Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety > Vehicular Cycling (VC)
Reload this Page >

Vehicular model or Ped model?

Notices
Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.
View Poll Results: What do you recommend to the governor? (see OP)
Use the "vehicular model" (CA uses now): right-turners required to merge into BL before turn.
12.50%
Use the "ped model" (OR & AZ): right-turners prohibited from entering BL and must yield to cyclists
18.75%
At major intersections, end the BL 200' prior to the intersections, 100' at minor ones
12.50%
At major intersections, end the BL 100' prior to the intersections, 50' at minor ones
6.25%
End the bike lane stripe 100' prior to any intersection, no matter how minor
0
0%
End the bike lane stripe 200' prior to any intersection, no matter how minor
12.50%
Other (please specify)
37.50%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

Vehicular model or Ped model?

Old 04-30-07, 05:58 AM
  #26  
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Is this an echo chamber?
Aparantly it is. Every time someone shows you the flaws in one of your pet theories you still stick to them like the flaw was never pointed out. Just like where I have shown you how your "bike lane myth" is not so, you will likely avoid that alltogether and still blather on in the future about your pet "myth".
So yes, this is an echo chamber, and all I hear in it is the faint calls of the VCists being echoed over and over.
pj7 is offline  
Old 04-30-07, 08:55 AM
  #27  
Dominatrikes
 
sbhikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Posts: 4,920

Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I don't think I want to be like a rat in the refrigerator.

I really don't understand the kind of fear it takes to want to be a permanent surprise to other roadway users. I would prefer the interaction between motorists and cyclists to be ordinary and forgettable, not shocking and surprising.
sbhikes is offline  
Old 04-30-07, 10:10 AM
  #28  
Arizona Dessert
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 15,030

Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex

Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5345 Post(s)
Liked 2,169 Times in 1,288 Posts
Dashed bike lane stripe means motor vehicle operators can cross the line for making turns, etc.

Dashed does not mean (in AZ) that motor vehicle can travel (partly) in the bike lane, which is required if one merges into it before making a turn.

Al
noisebeam is offline  
Old 04-30-07, 11:29 AM
  #29  
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pj7
Aparantly it is. Every time someone shows you the flaws in one of your pet theories you still stick to them like the flaw was never pointed out. Just like where I have shown you how your "bike lane myth" is not so, you will likely avoid that alltogether and still blather on in the future about your pet "myth".
So yes, this is an echo chamber, and all I hear in it is the faint calls of the VCists being echoed over and over.
If you (or anyone else) think I'm still sticking to a point or theory despite someone showing flaws in it, please PM me with a link to the post where you feel the flaw is shown.

I try to address everything, but sometimes I just don't have enough time or energy, or maybe don't notice the relevance of something, or misread something, etc. But I never intentionally and knowingly just ignore a point. I have no interest in thinking I'm right about something when there are perfectly good reasons to think otherwise.

Thanks.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 04-30-07, 11:30 AM
  #30  
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by sbhikes
I don't think I want to be like a rat in the refrigerator.

I really don't understand the kind of fear it takes to want to be a permanent surprise to other roadway users. I would prefer the interaction between motorists and cyclists to be ordinary and forgettable, not shocking and surprising.
Well, the rat in the fridge was obviously a dramatized example to make the point: the "expected" is easy to ignore, especially if it seems Irrelevant to what the person is doing. The unexpected and/or relevant is much less likely to be overlooked than is the expected and irrelevant.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 04-30-07, 11:46 AM
  #31  
Arizona Dessert
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 15,030

Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex

Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5345 Post(s)
Liked 2,169 Times in 1,288 Posts
Originally Posted by sbhikes
I really don't understand the kind of fear it takes to want to be a permanent surprise to other roadway users. I would prefer the interaction between motorists and cyclists to be ordinary and forgettable, not shocking and surprising.
Thats why I ride centerish and also line up with traffic at stops so motorists see me well ahead and have plenty of time to consider the ordinary of another vehicle ahead of them, far better than causing the sudden surprise appearing out of knowhere on their right as they are turning right.

Al
noisebeam is offline  
Old 04-30-07, 12:20 PM
  #32  
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pj7
https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...7&postcount=15
My own experience the first time I came into contact with bike lanes is enough for me. Remember, I AM A MOTORIST. I know exactly how a motorist acts and thinks because I am one. So there you go, you can forget this whole myth thing. I know exactly what I was thinking when I first saw bike lanes.
I hadn't seen that post. I'll address it there.

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
If you accept the premise that what is of primary importance to a driver is what is ahead in his path, that if drivers did not give what is ahead primary importance than they would crash much more often than they do, and that what is ahead in the driver's lane is more relevant to him than what is outside of his lane, then it follows that a cyclist up ahead in a bike lane is less relevant to a driver than the same cyclist up ahead who is within his lane.
Oh, so that's the reason there are no signs on the side of the road! Oh, wait a minute, there are. Hrm...
Drivers don't crash more often than they already do out of self preserverence. It's not like we, the drivers are out there to kill ourselves.
Don't be silly. Surely you aren't arguing that signs are of equal importance to what is ahead in the driver's path? Surely you know drivers who rarely look at signs. Why? Because they are deemed by all drivers to be of secondary importance, relative to the primary importance of what's ahead, and by some drivers to be of very little importance. Next time you are with someone else, after passing a sign, ask them if they noticed it and what it said. Obviously, they'll probably know about a stop sign. The kinds of signs that are usually missed are: speed limit signs, "deer xing/rock falling", etc., especially on regular routes. There are exceptions - drivers who pay attention to all signs, but they are exceptions. But there are no exceptions to the fact that all drivers give what's ahead in their lane primary importance.

But when driving we expect to see cars in front of us, how come we don't overlook them as well.
Because they are relevant to us. Have you read much about inattentional blindness? Perceived relevance plays a key role with respect to whether the subject notices something or not.

So what if you have your way and all bike lanes are gone and everybody rides their bike in the road?
Note that if all bike lanes are gone, only the stripe would be gone, the space would still be there. You don't seem to realize that.

Now cyclists are "expected" to be there. Now we are the jar of Mayo but instead of being off to the side we are directly in the line of fire.
Why would you be "directly in the line of fire" any more or less simply because of a stripe being there or not?

As far as the mayo goes, say you were that jar and you wanted to be noticed by the person who goes in the fridge to get the milk. Where would you choose to be, in front of the milk carton, or off to the side of it? (please don't ignore this question - it gets to the heart of the matter).

To improve the analogy. Consider a refrigerator with only a few items on it. On the top left rack is a milk carton. The top right is empty. The bottom rock has a few items on it. You are the mayo that wants to be noticed by the person going for the milk. Would you just to be next to the milk on the top left, or on the empty rack to the right?


Thanks Helmet Head, thanks for killing my neighbor because there wasn't a bike lane for her to ride in. She was hot too, but now she's dead... oh well.
Removing bike lane stripes does not remove space that cyclists can use to allow faster traffic to pass, and removing those stripes increases their chance of being noticed by making the presence of the cyclist in the motorists lane more relevant to the motorists.

One last thing.
I love the way you have removed yourself from being a motorist every time you talk about them. You say them and they but never us when you talk about how they are like sheep or stupid or how they overlook things and never pay attention. Don't you drive?
I gave up driving a long time ago but I still call myself a motorist. It's nice how you think you are better.
Yes, I still drive over 10,000 miles per year. I am a motorist and I think like a motorist. But I realize I'm also a cyclist, and that skews my views from that of a typical motorist who is not also a cyclist. So when I say "they" I am mostly talking about motorists who are not also cyclists.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 04-30-07, 12:58 PM
  #33  
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
If you (or anyone else) think I'm still sticking to a point or theory despite someone showing flaws in it, please PM me with a link to the post where you feel the flaw is shown.

I try to address everything, but sometimes I just don't have enough time or energy, or maybe don't notice the relevance of something, or misread something, etc. But I never intentionally and knowingly just ignore a point. I have no interest in thinking I'm right about something when there are perfectly good reasons to think otherwise.

Thanks.
https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...4&postcount=33
I would like to see your responses to the points I have made here without using your myth about cyclists bike lanes being overlooked since I have already shown you one example in another thread of a motorist (me) taking note of bike lanes long before he (I) ever gave thought to taking up cycling.
pj7 is offline  
Old 04-30-07, 01:16 PM
  #34  
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
I hadn't seen that post. I'll address it there.
Your response has been read, and responded to. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Don't be silly. Surely you aren't arguing that signs are of equal importance to what is ahead in the driver's path? Surely you know drivers who rarely look at signs. Why? Because they are deemed by all drivers to be of secondary importance, relative to the primary importance of what's ahead, and by some drivers to be of very little importance. Next time you are with someone else, after passing a sign, ask them if they noticed it and what it said. Obviously, they'll probably know about a stop sign. The kinds of signs that are usually missed are: speed limit signs, "deer xing/rock falling", etc., especially on regular routes. There are exceptions - drivers who pay attention to all signs, but they are exceptions. But there are no exceptions to the fact that all drivers give what's ahead in their lane primary importance.
I don't disagree that drivers give what is ahead and in their lane more priority than things off to the side or in other lanes. Of course that holds true. But if the object off to the side or in another lane is a human being or any item that can cause them great harm then they do give it the consideration it deserves. This is one of the causes of rubber-necking incidents. And I have also noticed that when I am riding on a wide shoulder that motorists tend to be half way into their left lane as they pass me, even though there is 4 or 5 feet between my left side and the fog line to their right. People aren't cattle, they do perceive things around them.

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Because they are relevant to us. Have you read much about inattentional blindness? Perceived relevance plays a key role with respect to whether the subject notices something or not.
That inattentional blindness crap is just that, crap. There are no peer reviewd studies on this. Only mishmush from people who are trying to use it to make a buck by testifying in court cases. I have said it before, just because something is on the internet, does not make it true.
Maybe it does have some truth in it... maybe. But remember my post to you about a multi-billion dollar industry that would like to rebute it? They are called advertisers and have a few hundred thousand bilboards up here and there that would like you to take them into consideration.

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Note that if all bike lanes are gone, only the stripe would be gone, the space would still be there. You don't seem to realize that.
I realized what you were saying. But the stripe serves a purpose! People tend to keep their cars between the lines. If they are all willynilly drifting back and forth can you explain why the shoulder of the roads are so filled with crap while the lanes are clean?

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Why would you be "directly in the line of fire" any more or less simply because of a stripe being there or not?
Read what I said about keeping it between the lines

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
As far as the mayo goes, say you were that jar and you wanted to be noticed by the person who goes in the fridge to get the milk. Where would you choose to be, in front of the milk carton, or off to the side of it? (please don't ignore this question - it gets to the heart of the matter).
I would chose to be where the person would expect me to be! And that is in the door next to the other condiments.
I'm getting hungry now.

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
To improve the analogy. Consider a refrigerator with only a few items on it. On the top left rack is a milk carton. The top right is empty. The bottom rock has a few items on it. You are the mayo that wants to be noticed by the person going for the milk. Would you just to be next to the milk on the top left, or on the empty rack to the right?
It all depends on where the person would expect me to be.
I'm really getting hungry now.
Ever misplace your car keys? If you were on your way out the door would you go to grab your keys off the key rack where you expect them to be or would you go looking thru your porn collection?
No need to answer that, it only proves to serve my point. I do see yours (point that is, not porn collection) but I think mine holds more merrit otherwise I'd just shut up about it.

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Removing bike lane stripes does not remove space that cyclists can use to allow faster traffic to pass, and removing those stripes increases their chance of being noticed by making the presence of the cyclist in the motorists lane more relevant to the motorists.
But with the stripe there it's a constant reminder to motorists that cyclists so use this road so please be on the look out for them.

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Yes, I still drive over 10,000 miles per year. I am a motorist and I think like a motorist. But I realize I'm also a cyclist, and that skews my views from that of a typical motorist who is not also a cyclist. So when I say "they" I am mostly talking about motorists who are not also cyclists.
Cool, now I know you have motoring experience. Now come to the east coast and see how things go here. Not everywhere is sunny California. I'm sure that on the roads you have there your ideas are likely the better of many options. But not everywhere is like that, you need to understand and consider. I have. I do make a point of considering that metro Detroit is ont indicitive of the entire US. That is why I always (almost) use phrases like "around here" and "in these parts".
pj7 is offline  
Old 04-30-07, 01:53 PM
  #35  
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pj7
I don't disagree that drivers give what is ahead and in their lane more priority than things off to the side or in other lanes. Of course that holds true.
Good. You seemed to disagree with this earlier.

But if the object off to the side or in another lane is a human being or any item that can cause them great harm then they do give it the consideration it deserves.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You're not saying they ALWAYS "give it the consideration it deserves", are you? So the issue is does the stripe cause them to be more likely, or less likely, to give the cyclist the consideration he deserves. It's not about whether the consideration is given in any one given instance.

This is one of the causes of rubber-necking incidents. And I have also noticed that when I am riding on a wide shoulder that motorists tend to be half way into their left lane as they pass me, even though there is 4 or 5 feet between my left side and the fog line to their right. People aren't cattle, they do perceive things around them.
Of course. But it's a matter of when and how often.


That inattentional blindness crap is just that, crap. There are no peer reviewd studies on this. Only mishmush from people who are trying to use it to make a buck by testifying in court cases. I have said it before, just because something is on the internet, does not make it true.
Maybe it does have some truth in it... maybe. But remember my post to you about a multi-billion dollar industry that would like to rebute it? They are called advertisers and have a few hundred thousand bilboards up here and there that would like you to take them into consideration.
That is not my impression. It is my understanding that there is and has been a lot of legitimate peer-reviewed work done on the topic in the field of cognitive science.

I realized what you were saying. But the stripe serves a purpose! People tend to keep their cars between the lines. If they are all willynilly drifting back and forth can you explain why the shoulder of the roads are so filled with crap while the lanes are clean?
That's a different argument.

I don't disagree that the line in general keeps people out of that space. My argument, though, is it is the line that does that, not the presence of the cyclist. What keeps them out of that space when there is no stripe there is that they tend to keep left, but some also keep right (which is why there is less debris in the margins when there is no bike lane or shoulder stripe). But what keeps them out when the cyclist is there is the cyclist's presence. Thus, they notice him. If this were not true, there would be many more cyclists hit from behind while riding off to the right in a WOL. Yet much more common are cyclists hit from behind riding in shoulders or bike lanes. Why? The only explanation I can think of is that the cyclist is more likely to be not noticed if there is a stripe, and, so, he is more vulnerable to drift. So, the stripe does nothing, and, arguably, may hurt.


I would chose to be where the person would expect me to be! And that is in the door next to the other condiments.
I'm getting hungry now.
How does that help you get noticed by someone looking for milk? That's the point.

Let me put it this way. Say we each have a fridge in separate rooms, and we will have 100 people go in the fridge, get the milk out, measure how much milk is in it, and put it back in the fridge. Afterwards, each person will be asked to answer a few questions, one of which is: was there any mayo in the fridge? If your goal is to maximize the number of milk measurers who notice the mayo, wear are you going to put the mayo in the fridge? Next to the milk, or on a separate empty shelf?


It all depends on where the person would expect me to be.
I'm really getting hungry now.
Ever misplace your car keys? If you were on your way out the door would you go to grab your keys off the key rack where you expect them to be or would you go looking thru your porn collection?
No need to answer that, it only proves to serve my point. I do see yours (point that is, not porn collection) but I think mine holds more merrit otherwise I'd just shut up about it.
You're ignoring relevance. If you're looking for your keys, that's one thing. But most non-cyclist motorist are not looking for cyclists. They could care less about cyclists. They care about getting to the office. This is about making something that is generally irrelevant to someone to be relevant to them. We wear bright clothing. That helps. I say conspicuous lane positioning helps even more, and being in a separate lane does not do that.

But with the stripe there it's a constant reminder to motorists that cyclists so use this road so please be on the look out for them.
Yeah, and it's about as effective as a "deer xing" sign. Maybe if you're on a road in Wyoming for the first time, but if you have passed that sign, or bike lane, every day for the last five years, do your really think it reminds anyone of anything?
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 04-30-07, 02:30 PM
  #36  
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pj7
https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...7&postcount=15
My own experience the first time I came into contact with bike lanes is enough for me. Remember, I AM A MOTORIST. I know exactly how a motorist acts and thinks because I am one. So there you go, you can forget this whole myth thing. I know exactly what I was thinking when I first saw bike lanes.
I hadn't seen that post. I'll address it there.

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
If you accept the premise that what is of primary importance to a driver is what is ahead in his path, that if drivers did not give what is ahead primary importance than they would crash much more often than they do, and that what is ahead in the driver's lane is more relevant to him than what is outside of his lane, then it follows that a cyclist up ahead in a bike lane is less relevant to a driver than the same cyclist up ahead who is within his lane.
Oh, so that's the reason there are no signs on the side of the road! Oh, wait a minute, there are. Hrm...
Drivers don't crash more often than they already do out of self preserverence. It's not like we, the drivers are out there to kill ourselves.
Don't be silly. Surely you aren't arguing that signs are of equal importance to what is ahead in the driver's path? Surely you know drivers who rarely look at signs. Why? Because they are deemed by all drivers to be of secondary importance, relative to the primary importance of what's ahead, and by some drivers to be of very little importance. Next time you are with someone else, after passing a sign, ask them if they noticed it and what it said. Obviously, they'll probably know about a stop sign. The kinds of signs that are usually missed are: speed limit signs, "deer xing/rock falling", etc., especially on regular routes. There are exceptions - drivers who pay attention to all signs, but they are exceptions. But there are no exceptions to the fact that all drivers give what's ahead in their lane primary importance.

But when driving we expect to see cars in front of us, how come we don't overlook them as well.
Because they are relevant to us. Have you read much about inattentional blindness? Perceived relevance plays a key role with respect to whether the subject notices something or not.

So what if you have your way and all bike lanes are gone and everybody rides their bike in the road?
Note that if all bike lanes are gone, only the stripe would be gone, the space would still be there. You don't seem to realize that.

Now cyclists are "expected" to be there. Now we are the jar of Mayo but instead of being off to the side we are directly in the line of fire.
Why would you be "directly in the line of fire" any more or less simply because of a stripe being there or not?

As far as the mayo goes, say you were that jar and you wanted to be noticed by the person who goes in the fridge to get the milk. Where would you choose to be, in front of the milk carton, or off to the side of it? (please don't ignore this question - it gets to the heart of the matter).

To improve the analogy. Consider a refrigerator with only a few items on it. On the top left rack is a milk carton. The top right is empty. The bottom rock has a few items on it. You are the mayo that wants to be noticed by the person going for the milk. Would you just to be next to the milk on the top left, or on the empty rack to the right?


Thanks Helmet Head, thanks for killing my neighbor because there wasn't a bike lane for her to ride in. She was hot too, but now she's dead... oh well.
Removing bike lane stripes does not remove space that cyclists can use to allow faster traffic to pass, and removing those stripes increases their chance of being noticed by making the presence of the cyclist in the motorists lane more relevant to the motorists.

One last thing.
I love the way you have removed yourself from being a motorist every time you talk about them. You say them and they but never us when you talk about how they are like sheep or stupid or how they overlook things and never pay attention. Don't you drive?
I gave up driving a long time ago but I still call myself a motorist. It's nice how you think you are better.
Yes, I still drive over 10,000 miles per year. I am a motorist and I think like a motorist. But I realize I'm also a cyclist, and that skews my views from that of a typical motorist who is not also a cyclist. So when I say "they" I am mostly talking about motorists who are not also cyclists.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 04-30-07, 02:34 PM
  #37  
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You're not saying they ALWAYS "give it the consideration it deserves", are you? So the issue is does the stripe cause them to be more likely, or less likely, to give the cyclist the consideration he deserves. It's not about whether the consideration is given in any one given instance.
Of course I'm not saying always. Just as there is proof out there that shows that motorists do not always give what is in front of them the due respect that they should. Ever see a dead animal in the center of the road that has been run over three dozen times? People don't tend to think that the bones of that animal can puncture their tire. Nor does the second person to hit it think "omg, it could still be alive and the owner sure would like me to help". No, most of the time they just hit it and keep going, some making ignorant comments after they do so about points or [insert your favorite food].

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Of course. But it's a matter of when and how often.
... a matter of when. That's a good line to keep in mind while riding and is part of my philosophy on things.

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
That is not my impression. It is my understanding that there is and has been a lot of legitimate peer-reviewed work done on the topic in the field of cognitive science.
I have yet to see any study on cognitive sciences that supports this inattentional blindness theory. You show me one that does and I'll gladly retract my statemes refuting it.

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
That's a different argument.

I don't disagree that the line in general keeps people out of that space. My argument, though, is it is the line that does that, not the presence of the cyclist.
Well then, if you subscribe to IB (inattentional blindness) would you not rather the people have that line there that keeps them from entering that space so that if their IB kicks in you are not directly in front of them?

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
What keeps them out of that space when there is no stripe there is that they tend to keep left, but some also keep right (which is why there is less debris in the margins when there is no bike lane or shoulder stripe). But what keeps them out when the cyclist is there is the cyclist's presence. Thus, they notice him.
Once again. they "keep it between the lines". This little phrase is instilled in everyones mind, even children know it. Sure, hugging the left line is what alot of motorists do. But they also avoid crossing the right fog line as well. You can't overlook that fact! No matter how much someone wants to not believe it, it is true!

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
If this were not true, there would be many more cyclists hit from behind while riding off to the right in a WOL. Yet much more common are cyclists hit from behind riding in shoulders or bike lanes. Why?
Maybe it is because there are more cyclists in the bike lanes and shoulders than in the lane itself. That is one possible conclusion. But there is not enough evidence to support this or to refute it. Another reason could be that, most of the shoulder riding cyclists are hit during the dark hours while on a country-type road by a motorist who is not of the sober variety. At which point it would not matter in my opinion where they are. Once the alcahol deamon takes over a persons visuals (read: passing out) there is no where a person can be that assures them safety unless they are 30 miles away in a bomb shelter.

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
The only explanation I can think of is that the cyclist is more likely to be not noticed if there is a stripe, and, so, he is more vulnerable to drift. So, the stripe does nothing, and, arguably, may hurt.
I totally disagree, as does a majority of the people on this board. Keep it between the lines. Remember that phrase? That is what the stripe does. A motorist is taught that their lane is between the stripe on the left and the stripe on the right, weren't you? And this is what helps protect the cyclist from drift. I do not believe whatsoever that a motorist does not notice someone in front and to the right of them wether there is a line of not.

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
How does that help you get noticed by someone looking for milk? That's the point.

Let me put it this way. Say we each have a fridge in separate rooms, and we will have 100 people go in the fridge, get the milk out, measure how much milk is in it, and put it back in the fridge. Afterwards, each person will be asked to answer a few questions, one of which is: was there any mayo in the fridge? If your goal is to maximize the number of milk measurers who notice the mayo, wear are you going to put the mayo in the fridge? Next to the milk, or on a separate empty shelf?
This is as irrelevant as my car keys question to you. And I posed that question to show you. Someone going to get milk from a fridge does not have the instilled nature to notice anything else in there because it is neither relevant, important, or affectant towards them. Now if you put a severed penis in the door they would all notice that! But all of this is besides the point. We can not compare people to milk, mayo, or penises... well, not the milk and mayo at least.

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
You're ignoring relevance. If you're looking for your keys, that's one thing. But most non-cyclist motorist are not looking for cyclists. They could care less about cyclists. They care about getting to the office. This is about making something that is generally irrelevant to someone to be relevant to them. We wear bright clothing. That helps. I say conspicuous lane positioning helps even more, and being in a separate lane does not do that.
I wasn't ignoring relevance, I was avoiding it in order to make a point that all this talk about anything besides human life, which is what is important in these decisions, is moot.

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Yeah, and it's about as effective as a "deer xing" sign. Maybe if you're on a road in Wyoming for the first time, but if you have passed that sign, or bike lane, every day for the last five years, do your really think it reminds anyone of anything?
But what if you pass the sign every day, and every day there are 10 to 20 deer standing there waiting to cross the road?
pj7 is offline  
Old 04-30-07, 07:39 PM
  #38  
Dominatrikes
 
sbhikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Posts: 4,920

Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Motorists read the signs. If they did not, they wouldn't put the signs there. They read the deer crossing signs, too. How do I know? Because the other day I was a passenger and the driver slowed down for apparently no reason, and then I saw it: a deer in the road. The driver said he always takes extra care through there because there are deer crossing signs, and sure enough, there are deer, too.

Maybe you, Helmet Head, are a more careless than average driver?
sbhikes is offline  
Old 04-30-07, 07:45 PM
  #39  
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Ironically, I just watched it on the news tonight. The freeways around here have 70mph speed limits. They were changed from 65 to 70 a few months ago but the signed were never changed due to the budget. They just took alot of them down but never made new ones.
The news had a big story on how people were freaking out because the speed limit signs have been taken down.
This shows me that people are looking for the signs, obviously because they are not now seeing them where they expected to see them... which is on the side of the road.
pj7 is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 08:51 AM
  #40  
Arizona Dessert
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 15,030

Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex

Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5345 Post(s)
Liked 2,169 Times in 1,288 Posts
Originally Posted by pj7
The news had a big story on how people were freaking out because the speed limit signs have been taken down.
People want to know how fast they can go without getting a ticket
noisebeam is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.