Advocacy & Safety - Another cyclist instruction video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU4nKKq02BU

A continuation of the Lane Control Video series.

By the way, I recall that the video creators are visitors to the A&S forum. I think that you guys/gals are doing a real service for cyclists.

Hey, what's that dude doing on the cruiser riding VC? Doesn't he know that it's only for lycra-wearing road-bike-riding super cyclists? :)

Hey, what's that dude doing on the cruiser riding VC? Doesn't he know that it's only for lycra-wearing road-bike-riding super cyclists? :)

Not a cruiser... there were narrow tires on that bike.

Oh one more comment... I wish more streets were like those shown in the video... I noticed in particular that even the right hand motorists were not driving fast enough to pass the cyclist in the left lane in the night shot.

Oh one more comment... I wish more streets were like those shown in the video... I noticed in particular that even the right hand motorists were not driving fast enough to pass the cyclist in the left lane in the night shot.

Personally, I think that more videos from people with different strategies explaining their choices in the appropriate environments would be great. Of course, this takes a lot of work. One reason why people who go through the effort -- Al does this too -- are making a real contribution, IMO.

Riding out in the left lane, and at night even, is perhaps one of the best ways to get killed. You can try to control the lane all you want,but that only works of drivers cooperate, and if they don't then the cyclist is always the loser, no matter how right he or she is.
I ride through the intersection, stop, and then wait for the green light before continuing across the intersection down the other road.
Changing lanes is, in my opinion, one of the most dangerous things you can do.

Riding out in the left lane, and at night even, is perhaps one of the best ways to get killed.

That's odd, since I've never, ever heard of a cyclist being killed in that way. :rolleyes:

That's odd, since I've never, ever heard of a cyclist being killed in that way. :rolleyes:

One on hand, not many cyclists do it. On the other hand, I do it often and I have to imagine that other cyclists do as well (I didn't invent the cyclist lane change :)). I, too, have never heard of a cyclist getting killed making a lane change.

Not a cruiser... there were narrow tires on that bike.

Well, I'm glad you bit Gene. That comment was for you :)

Well, I'm glad you bit Gene. That comment was for you :)

Hook line and sinker... but hey, I have a fat tire cruiser... and when you "take a lane" with that bike... oh man... it can sure get "noisy." :D

Very nice, in showing the public how to ride.

Video is only getting better. It is also the drivers worse enemy.

I was thinking about getting a video cam... I believe the one noisebeam uses is the ATC 1000... I had no idea they were this big.

http://www2.oregonscientific.com/assets/product/photos/HC18_rg.jpg

I wonder how much having a big thing like that attached to your helmet influences the motorists around you.

That's odd, since I've never, ever heard of a cyclist being killed in that way. :rolleyes:

Well, let me modify that to say that being out in that lane would make me very uncomfortable. Sheesh, everybody takes things so literally.

I was thinking about getting a video cam... I believe the one noisebeam uses is the ATC 1000... I had no idea they were this big.

I wonder how much having a big thing like that attached to your helmet influences the motorists around you.

I'm pretty sure noisebeam has his attached to his handlebars. Doesn't look much different from a headlight there. Strapped to your head, I imagine motorists might think you were a bit odd if they noticed but otherwise, I can't imagine what would inspire them to act differently around you.

Riding out in the left lane, and at night even, is perhaps one of the best ways to get killed. You can try to control the lane all you want,but that only works of drivers cooperate, and if they don't then the cyclist is always the loser, no matter how right he or she is.

Well, let me modify that to say that being out in that lane would make me very uncomfortable. Sheesh, everybody takes things so literally.

Changing lanes is, in my opinion, one of the most dangerous things you can do.

Hey CW, I hope you don't mind me conflating your two posts.

If I may ask, what is it you think a motorist may do that makes such a maneuver so dangerous?

I am going to guess (But please correct me if I am wrong!) that you fear the cyclist would be run down from behind. That fear is kind of irrational, as you would see with just a little consideration.

Small animals like squirrels, cats and dogs have little chance of harming a motorist, yet they will perform extraordinary emergency evasion maneuvers to avoid them. I have seen folks swerve to avoid balloons blowing across their path on the freeway! My point is that motorists have been taught from their very first lesson to avoid striking things with their vehicle. This has been reinforced by repetitious behavior every time they even move a motor vehicle. It is deeply ingrained in every driver. The least likely place you would get hit by a motorist is centered in the lane in front of him.

The exceptions are intoxicated drivers, impaired drivers (Medical) or someone who is psychotic. The likelihood of meeting someone in the first category is rare, and the likelihood declines in each of the other categories. I would point out however, your method of turning left (The two-step) doesn't offer any added protection from those groups.

One of the defining characteristics of bicycles is their slow speed compared with motor vehicles. There is no time lag between spotting a cyclist and understanding that he is a slow vehicle. With no expectation of motorist style swiftness, a cyclist in the lane ahead is immediately perceived as an object the motorist must deal with. He must either slow down, or drive around him, most likely both. Only a homicidal maniac would entertain the thought of running you over. (Hint: They are not nearly as common as Hollywood makes them out to be.)

It is by far a safer position controlling a lane than sharing one, turning left or not.

Hmmm...I will have to think about this more. Interesting points, but I always work on the assumption that all drivers are drunk, morons, or both so I am pleasantly surprised when I find out they're not.

another nice video that addresses a portion of the cycling population.

I think the video is very useful to a substantial number of riders.

I would be hard pressed to any fault in their riding.

Where I might take issue with the video is not in the safety aspect but in the advocacy aspect of the video.
If the implication, which is sometimes made in these forums, is that the maneuvers demonstrated in the video will allow any cyclist, any time to ride any where and that such techniques render moot any need for any special facilities for cyclists then I would take issue with it.

Let me address the speed issue once again. Despite the claim in the comments section that the cyclists are going no more than 15-16 mph let me suggest that viewers cue the video to 3:29 and watch it for 10 seconds counting the pedal strokes- you'll see that it totals roughly 16-17 revolutions of the pedals in that time. 6x16= 96 rpm. Given the apparently flat, smooth roads and ideal weather conditions my guess is that the cyclist would be in at least an 80" gear. Meaning an overall speed over 21 mph. Which, in my opinion, is an appropriate speed to maintain when making a maneuver like the one being demonstrated in that section of the video.

So, my issue is not with the manner in which the cyclists are riding but with the implication that:

#1- speed of the cyclist is a negligible factor.

#2- that all cyclists are capable and more importantly want to make such maneuvers.

Cone Wrench will more than likely suffer the slings and arrows of having expressed his feeling "that being out in that lane would make me very uncomfortable."

But his feeling is his feeling and I know many cyclists who feel the same way. I ride to work occasionally with my wife, who bikes regularly to work as well but almost exclusively on a bike path at anywhere from about 9 to 11 mph average. I once said to her, "shall I show you how I ride when I'm not with you?" I moved into the center of the right lane moved down the road at the speed of traffic, crossed into the left lane, signaled left and made the next turn that took me to the bike lane and waited for her.
She made her way slowly in the right lane, as far right as practicable, got to the intersection. Pressed the cross walk signal and walked her bike across.

She looked bemused and remarked, "you're nuts!" When I asked if she'd like to learn to ride that way she said, "no way."- and she means it. If not for the bike path she would never ride a bike to work, she is simply not interested. I don't think advocacy is about insisting that folks like cone wrench and my wife and many others ride the way I ride.

I don't think advocacy is about insisting that folks like cone wrench and my wife and many others ride the way I ride.

Absolutely agree.

As a general principle, when things get tight, the closer you can match the ambient traffic speed, the safer you are. I learned that from my driving instructor, and it holds true for biking too, although it's often a lot harder to achieve.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone that wants to ride a bike to ride at the sorts of speeds and on the sorts of busy roads that I do, any more than I think it's reasonable to ride a MUP at 40km/h. I do think, if increased ridership is a goal of advocacy, then providing for all levels of skill and fitness is important, not just the hammers, even if it's just a different set of techniques such as your wife employs. My wife rides with the kids to school most days, and uses the footpath pretty much as a wheeled pedestrian. It's simply safer that way since the 6yo can barely ride above walking pace. Solo, she's rides 'vehicularly' with the best of them.

I kinda subscribe to the 'trickle dow' theory, that once newbies get the hang of riding, and get fitter and faster, there will be a naturaly tendency towards using the road more, but I have no evidence of that other than my own experience. If they don't, that's fine too.

Speed does matter and anyone watching the video can plainly see that the cyclists are keeping up a good clip. (I'd say around 20 mph, which is what I try to do in similar situations)

Nothing in the video says to me that all cyclists should want to ride as shown. Instead, it demonstrates nicely that doing so properly is relatively safe. While some will say "not for me" others will be inspired to venture into traffic they previously feared. Either response is fine.

Speed does matter and anyone watching the video can plainly see that the cyclists are keeping up a good clip. (I'd say around 20 mph, which is what I try to do in similar situations)

Nothing in the video says to me that all cyclists should want to ride as shown. Instead, it demonstrates nicely that doing so properly is relatively safe. While some will say "not for me" others will be inspired to venture into traffic they previously feared. Either response is fine.

If speed of slower moving vehicles mattered much, we'd have an epidemic of street sweepers, garbage trucks, and postal vehicles as well as cyclists being hit from behind. For cyclists, being hit from behind is statistically the least common type of collision.

You may fear this kind of accident the most, but though it may be counterintuitive you need to get over this fear to keep yourself safe. "Taking the lane" helps keep you safe from the other, likely kinds of accidents.

Anyway, great video!

Hey CW, I hope you don't mind me conflating your two posts.

If I may ask, what is it you think a motorist may do that makes such a maneuver so dangerous?

I am going to guess (But please correct me if I am wrong!) that you fear the cyclist would be run down from behind. That fear is kind of irrational, as you would see with just a little consideration.

Small animals like squirrels, cats and dogs have little chance of harming a motorist, yet they will perform extraordinary emergency evasion maneuvers to avoid them. I have seen folks swerve to avoid balloons blowing across their path on the freeway! My point is that motorists have been taught from their very first lesson to avoid striking things with their vehicle. This has been reinforced by repetitious behavior every time they even move a motor vehicle. It is deeply ingrained in every driver. The least likely place you would get hit by a motorist is centered in the lane in front of him.

The exceptions are intoxicated drivers, impaired drivers (Medical) or someone who is psychotic. The likelihood of meeting someone in the first category is rare, and the likelihood declines in each of the other categories. I would point out however, your method of turning left (The two-step) doesn't offer any added protection from those groups.

One of the defining characteristics of bicycles is their slow speed compared with motor vehicles. There is no time lag between spotting a cyclist and understanding that he is a slow vehicle. With no expectation of motorist style swiftness, a cyclist in the lane ahead is immediately perceived as an object the motorist must deal with. He must either slow down, or drive around him, most likely both. Only a homicidal maniac would entertain the thought of running you over. (Hint: They are not nearly as common as Hollywood makes them out to be.)

It is by far a safer position controlling a lane than sharing one, turning left or not.

Some good points, I had just visited that site today from a recommendation from bicyclingadvocacy person. I think it is a wonderful thing to see. And it is true that from the time a person gets a license it becomes nature to grow through it and to not hit things. The wonder of lane control is if the driver is in such a rush then pass. At least the cyclist is seen riding with traffic increasing visibilitiy and maneuverability.

If speed of slower moving vehicles mattered much, we'd have an epidemic of street sweepers, garbage trucks, and postal vehicles as well as cyclists being hit from behind. For cyclists, being hit from behind is statistically the least common type of collision, even though cyclists may fear it the most.

I've noticed that lower speed deferential (higher cyclist speed) makes negotiating a merge easier, gives faster traffic coming up from behind more time to safely react to my presence, and generally makes for a more pleasant experience. This is why I think speed matters. When you ride in traffic do you ever feel the need to pick up the pace, or is any speed always good enough? Saying that riding at 20, 15, 10, even 5 mph, makes no difference is silly.

Oops, clicked the wrong link.

I've noticed that lower speed deferential (higher cyclist speed) makes negotiating a merge easier, gives faster traffic coming up from behind more time to safely react to my presence, and generally makes for a more pleasant experience. This is why I think speed matters. When you ride in traffic do you ever feel the need to pick up the pace, or is any speed always good enough? Saying that riding at 20, 15, 10, even 5 mph, makes no difference is silly.

Lower speed differentials might be more comfortable but whatever the speed differential is, being hit from behind is still vanishingly rare.

It's what traffic engineers fear too when they ban bikes from high speed highways, but there's no hard evidence that they should. If you have research that suggests otherwise I'd love to see it.

Lower speed differentials might be more comfortable but whatever the speed differential is, being hit from behind is still vanishingly rare.


There's more to riding that just avoiding collisions.

I was thinking about getting a video cam... I believe the one noisebeam uses is the ATC 1000... I had no idea they were this big.

http://www2.oregonscientific.com/assets/product/photos/HC18_rg.jpg

I wonder how much having a big thing like that attached to your helmet influences the motorists around you.

I use the ATC 2000 (http://bikesafer.blogspot.com/2008/02/ask-and-you-shall-receive.html)every time I ride on the road and it doesn't influnence motorists at all. The video I take of dangerous passes unfortunately does very little to influence police (http://bikesafer.blogspot.com/)either.

For cyclists, being hit from behind is statistically the least common type of collision.



But it is the collision most likely to cause injury or death to the cyclist

Mattotoole, since you want to concentrate on the being hit from behind risk, (in this thread anyway) let me ask you a question.

When motorists make a last second lane swap and the tailgating motorist behind them is suddenly presented with a cyclist right in front of them, who would you say has a better chance of not being hit, the 20+ mph cyclist or the 10- mph cyclist? I have also seen this high speed lane swap done by motorists into my lane behind me when they thought the lane was clear. Lower speed differential equals more time to react, which equals safer.

No mention of (better) lights for taking the left lane at night? Someone is slipping.;)

Lower speed differentials might be more comfortable but whatever the speed differential is, being hit from behind is still vanishingly rare.

It's what traffic engineers fear too when they ban bikes from high speed highways, but there's no hard evidence that they should. If you have research that suggests otherwise I'd love to see it.

Speaking of "research," care to cite your source for "being hit from behind is still vanishingly rare"? And as pointed out by Allister there is more to bicycling than counting "Hits." And far more to evaluating risk than counting "hits" (or "crash rates") with no consideration of the exposure rate or probable severities.

Using your back assward research method, cycling wrong way on the expressway at Midnight without lights should be Really Safe since the "hit count" will no doubt be zero.

I'm pretty sure noisebeam has his attached to his handlebars. Doesn't look much different from a headlight there. Strapped to your head, I imagine motorists might think you were a bit odd if they noticed but otherwise, I can't imagine what would inspire them to act differently around you.

That is correct. Other commuter cyclists have even asked me what kind of light it is.

I did use it on my helmet a handful of times, but I did not like the extra movement introduced and the effect it has on me (even if not totally conscious) to aim the camera for interesting footage vs. just looking at what I do when riding normally. That same effect happens in the videos of the subject of this thread, where they do not perform shoulder checks as it would mess up the video.

Al

Hey CW, I hope you don't mind me conflating your two posts.

If I may ask, what is it you think a motorist may do that makes such a maneuver so dangerous?

I am going to guess (But please correct me if I am wrong!) that you fear the cyclist would be run down from behind. That fear is kind of irrational, as you would see with just a little consideration.

Small animals like squirrels, cats and dogs have little chance of harming a motorist, yet they will perform extraordinary emergency evasion maneuvers to avoid them. I have seen folks swerve to avoid balloons blowing across their path on the freeway! My point is that motorists have been taught from their very first lesson to avoid striking things with their vehicle. This has been reinforced by repetitious behavior every time they even move a motor vehicle. It is deeply ingrained in every driver. The least likely place you would get hit by a motorist is centered in the lane in front of him.

The exceptions are intoxicated drivers, impaired drivers (Medical) or someone who is psychotic. The likelihood of meeting someone in the first category is rare, and the likelihood declines in each of the other categories. I would point out however, your method of turning left (The two-step) doesn't offer any added protection from those groups.

One of the defining characteristics of bicycles is their slow speed compared with motor vehicles. There is no time lag between spotting a cyclist and understanding that he is a slow vehicle. With no expectation of motorist style swiftness, a cyclist in the lane ahead is immediately perceived as an object the motorist must deal with. He must either slow down, or drive around him, most likely both. Only a homicidal maniac would entertain the thought of running you over. (Hint: They are not nearly as common as Hollywood makes them out to be.)

It is by far a safer position controlling a lane than sharing one, turning left or not.

Nice response... only consider that there is such a thing as "road kill..." and it occurs frequently enough so that in many cities there a person who's job is to go out and clean it up.

So in spite of "motorists not wanting to hit something," often "something" is hit. Now it may not be a direct hit, but it could very well be a glancing blow, as a motorist swerves or tries to get around "some obstacle." Cyclists are further burdened with the notion by some motorists that they do not belong on the road.

So really while I generally agree with you... bear in mind that it is not quite as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

BTW I have been hit 3 times by motorists that "did not intend to hit me." In one case, we were looking eye to eye on either side of a residential road, while at our respective stop signs. I do have to admit though that I have never been hit from behind in well over 30 years of cycling.

If speed of slower moving vehicles mattered much, we'd have an epidemic of street sweepers, garbage trucks, and postal vehicles as well as cyclists being hit from behind. For cyclists, being hit from behind is statistically the least common type of collision.

You may fear this kind of accident the most, but though it may be counterintuitive you need to get over this fear to keep yourself safe. "Taking the lane" helps keep you safe from the other, likely kinds of accidents.

Anyway, great video!

Ever compare the size of "street sweepers, garbage trucks, or postal vehicles" to a bicycle? Did you notice the 4 or more wheels and the width of "street sweepers, garbage trucks, or postal vehicles." Did you bother to consider that motorists know that "street sweepers, garbage trucks, or postal vehicles," belong on the road; but many motorists think that bicycles are toys and do not belong on the road... and while they may not attack cyclists per se, there is a tendency for motorists to want to simply brush cyclists aside as an "inconvenience" in their hurry to get where said motorists are going?

I have heard this comparison to cement trucks and the like, but I have yet to be treated like a cement truck.

That is correct. Other commuter cyclists have even asked me what kind of light it is.

I did use it on my helmet a handful of times, but I did not like the extra movement introduced and the effect it has on me (even if not totally conscious) to aim the camera for interesting footage vs. just looking at what I do when riding normally. That same effect happens in the videos of the subject of this thread, where they do not perform shoulder checks as it would mess up the video.

Al

Oh cool... I thought you rejected the handle bars as being too prone to vibration... I would much rather put it on my bars then helmet...

Thanks.

If speed of slower moving vehicles mattered much, we'd have an epidemic of street sweepers, garbage trucks, and postal vehicles as well as cyclists being hit from behind. For cyclists, being hit from behind is statistically the least common type of collision.

You may fear this kind of accident the most, but though it may be counterintuitive you need to get over this fear to keep yourself safe. "Taking the lane" helps keep you safe from the other, likely kinds of accidents.

Anyway, great video!

Actually where a cyclist rides makes a substantial difference in terms of the kinds of collisions they might be involved in- rural roads, for example ,are a much more likely location for come-from-behind collisions than urban environments. Depending on how the statistics are analyzed the threat of overtaking motorist collisions can be a cause of some due concern.

And come from behind hits of slow moving vehicles like tractors are not as rare as you imply in your post.


County roads were the location of 21 percent of all collisions and 45 percent of the fatalities. Of the five functional types of roadways analyzed, county roads had the highest percentage of bicyclists being struck from behind by motorists.



When all two-vehicle farm equipment and motor vehicle collisions were totaled across daylight and dark, farm vehicles turning left accounted for 22.4%, and rear-end straight-on collisions accounted for 21.8% of the total. Sideswipe and angle collisions accounted for 38.3% of all collisions, including sideswipes during farm vehicle left turns.


Although seven other problem types occurred more frequently than Problem Type 13 (over taking motorist collisions), this problem type must be considered one of the most important because it accounted for nearly one-fourth of all fatal accidents in the sample—three times as many as any other problem type (p. 72).