Au contraire. Everyone has beliefs. Some people base their beliefs on reasons, others base their beliefs on something else. A person whose beliefs are based on reason only needs to be provided with reasons to change his beliefs, including reasons presented via logical argument. It is the other type of person who is not open to discussion, because his beliefs are not based on reason, so there is nothing to discuss.Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
See post #97. If those reasons are not compelling, please explain why.I have no reason to believe that the reason why motorists drift is more complicated than the simple fact that they were distracted.
Does it not make sense to you that a driver is more apt to choose to attend to a distraction when he believes it is safe to take his eyes off the road for a few seconds than when it is not?After all, the lanes on a road are simply separated by paint, and sometimes drivers can and do inadvertently drift over them.
Nor do I have a reason to believe that cyclists are necessarily more prone to this than are motorists. It doesn't matter to me, since reducing the likelihood of being inadvertently drifted into by utilizing the Cyclecraft methodology is just a bonus for using that method. The primary benefit is reducing the likelihood of collision at intersections (including minor intersections like driveways).I have no reason to believe that incidents of cyclists being killed due to this type of accident are more numerous in either numbers or percentages to the number of drivers being killed due to the same type of accident. I have no reason to believe that this is a problem limited to cyclists.
To summarize, the Cycledraft/vehicular methodology I advocate includes using a centerish default primary riding position, and using a secondary at-the-side (or in the bike lane) position only to allow faster traffic to pass when safe and reasonable to do so.
The reason I advocate this methodology is because of the benefits achieved when using it:
- Reducing the likelihood of collision at intersections (including minor intersections like driveways).
- Drivers generally pass me with greater passing distance.
- Less travel time in rubble-filled bike lanes (fewer flats).
- Fewer conflicts and "close calls" with drivers.
- Riding in traffic is safer and feels more comfortable.
- By drawing the attention of drivers approaching from behind by riding in their intended path, reduce the likelihood that they will choose to attend to a distraction prior to passing me, and, thus reduce the likelihood that they will inadvertently drift into me while attending to a distraction.
Other than having to learn how to use a mirror effectively, what's the downside? What are the drawbacks? Why oppose my advocacy of this methodology? Why not join me?