majority of riding is in violation of VC principles- what to do?

[Roody]

After all, why would a so-called "safety" forum provide safety tips, when childish arguments are way more fun (and easier)?

I have several tips for preventing and/or surviving right hooks. (I won't even mention the obvious one--proper lane positioning--because that's too controversial for the extremists on this forum.)

• Don't spend a long time riding immediately to the right of a car. You're in the driver's blind spot there, obviously a bad place to be. If the same car is alongside you for a long time, consider either speeding up or slowing down in order to get out if the driver's blind spot.
• Expect slow moving cars to turn. If a car is moving slowly (relative to other cars), the driver is probably looking for a parking place, an address, a driveway, or someplace else to turn.
• Some right hooks occur just after a car has overtaken you, and then suddenly turns right across your path. So keep an eye on those cars that have just overtaken you.
• Practice curb jumping, quick turns and panic stops. Keep your bike in good order, especially brakes and steering. Even if you're careful, a right hook is possible, so be prepared.

If anybody has reasoned (as opposed to dogmatic) objections or additions to these tips, I sure would appreciate hearing them. I'm always open to suggestions for better riding, regardless of the "religion" of the suggester.

[Bekologist]

roody, its a big vcism in A&S to criticise traffic patterns where bicyclists are positioned to the right of potentially turning traffic.

Wether its at an intersection, or just a wide lane with parking or a shoulder, bicyclists to the right of traffic that may potentially turn right is in violation of the general rules of the road, rood.

[Roody]

roody, its a big vcism in A&S to criticise traffic patterns where bicyclists are positioned to the right of potentially turning traffic.

Wether its at an intersection, or just a wide lane with parking or a shoulder, bicyclists to the right of traffic that may potentially turn right is in violation of the general rules of the road, rood.

Again, you are being ridiculously absurd to the definable maximum of absurdity, in order to make a point that doesn't need to be made. Try being helpful instead. For those of us who are woefully inexperienced, what steps do you suggest to minimize the occurrence of right hooks? And lets confine our discussion to the real world, where faster traffic does overtake slower traffic on the left, in a vehicular manner.

[gcottay]

I would suggest using good sense informed by your own experience and that of others.

[John Forester]

helm, I'm not worried, and your pithy 'advice' doesn't negate the contradiction of vehicular bicyclists riding to the right of potential right turning traffic.

This contradiction between vehicular cycling and the rules of the road is glaring and apparant.

unlike the fears of some in here- (hint hint - Helemt head-) who's worried about nonexistant glass or invisible road debris as a potential problem for vehicular cyclists riding right, being to the right of potential right turning traffic IS a safety issue.

Now you admit it, at least here, Bekologist. You who has little grasp of logic are claiming that having bicycles to the right of traffic that is overtaking them contradicts the rules of the road. Oh, does it? Not as I have just stated it, because normal overtaking is done on the left of the slower vehicle. If, indeed, a faster driver overtakes a slower driver by going around his left side and then turns right across the path of the slower driver, the faster driver has disobeyed two rules of the road, the rule for safe overtaking and the rule for turning right. The fact that occasionally some driver or other disobeys the rules does not invalidate the rules. Rather, it demonstrates the need for the rules and for obeying them.

[Roody]

The fact that occasionally some driver or other disobeys the rules does not invalidate the rules. Rather, it demonstrates the need for the rules and for obeying them.

Very true, and it also demonstrates the need for enforcing the rules.

But what you sometimes neglect (on this forum, not in your book) is that in the real world, other drivers do disobey the rules and laws. This is why I advocate defensive cycling. Sometimes it's prudent to position yourself to avoid the foolishness of others, even if you're not strictly following the rules of the road, or if you're going beyond the rules. For example, the road rules allow one to ride in a driver's blind spots, but this is still not a safe practice. (This is the often mentioned distinction between being right and being alive.)

[John Forester]

JHON. Did I say anything about 'effective cycling' instruction?

Did I propose bike lanes as a solution to bicyclists being vulnerable to hooks?

Resoundingly, NO to both those followup questions.

The solutions, if there are any, would be to eliminate on-street parking, make the speed limit 15 MPH and make it illegal for cars to pass bicyclists, but that's something you and your fellow motoring lobbyists would never stand for.

I'm illuminating the glaring contradiction that the act of 'vehicular' cycling with cars passing bikes when there's side of road parking or shoulders is in violation of vehicular rules to not route thru traffic (bikes) to the right of potential right turns (parkers).

Capiche?

The answer to this version of Bekologist's attempt to discredit vehicular cycling by discrediting motoring is the same as the previous answer. The motorist who overtakes a cyclist and then stops in the path of the cyclist, so close as to constitute a danger, is disobeying the rule of the road for safe overtaking. There is no contradiction here.

As for Bekologist's only suggested remedies for his fancied logical contradiction, that the logical protection of cyclists demands elimination of on-street parking, speed limit of 15 mph, and no overtaking of cyclists, opposition to them does not require one to be a lobbyist for the militant motorists. Opposition to Bekologist's suggestions would, if he were to present them in a more general forum, say a city council meeting, spring from a wide variety of reasonable citizens. The fact that Bekologist sees fit to advance such suggestions, with his belief that only lobbyists for militant motorists would oppose them, simply demonstrates the depth and strength of Bekologist's anti-motoring ideology.

[RobertHurst]

You're worried about being right hooked by someone passing you and then pulling into a midblock curbside parallel parking spot??? Stay out of the door zone (track at least 5' from the left edge of parked cars), Beck, and you'll be far enough left to practically eliminate this risk.

Absolutely false.

[The Human Car]

Now you admit it, at least here, Bekologist. You who has little grasp of logic are claiming that having bicycles to the right of traffic that is overtaking them contradicts the rules of the road. Oh, does it? Not as I have just stated it, because normal overtaking is done on the left of the slower vehicle. If, indeed, a faster driver overtakes a slower driver by going around his left side and then turns right across the path of the slower driver, the faster driver has disobeyed two rules of the road, the rule for safe overtaking and the rule for turning right. The fact that occasionally some driver or other disobeys the rules does not invalidate the rules. Rather, it demonstrates the need for the rules and for obeying them.

How is a Forester approved style of riding that does not interact with traffic and is a childish way of riding removed from motorized travel lanes a discontinuity in logic?

I like shoulders but I too feel that they violate VC principles. I think we would appreciate some logic (and not insults) that explained when not interacting with traffic is appropriate and not childish and when it is not appropriate and is childish.

So far my understanding is bike lanes reinforce the notion that bikes do not belong in the travel lane and shoulders reinforce the notion that bikes are broken down vehicles.

[Bekologist]

Don't worry, jhon, you and your fellow motoring lobbyists are safe - all those suggestions were tongue in cheek quips for eliminating right hooks! did you really think I was serious?

although, to reduce right hooks midblock by inattentive parkers, I'm sure removal of parking or motorists altogther as part of a road and driving diet have quite effective in more progressive communities and perhaps even led to economic development. I believe there's this Strasse in Berlin where it's worked admirably.....

anyhow, I digress. No worry, john, you and the motor lobby doesn't have to prepare for an onslaught of 15MPH proposals- oh, and communities have also reduced speed limits.....


So, the onus of the hook is on the motorists. A motorist failing to yield to a bike to the right is violating the rules of the road.

No contradiction there to my argument. the positioning that makes it possible is the cause and the motorist is the actor not the bicyclist, but same effect....a violation of basic vehicular rules of the road that can occur when thru traffic operates to the right of potentially right turning traffic.

Lets envision a scene.... there you are, jhon, riding to the right of steady traffic in a well buffered bike lane- oh, and riding vehicularily, mind you A&S miscreants out there- and a motorist pulls across your path to park midblock and almost right hooks you. The fault of the bike lane or the motorist? sounds like it's not the bike lane but the motorist.

according to jhon,riding to the right as potentially right hooking traffic passes doesn't violate the rules of the road....okay......remove all the stripes, add as many of them as you want, it sounds like riding right of potentially turning faster traffic ISN'T a violation of the rules of the road until the motorist errs.

[TheWheelman]

To ride VC I need to be positioned so no cars pass when there's a possibility of them turning in front of me, correct? Destination positioned so I'm not riding to the right of potentially turning traffic, correct?

Those are a couple of the reasons, yes, that you need to be positioned in what you, not bureacrats, deem to be the appropriate lateral space for the particular situation.

Part of the VC argument against bike lanes at intersections is that they put bikes to the right of potentially turning traffic. AL (Noisebeam), a VC exemplar, is SOOO paranoid about hooking traffic he wants bike lanes stopped 200 feet before EVERY residential driveway and curb cut, no matter how minor or unused.

Well, to continue the logic of the VC hook paranoia, I'm concerned about all the miles and miles I ride where there's parking or shoulders and cars are passing me- a car could turn across my path at any moment to park or pull over!!

You're beginning to get it! Based on your representation of Noisebeam's position, he wouldn't make it in Cyclists Against Bike Lanes http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CyclistsAgainstBikeLanes , where we bash not only bike lanes that don't end 200 feet before every driveway or curb cut no matter how minor, but _all_ bike lanes.

[Bekologist]

I don't see how concern about right hooks along roads without a bike lane would give you Yahoos any weight against bike lanes, wheeeel.

[genec]

according to jhon,riding to the right as potentially right hooking traffic passes doesn't violate the rules of the road....okay......remove all the stripes, add as many of them as you want, it sounds like riding right of potentially turning faster traffic ISN'T a violation of the rules of the road until the motorist errs.

According to John it is the fault of faulty motorists... who no doubt are the whole reason Vehicular Cycling doesn't work better... after all if cyclists are following the rules then there should not be any "issues" what so ever if motorists are following the rules too. (but we know this is not always the case... don't we.)

The fact that occasionally some driver or other disobeys the rules does not invalidate the rules. Rather, it demonstrates the need for the rules and for obeying them.

Now if we could just get those motorists to understand that John is serious and that they should just obey the rules...

[TheWheelman]

Again, you are being ridiculously absurd to the definable maximum of absurdity, in order to make a point that doesn't need to be made. Try being helpful instead. For those of us who are woefully inexperienced, what steps do you suggest to minimize the occurrence of right hooks? And lets confine our discussion to the real world, where faster traffic does overtake slower traffic on the left, in a vehicular manner.

YHBT.

[Bekologist]

never had a motorist pull up short after passing you and cut you off to park, eh, wheel?

hey, if you don't have enough experience on the bike (like Head and Roody) to have experienced this, just come out and say so! It's okay.


Riding to the right of motorists along roads with parking or shoulders puts a bicyclist in a right hook position, an unvehicular construct- thru traffic to the right of potentially turning traffic.

[Roody]

never had a motorist pull up short after passing you and cut you off to park, eh, wheel?

hey, if you don't have enough experience on the bike (like Head and Roody) to have experienced this, just come out and say so! It's okay.


Riding to the right of motorists along roads with parking or shoulders puts a bicyclist in a right hook position, an unvehicular construct- thru traffic to the right of potentially turning traffic.

Like I said, I've only been riding about 6 years, but I've accumulated almost 25,000 miles, or a trip around the globe at the equator. But I sure lack your experience at right hooks, collisions, road rage incidents and near misses. And my riding style has never made it to the morning newspaper either.

Your own calamitous experiences are the best argument that exists for defensive and VC riding. If you want to be safe, do the opposite of Bekologist!

[Bekologist]

roody, you don't get it.

I DO ride VC and ride defensively.

The scenario described above in the OP happens to bicyclists that ride vehicularily.

how you can't see that is beyond me. bikes get pulled up short, even if you ride '5 feet from the parked cars' like HH inadequately mentions.

Motorists can and do violate your right of way even if you ride vehicularily and defensively.

[Roody]

roody, you don't get it.

I DO ride VC and ride defensively.

The scenario described above in the OP happens to bicyclists that ride vehicularily.

how you can't see that is beyond me. bikes get pulled up short, even if you ride '5 feet from the parked cars' like HH inadequately mentions.

Motorists can and do violate your right of way even if you ride vehicularily and defensively.

As I clearly said in a previous post., I agree that it's a good idea if both rider and bike are prepared for the possibility. Actually, I'm the only one so far who's mentioned any practical tips for preventing right hooks. Not even America's 2 greatest safety writers have imparted any tips in this thread, and you, Bek, are too busy being negative to give us any constructive comments. As usual.

Believe it or not, some of us are almost as smart as you are, and some of us seem to have many fewer runins with cars--per mile or per hour.

[Bekologist]

Robert Hurst averages his riding with incidents at every 8 hours in the saddle- sounds about right.....

[Roody]

Robert Hurst averages his riding with incidents at every 8 hours in the saddle- sounds about right.....

I'm not sure what you mean. He gets right-hooked every 8 hours of riding time on average?

[Bekologist]

not right hooked.

I'm not sure of the quote, but its along the lines of 'having to take evasive action' to avoid an incident of some sort on average once every 8 hours of riding time.

Why the face of fear?

you think having a motorist in some way violate your right of way every eight hours is not an accurate assessment for urban riding? It's pretty spot on the money if not a little low.

There's a lot of bad drivers out there, roody.Just a half hour ago, on the ride home, I had a couple of kids pull right out in front of me from a stop sign and screech to a halt in the middle of the street when they realized we were on a collision course.

I saw it happening 100 feet back and was bleeding speed and moving to avoid before the kid even noticed me - you'll like that bit, roody, the defensive bicycling- and I had already been in the left middle of the lane running a scathingly bright LED on flash (daytime visible blinkies, roody)

but hey,

Drivers are out there overlooking bicyclists regardless of their lane and lighting equipment, and do so with alarming frequency.

[Roody]

I'm not so sure. Eight hours is about the time I spend riding in an average week. I don't have a close call every week, unless I'm so oblivious that I don't even know it (not likely!). In the last year I had one very close close call--but it was totally my fault. The driver saved my bacon. I thanked him and apologized profusely. I've had other calls that were close, but not that close. Maybe four in the past year. So about once every 900 miles. About the same, maybe, as when I used to drive a car.

But I'm not sure about this. I don't totally trust my memory, because I think I overreact when I have a close call, and it might seem more significant that it really was. I don't know of any way to quantify it precisely, but it's interesting to think about.

As for near right hooks. I almost never have one. In fact, it's been several years. Guess I'm just lucky. Or i follow my own advice and it works. (What are the odds of that?)

[Bekologist]

the incidents are not necessarily 'significant' if a bicyclist is prepared to take evasive manuvers so may otherwise go unnoticed that way.

but if you're not getting motorists pulling out in front of you from parking lots, pulling into your space at intersections, pulling up short in a lane ahead of you and this type of stuff regularily is beyond me.

I'm usually riding quite far left in the lanes compared to most, and violations to my ROW are still a rather common occurance. About once every eight hours on average according to some of us.

[Roody]

the incidents are not necessarily 'significant' if a bicyclist is prepared to take evasive manuvers so may otherwise go unnoticed that way.

but if you're not getting motorists pulling out in front of you from parking lots, pulling into your space at intersections, pulling up short in a lane ahead of you and this type of stuff regularily is beyond me.
.

I can't explain the discrepancy either. I make course corrections all the time so that I won't hit somebody or something, or so they won't hit me. But I consider that a normal part of riding, not an "incident." One thing that bugs me is when cars pass me just before a stop sign or red light. That happens pretty often--maybe every time I ride on small streets. It pisses me off, but I don't consider it an incident.

I'm usually riding quite far left in the lanes compared to most, and violations to my ROW are still a rather common occurance. About once every eight hours on average according to some of us

Maybe you're riding TOO FAR left. Probably listening to that Forester guy again. Try it in the gutter.

[TheWheelman]

The time stamps on Bekologist's five posts in this thread today support my theory that, just like the dog in the cartoon that was on my fidge for years who boasted to the other dog that on the internet nobody knows you're a dog, Bekologist spends his days basking in the knowledge that on the internet nobody knows you're a non-cyclist or, at the very least, you actually spend more time twitching your mouse than your handlebars. #1: 9 minutes after opponent's post. #2: 5 minutes after opponent's post. #3: 9 minutes after opponent's post. #4: 19 minutes after opponent's post. #5: A whole 2 hours and 26 minutes after opponent's post; hmmm, I wonder what the anomoly is; well, perhaps it's not coincidental that that slow-on-the-draw one is also the one that contains his latest look-at-me-I-ride-a-bike update:

Just a half hour ago, on the ride home,

On the ride home from what? Being a nattering nabob of negativity all day? On your boss's time?

Thank you for reminding me about one of my New Year's resolutions: To gladly cede "victory" to losers like you any day.