Originally Posted by galen_52657
We seem to agree that: total 100% vigilance impossible
I would say that the rider that fails to follow the rules of the road would need to be more vigilant than the cyclist that obeys the rules of the road just to survive and that's what I stated earlier.
I am not sure what maximum vigilance looks like but I am betting that the rider that follows the rules of the road and is above average on the vigilance meter is the cyclist with the fewest collisions, falls or close calls.
Ultimately, the safety of both the law-following cyclist and the non-law-following cyclist are dependent on the same thing -- vigilance in traffic, situational awareness, whatever you want to call it.
Following the rules (I'm talking about the traffic laws here galen, not the defensive driving rules of the road, two very different things) has many wonderful effects and is perhaps a wonderful thing. Hey everybody, it's a good thing to follow the rules. However, the cyclist who figures that his/her safety springs from this rule-following has made a grave error.
I will re-emphasize that lawful cyclists get hurt in traffic all the time -- most of the adult riders that suffer an injury-causing car-bike collision are riding lawfully at the time of the wreck. This is because vigilance/awareness is the key to safety, and lawful cyclists are not necessarily vigilant cyclists.
Robert