and appreciate some help in that area, so I provide it, and the results are all positive.


And again, if a car cuts you off it is because they didn't see you... period. If you have 10 feet to stop and needed 12... then you are going to hit the car. Because I was paying attention and saw the car I had already applied my brakes in anticipation of the driver not seeing me and if I had not I would have hit the car full on at speeds in excess of 30 kmh.

Still no mention of the width of the lane or where you were riding in it, much less speculation on how much more time/space you would have had had you been further left as you approached that blind alley.

Again, the fact that you don't automatically provide this information indicates that you apparently do not fully appreciate the role these factors play in preventing and contributing to such crashes.

I don't think I'm not comprehending - you're actually not providing this information. Is it that far-fetched for me to surmise that this is because you don't think it's very relevant?


I don't think I can trust anyone who says they haven't had an accident in thirty years and have to say you're probably way overdue and when it does happen, I hope you aren't seriously injured, and then you can come and tell us all about it so we can second guess every aspect of the incident.

I'm not the only one with that good of a safety record. There is a current thread on this topic up in the main A&S forum.

All I can tell you is that since I was a kid I was never the type that had to actually burn my fingers on the hot stove to learn not to touch it. Someone can tell me about a potential hazard, or I can read about it, or I can hypothesize the potential, and that seems to be just as good as actually experiencing the hazard in order for me to learn to avoid it. Maybe it's a coincidence, but I've also not been in a car crash (in which I was driving) since my mid 20s (I'm now 47).

I see other drivers as being unpredictable in a certain sense - I don't know for sure what they're going to do - but very predictable in a more important sense - the possibilities of what they're going to do in the next few seconds are extremely limited. That is, all they can do is turn the steering wheel one way or the other, or hit the gas or brake. That's it. For the most part, what a driver is going to do in the next few seconds is highly predictable based on what he did in the last few seconds.


And that little yellow stripe and the signs that say "Bike Lane" seem to work pretty well here to let drivers know that they aren't supposed to drive in them or park in them and that this lane is for bicycles... and I think they appreciate the fact they don't have to wait for slower cyclists when they are running ten minutes late.

Removing the stripe does not create any delay - you still have the same space to stay out of their way and let them pass.

The choice is not between a narrow 12' traffic lane or a 12' traffic lane + a 4' bike lane.
The choice IS between a wide 16' traffic lane or a 12' traffic lane + a 4' bike lane. I much prefer the former for many, many reasons, not the least of which is that I find that bike lane stripes reduce cyclist conspicuousness. The driver's primary zone of attention is naturally his lane up in front of him, and that zone ends at whatever he perceives to be the edge of his lane. With the bike lane stripe there, the cyclist is outside of the driver's lane and his primary zone of attention. Without the stripe, the lane and zone extend to the curb or road edge, and the cyclist is riding within the driver's lane and thus us primary zone of attention. This makes the driver much more likely to take notice of the cyclist. That's just one reason I prefer WOLs (wide outside lanes) to bike lanes.


Remove the signs and the lines and you just have a wider road with an abundant curb area where people will drive (and this tears up the road) and makes enforcement impossible... the police hand out a lot of lane violations here.

Yes, without a bike lane stripe while cyclists are not present motorists are much more likely to drive in the "abundant curb area" and thus sweep it clean of crash and puncture causing debris. That's another reason I prefer WOLs to bike lanes: constant/free 24/7 margin sweeping from motor traffic. Not sure what you mean by lane violations in this context. Perhaps this is an example of the reading comprehension problem you're taking about.


The problem with bike lanes is that many cyclists are not well educated enough to know they do not need to stay in a bike lane if it poses a hazard as it does at intersections... you need to move left or right to position yourself in the though lane if that is where you are going. This allows cars that are coming up behind you to make safe turns as long as there are no cyclists present.

Yes, that's one of the problems with bike lanes. But I really can't blame the cyclists. Why have a bike lane going up to an intersection if bikes are not supposed to be in it?


Anyways...you really come off as a non cyclist as the way you express yourself is much like those who would like to assign blame to cyclists every time there is an accident.

Really...you just don't seem to be one of us.
I feel so misunderstood. :(

I don't like to assign blame to cyclists every time there is an accident.
I like to point out that we are not sitting ducks out there, that we do have a lot of control over our destiny, and that every crash and close call -- no matter who is primarily at fault -- is an opportunity for us to learn what the cyclist could have done to avoid it.

For example, when a cyclist is hit by a red light runner I don't point out that he should have looked for red light runners prior to entering the intersection because I like to blame the cyclist. I point it out to remind all of us, including myself, to get into the habit of looking for red light runners before entering intersections, even on green, so that we avoid a similar fate. It's not about assigning blame. It's about saving cyclist lives.

Robert Hurst has an excellent chapter on this attitude in his book, The Art of Urban Cycling, but he's a much better writer than I so he is able to get this same point across and still seem like one of us. Or, I probably get this reputation because I use accounts of crashes as opportunities to raise this issue.

If you still think I did not understand something you wrote, please let me know what it is.

[Helmet Head]

Just in case anyone missed it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

Ed
I cited this same article in the OP. Did you read it?

[Allister]

...I would suggest that there are probably much more significant factors than the presence or absence of a bike lane stripe that determines whether you are clipped.

That's what I've been trying to tell you all along, and yet you still seem to think they're dangerous. :rolleyes:

[Allister]

Allister's wording, do not unreasonably obstruct other road users, seems to reflect essentially the same concept, and is probably equally prone to this mutation/corruption into cyclists should get and stay out of the way of motorists.

No, Serge, not my wording, it's the wording used in the road rules, and anyone that does reinterpret it that way is a moron and shouldn't be driving. The rules are not designed so that any moron can follow them, you have to have training and qualify first.

[Allister]

Those are serious accusations. I would appreciate some specific examples of what you're talking about, where you believe I have not comprehended what you feel you clearly stated...

...I don't know. What do you think I did not understand?

...I'm good, but I'm not a mind reader....

...Okay. Not sure what your point is, but okay...

...If you still think I did not understand something you wrote, please let me know what it is.

How many more times are you going to have this conversation before you figure out the problem is not other people?

It was really nice for that couple of weeks you weren't here. I was hoping that you might've found a clue during that time, but apparently you didn't even look.

[Helmet Head]

That's what I've been trying to tell you all along, and yet you still seem to think they're dangerous. :rolleyes:
Please stick to expressing your opinion, Allister, instead of your opinion about my opinion, which you keep getting totally wrong.

[buzzman]

Well, "trust, but verify" essentially means "don't depend on the assumption that you've been noticed until you have good reason to do so", so maybe we're saying the same thing. But if it comes down to making an evasive maneuver to avoid a crash I usually take that as an indicator that I did not plan/prepare as well as I could have.

we would be saying the same thing if you said "assume invisibility",which essentially means don't depend on the assumption that you've been noticed even when you think you have good reason to do so.

oh, wise one please tell me how I did not plan/prepare as well as I could have in the incident I cited?

Perhaps Bek is correct should I have stopped my bike in the middle of the intersection, made eye contact with the traffic cop, waved at him and waited until he gave me the go ahead? Maybe that's what I should do every time a car pulls up to an intersecting street as I ride along with the right of way. I wouldn't want to proceed unless I could "trust and verify."

This reminds me of the "duck and cover" drills of the late 50's. We learned the phrase and hid under our desks only to find out years later we'd have been turned into dust whether we were under our desks or standing on top of them.



Since biological evolution can be affected by artificial selection (dog breeds, other domesticated animals), I don't see why meme evolution can't be. In fact, the very concept of a meme was introduced by Dawkins specifically to see if it itself would turn into a meme. Call it "planting a meme seed" if you will. I'm just saying maybe we could do something similar in the context of traffic cycling.

I don't see much hope for your "seeds" taking root by the responses in this thread.

[Allister]

Please stick to expressing your opinion, Allister, instead of your opinion about my opinion, which you keep getting totally wrong.

Then stop all the doublespeak, and make yourself clear.

So, you don't think bikelanes are dangerous then?

[Allister]

HH - I have to conclude that trying to have any conversation with you is a nearly complete waste of electrons... you seem to have a reading comprehension problem combined with an elitist attitude that doesn't work well for engaging in any kind of productive two way dialogue.

Your behaviour borders on trolling and I would look forward to you changing your approach as it would work better for everyone... perhaps you are a very bright individual and as such you should not assume that the people you are talking to are any less intelligent... as that is how you come across.

Predictable that'd he'd feign innocence at this. :rolleyes:

To be honest you shouldn't be too surprised, you can pretty much guess all that just from reading, and attempting to parse, his sig-line. Good luck with that by the way; I still haven't got it, but I can't see the hidden image in those magic eye pictures, either.

[Helmet Head]

Then stop all the doublespeak, and make yourself clear.

So, you don't think bikelanes are dangerous then?
Sorry, Allister, you're not going to pin me down on such an ambiguous assertion absent any kind of clarifying context at all.

It's like asking if salt or water are dangerous. Without context, these are meaningless and pointless questions, and you know it.

In the context being discussed, the relative role of the various factors that determine whether someone is clipped or not, no, I don't think bike lane stripes are dangerous.

Clear enough?

[Helmet Head]

Since Allister quoted this and I didn't directly address it earlier...

perhaps you are a very bright individual and as such you should not assume that the people you are talking to are any less intelligent... as that is how you come across.

I'm not aware of making any assumptions about the relative intelligence of others, and try to assume and treat everyone the same way I like to be treated: as if I'm reasonably intelligent. I have been tested in the past, and have certainly failed to always accomplish this, but I feel I've been pretty good lately.

If you or anyone else would like to be treated differently, or feel I'm not achieving this, please let me know.

[buzzman]

... no, I don't think bike lane stripes are dangerous.

Clear enough?

hey cool. we agree!:D

now as annoying as I find it to have someone try to tell me how to ride I don't really find it all that dangerous.

you know what I think is really dangerous though- telling other people what and how to think. Now to me that's one of the most dangerous things a human being can do.

trying to insert "memes" into the culture of bicycling and insisting that everyone adopt them and that existing memes are wrong and need to be replaced there's something dangerous about that. a kind of uber control freak.

it's kind of creepy HH.

[Allister]

Sorry, Allister, you're not going to pin me down on such an ambiguous assertion absent any kind of clarifying context at all.


:rolleyes: It's pretty clear you don't like to pinned down on anything you say.

Do you or do you not think that bikelanes can be well designed, useful and safe for vehicular cyclists?

[John Forester]

:rolleyes: It's pretty clear you don't like to pinned down on anything you say.

Do you or do you not think that bikelanes can be well designed, useful and safe for vehicular cyclists?

I am putting in my oar here, too. It is impossible that bike lanes can be well designed, because the bike-lane stripe will always mislead some cyclists and some motorists. Such bike lanes can be useful and safe for vehicular cyclists who are prepared to ignore the bike-lane stripe, though whether or not they safer than similar roads without the stripe has never been demonstrated. However, this is not the issue. It is largely irrelevant whether or not well-trained and self-confident vehicular cyclists can operate in reasonable safety, because they can do so regardless of the irrationality of the placement of the bike-lane stripe. What is extremely relevant is the effect on all the other road users who are not well-trained and confident vehicular cyclists. The whole bike-lane hypothesis contradicts proper road behavior and misleads traffic policy, as well as confusing those who are not well-informed of its defects. Any traffic program that is based on such defects is bad for the traveling public, be they motorist or cyclist.