Being the devil's advocate, I have to ask this question:

If a cyclist can be hit from behind in a bike lane by something we call "inadvertent drift," then how is the white line so magical that it tends to produce this effect?

I submit that the white line is irrelevant to "inadvertent drift," but that driver inattention will occur regardless.

Some will say the the white line causes drivers to ignore everything to the right of that line. But I've also heard about the "magical powers of the white line" to protect a cyclist to the right of it.

How is it that a white line has no power to protect a cyclist, but at the same time, it has the power to lure motorists across it? I'm not buying it.

That said, I suggest that bike lane or not, driver inattention is the culprit. Let's put the problem where it belongs, in the lap of inattentive motorists. Whether you're in a bike lane or not, motorists have to pay attention to cyclists.

I'm not warring VC, I think vehicular cycling, properly understood, garners respect from motorists when they see we follow an easily-understandable pattern. Isn't that what bike lanes are supposed to do, show motorists we are predictable, and we ride in our own space? Predictability is our friend, in any case.

But let's not get bugaboo and spooky-do about bike lanes and shoulders, they have no special "sleepy-time" effect on motorists. If we accept that they did, every motorist in the US would have a license to cross into any lane willy-nilly, without responsibility.

That's my honest opinion, folks. The guy was 68 years old, for cryin' out loud, and was squinting to look for signs while he was supposed to be paying attention to the roadway.

Hay'll, I'm not even 50, and that could happen to me, too, if I was just as careless.