noisebeam

Hey no sht. You missed the point, that was clear to me riding home yesterday for a 4mi stretch. Centerish may have been default in my head, but in practice I was to the right (except where I didn't want drivers to pass) If the spring had bounced me back, I'd be right in front of the next car, bouncing back would require a negotiation and confirmation that the following car was slowing to let me back in center.

Now of course there are other times when traffic is lighter (my AM commute) where I can ride in center of lane nearly the entire way - most drivers merge into adjacent lane long before they get to me. When traffic gets a bit more, then I only move over once in a while to let someone pass.
Al

noisebeam

Keep in mind that even if some of us don't ride in the BL in this above situation, we still use the extra pavement width. The stripe is unneccessary, but the extra width is used when moving from center to right when a faster vehicles approaches.

Al

Helmet Head

12 year old boy killed while riding in bike lane on way to school:

Discussion forum:
https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/226542-12-year-old-boy-died-today.html

Helmet Head

(from August 2006)
Intel engineer killed while crossing intersection from bike lane in Beaverton Oregon:

Discussion forum:
https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/218502-intel-engineer-inventor-cyclist-killed-25-year-old-motorist.html

genec

And as long as cyclists tend to ride in BL, there is a good chance they might be killed in BL.

Is that enough evidence to banish bike lanes?

If so, then we should also banish cars... motorists tend to die in them.

Or perhaps clothing. Many people die while clothed... perhaps it is the fault of the clothing... based on "clear" evidence.

Helmet Head

Shoulder, not a bike lane, but same phenomenon:


The Livingston County sheriff's office said that Dechau was riding westbound on the shoulder of route 20 approximately two feet to the right of the white line. A sheriff's spokesman said a westbound vehicle driven by Sharon Cameron, 61, crossed the white line and struck Dechau from behind at approximately 45-50 mph, and Dechau died at the scene.

Cameron could not provide an explanation to police as to why her vehicle drifted from the travel lane to the shoulder. She freely submitted to a blood test as part of the accident investigation, and police do not believe she was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Results of investigation will determine if charges will be filed against Cameron.


https://gvcc.11net.com/

genec

Oh wait... all motorists deaths occur on streets... therefore streets are obviously dangerous. Abolish all streets. yeah, that's the ticket.

Helmet Head

Yes, Gene, most of us know that correlation alone does not prove cause and effect.

But the case, including but not limited to the phenomenon of inattentional blindness for bike lane and shoulder riding being a signficant factor, and not just a coincidence, in inadvertent drift fatalities, is more than mere correlation.

Helmet Head

Not a death, but another example of inattentional blindness and inadvertent drift into the bike lane (unless it was intentional, for which there is no evidence):

"okay, i don't know what's going on lately, but in the last 10 days i've been involved in a hit and run (the car slowed down, entered the bike lane, and clipped me), ..."

https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...68&postcount=1

DrPete 

It's very clear that you need a new set of big words to latch onto. Here's a start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_physics

So a couple of bad motorists have drifted into bike lanes when they should've been paying attention to the road.

Perhaps you want to review the stats for the FAR MORE COMMON crashes, i.e. with cyclists in the traffic lanes: https://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bc/types.htm

John Wilke

Don't kid yourself, cycling is not safe.

Maybe if you're riding a bike at the gym ...

I like riding anyway, though.

jw

CommuterRun

Safer than driving a car, which is safer than riding a motorcycle. Flying is safer than a bike. Riding a school bus is safer than flying and doesn't make my arms tired.

DrPete 

It's still far more dangerous to drive to the start of a ride than to do the ride, though...

It's unfortunate. I wish that we could all ride our bikes without worrying about whether we're going to get hit by a car. But the bottom line is that collisions happen and distracted motorists kill no matter where you locate your bike on the road.

I'd be willing to bet my next 10 paychecks (OK, it's not much, but you get it) that if we had video cameras in the cars of everyone who veered off the road and hit a cyclist "with no apparent reason," the majority would be found to have been on the phone, looking for CD's, talking to a back seat passenger, playing with the stereo, taking drugs not tested for (as if alcohol is the only drug that can impair you) watching a movie (DVD players in the front seat--you can buy 'em), or punching in a new destination on the GPS--but who would admit that to a police officer when they just killed someone?

So let's make up a word for distraction so defense attorneys can keep people from suffering the consequences of their actions. Sounds like a great plan.

Helmet Head

Speaking of inattentional blindness, are you paying any attention to the argument with which you are so strongly disagreeing? That the driver involved is attending to a distraction (like "on the phone, looking for CD's, talking to a back seat passenger, playing with the stereo, etc.") is a key assumption.

Here's how I believe it happens:

1.  
   • Cyclist is up ahead in the shoulder or bike lane.
   • Driver is approaching from behind, still some distance back.
   • Road between driver and cyclist is empty.
2. Something happens to cause driver to consider attending to a distraction. Perhaps a commercial comes on the radio so he wants to change the channel, perhaps he spills his fries, the cell phone rings, etc.
3. Driver glances up ahead to make sure his intended path is clear before he takes his eyes off the road to attend to the distraction.
4. Driver confirms that his intended path (his lane) is clear for a reasonable distance up ahead, but, due to inattentional blindness (he's briefly paying attention to his intended path and thinking about the distraction) he does not notice the cyclist up ahead in the bike lane or shoulder.
5. Drivers looks away from road to attend to distraction.
6. While driver is looking away, car drifts into shoulder. Driver does not notice. Maybe he looks up... but it's too late.

I think something close to that explains every incident I have cited in this thread (especially the ones at the beginning and the ones towards the end).

joejack951

HH will often admit that riding centered in the lane is far more valuable for avoiding left and right hooks (two of the most common bike/car collisions) than it is for avoiding drifting motorists. The whole drifting thing is just a side benefit that comes at no added cost to someone who defaults to the center of the lane. Riding centered in the lane is the #1 most recommended way to avoid overtaking collisions too (read almost anything about riding in narrow lanes and you'll see the recommendation to ride away from the edge of the roadway).

So, defaulting to center has just mitigated the risk for the 3 most common bike/car collisions, plus as an added bonus you get possibly mitigated risk for a fairly uncommon collision but one that obviously happens. And you want to argue that HH is endangering lives by suggesting this method to others?

DrPete 

It does, but that scenario also quite similar to how an inattentive driver strikes another vehicle in the traffic lane too. That's where we disagree.

But far more annoying to me is the style that you use to tout this inattentional blindness. Not only do I think you're overemphasizing its impact on bicycle-related deaths, but I find it grossly negligent to encourage riders to take the lane when there is so much evidence that riding in the traffic lane doesn't stop accidents at all. Quite frankly, it makes me cringe to think about the vast majority of cyclists I see on the local MUP taking to the road. If they ever do, I can only hope that I'm not on call at the local trauma center.

"Inattentional blindness" sounds like a fancy term for negligent driving. I think we've all done things that have diverted our attention from the road. I'm certainly no exception.

When I was in college, I was driving down a 2-lane country road and was distracted by a smudge on my windshield right in my field of vision. As I was examining it to determine whether it was on the inside or outside the windshield, the motorist who was a long way in front of me slammed on his brakes for reasons he never told the police. I saw him, but it was too late, and I was only able to slow down to about 40 before I hit him. Airbag deployment, the whole 9 yards. $5500 damage to my car and $4000 to his, along with medical expenses for the motorist I hit. I was cited for the accident and my insurance paid the entire sum for which I was responsible. AND THIS ALL HAPPENED IN THE TRAFFIC LANE. If a cyclist had turned onto the road while I was doing that... I don't want to think about it.

This was an unfortunate event, causing thousands of dollars of property damage and personal injury because I saw a smudge on my windshield. Sure, it was a freak thing, but calling it "inattentional blindness" doesn't change the fact that I was responsible for the damage, as any negligent motorist should be. But when it comes to killing a cyclist, all it takes is "I didn't see him" or "the sun was in my eyes," and no citation is issued. Thankfully taking a life while driving drunk is still enough to warrant a conviction.

What irritates me about your posts, in addition to the nonstop flow of assumptions you make based on news reports (which,by the way, are not always accurate depictions of what really happened), is the way that you advocate VC so vehemently, assuming that the same motorists who are somehow incompetent to monitor what's going on in the shoulder are suddenly going to become attentive because of where the bicyclist is physically located, and it's absurd. Moreover, the vast majority of bicyclists who currently ride bike paths are woefully ill-equipped to take to the streets and start practicing VC. Do you recommend anything to educate these cyclists? No. The overriding tone of all your posts is the use of ridiculous jargon to absolve the motorists of guilt, when I ultimately believe that the user of the heavier, faster, deadlier vehicle should be held to a higher standard than that.

Helmet Head

Thank you joejack, just when I think no one is understanding anything I'm writing, you show it's possible to not only understand it all, but restate it much more succinctly than I have been able to.

Thanks.

Helmet Head

Not at all. Have you read the article on it?

https://www.visualexpert.com/Resource...blindness.html

If you don't read this article, there is no way you can appreciate what I'm talking about.

Yes, I know it's possible to overlook even a car in the traffic lane. It's not about absolutes. It's about odds. Here's the previous scenario, modified only in that the cyclist is now in the traffic lane instead of the bike lane shoulder.

1.  
   • Cyclist is up ahead in the traffic lane.
   • Driver is approaching from behind, still some distance back.
   • Road between driver and cyclist is empty.
2. Something happens to cause driver to consider attending to a distraction. Perhaps a commercial comes on the radio so he wants to change the channel, perhaps he spills his fries, the cell phone rings, etc.
3. Driver glances up ahead to make sure his intended path is clear before he takes his eyes off the road to attend to the distraction.
4. Driver sees cyclist up ahead in his intended path (his lane) and decides to postpone dealing with the distraction.
5. As driver gets within 5 seconds of overtaking cyclist, cyclist moves right into bike lane or shoulder.
6. Driver overtakes cyclist.
7. Drivers looks away from road to attend to distraction.
8. Cyclist moves back into traffic lane.
9. While driver is looking away, car drifts into shoulder.
10. Driver looks up, and corrects himself to move back into the traffic lane.

The KEY, based on concepts in that article, is based on the assumption that the cyclist in the shoulder or bike lane is much more likely to be overlooked due to inattentional blindness than is the cyclist up ahead in the traffic lane.

DrPete 

I'm not suggesting any method to anyone. I'm merely making the point that HH's argument is short-sighted, tastelessly made, easily misinterpreted, and dangerous to post in an online forum.

I'm just continuing to ride the way I want and the way that has kept me safe for years. The difference is that I'm not jumping onto the internet after googling some fancy words and claiming to be some kind of authority on the subject, while taking limited information about someone's unfortunate death to claim that they'd be alive today if they had just taken the lane.

Helmet Head

How many cyclists would have to die like this in shoulders and bike lanes due to inadvertent drift before you will start caring?

Edit: I should have asked: How many cyclists would have to die like this in shoulders and bike lanes due to inadvertent drift before you will start caring about the issue of inadvertent drift into shoulders and bike lanes?

DrPete 

So now, because I disagree with what you're arguing and how you're doing it, I don't care that cyclists get killed?

Boy, you must have a pretty impressive background in forensic engineering and injury prevention to be such an authority on the subject that only people who agree with your disrespectful zealot crap can be said to care about needless deaths.

What's that background again? Basic google?

joejack951

Sorry for the misprint in my post. I corrected it to read how it should have originally: "And you want to argue that HH is endangering lives by suggesting this method to others?"

Anyway, that's your opinion of his argument based on an obvious unwillingness to try and understand what he's saying. You've demonstrated in many posts that you just don't seem to understand the concept or intentionally misinterpret the words in an attempt to make HH look foolish.

DrPete 

I'm not intentionally trying to misinterpret anything, and I've read the whole "inattentional blindness" page that he keeps incessantly citing. I still see nothing that suggests that recommending that all cyclists take the lane is any more effective than any other method, and given the level of experience that most cyclists have with riding in traffic, I think it's dangerous.

And I won't even go into his delivery method.

joejack951

Someone can have years of experience riding with traffic and still act extremely foolishly while riding in traffic. Following the basic rules of traffic (plus having familiarity with cycling equipment such as brakes, shifters, and a mirror) are all that's required for a cyclist to ride like HH describes. Should they start out riding like this on 65mph roads? Of course not. As with anything, you need to ease into and gain some real world experience and confidence in your ability before taking on more serious challenges. For some reason, people see nothing wrong with striping a bike lane on a 65mph road then sending novice cyclists down that road thinking the bike lane will tell them how to ride properly and stay safe. Do you think bike lanes/shoulders make any road safe for novice cyclists?

DrPete 

Absolutely not, but I do believe they're safer.

And I agree on your criteria to allow an individual to ride a certain way. I totally disagree with you, though, that all you need is riding experience to recommend a certain behavior to people. If that were the case, then experienced cyclists who have never worn a helmet would be authorities on bike helmet use.

Even if there is truth to the idea that cyclists are more visible in the traffic lane than on the shoulder, HH's approach is so fervently pro-VC that a newbie who stumbles on this forum and reads the unopposed preaching of HH may be tempted to head right out into traffic and subject themselves to other, much more common, ways to get killed on their bikes.

Another factor that makes VC inadequate for a new cyclist is the implied assumption that a new cyclist won't be subject to the same cognitive lapses as the motorists, if not worse. Talk about distraction--here we have a new cyclist trying to figure out how to pedal, shift, drink, etc., all while processing the vehicles around them. How realistic is that?

I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with VC as a practice. However, the experience of the rider, local laws, local driver attitudes toward cyclists, quality of roads, shoulders, bike lanes, and bike paths, and other factors all come into consideration. Certainly enough variables to keep any reasonable individual from making a blanket recommendation on the subject.

And finally, the delivery method. These are pure scare tactics. What is reported in the news about a collision with a cyclist may or may not be complete or even true, and HH uses these events to push his own agenda, even to the point of sounding on several occasions like he's blaming the dead cyclist for where he was riding. All if this with no consideration of what local practices and laws are, never mind the absolutely disgusting assumption that the cyclist would somehow be alive today if he/she had just done what HH said.

We live in an unfortunate world where someone can google a couple articles and come on an online forum and be easily misconstrued as actually knowing something or being some kind of authority. That's dangerous to a cyclist who may or may not fully understand VC, but who may think after reading the scare tactics of the self-proclaimed authority on the subject that all they need to do is ride in traffic lanes and they'll be safer.