genec

I've attempted to address your arguement several times, but you ignore my responses... so much for "validity."

I guess you can just continue trying to encourage folks to ride bicycles by citing how many cyclists die doing it... if that seems to be your best approach.

But I refuse to conceed that your death stats have anything to do with moving left, or that they prove the safety of any particular lateral location of a cyclist on the road... that information is just not part of the data compiled.

noisebeam

Could it be that rear/passing deaths are so rare because the vast majority of cyclist ride very close the the curb or even on the sidewalk, whereas intersections accidents are more common because so few cyclist ride in the middle of the lane.

Al

genec

No way to know... the stats don't contain road position data... Time of day, perhaps; type of accident, perhaps; lateral position on the road... nothing.

noisebeam

Of course. But we do know that most cyclists (no not you folk reading the forum) pretty much hug the curb.

Al

genec

Yeah but you cannot project that into accident stats... you are just making assumptions at that point... just like the recent cyclist death here in San Diego...

There was a bike lane on that road, so do we assume that the BL was part of the fault? It was also early morning, foggy, and the road speed was 65MPH, and there was a "slip lane" involved... of all of these, the fact that it was early morning and that it was an overtaking collision will probably be the only recorded variables...

That is the problem with a lot of these stats... there is not enough data to confirm or deny all the possible trends. So quoting the stats as evidence that it is OK or not OK to do something, based on the fact that the data just doesn't show it, is meaningless.

Helmet Head

Gene, you have got to be kidding! I have ignored your responses? Please identify even one point you made that you think I ignored.

You, on the other hand, have not addressed my argument at all. Addressing the argument would mean something like:

I reject your premise, and here's why: ...
The problem with your logic is: ...
The conclusion does not followbecause: ...

Of course you wouldn't have to use those exact words, but you haven't even come close to saying anything like any of the above. You make factual points, like noting that much of the data on non-fatal collisions is not available, but you fail to show how this addresses, much less refutes my argument, which relies entirely on data about fatalities. After all, the statement in question, the one you called fallacious (and my argument proves it is true), is talking about fatalities: Being hit from elsewhere is much more likely to KILL you while you are cycling than is being hit from behind in daylight.

Now that we're on a new page, I'll present the argument one more time.As near as I can tell, the only points you have made are listed below, and none of them address this argument, for the reasons provided in italics.

1. A cyclist who is hit from behind is more likely to be killed from that hit than is a cyclist who is hit from elsewhere. Doesn't address the premise, logic, or conclusion of the argument. Confuses likelihood of death once a cyclist is hit with likelihood of cyclist being hit AND killed..
2. We don't have the data. We DO have the data. It's true that we don't have all the data for non-fatal collisions, but we're talking about fatal collisions -- i.e., what is more likely to KILL a cyclist -- for which we do have the data.
3. moving to the left may indeed be the proper move, it cannot be justified using "dead cyclist statistics." Irrelevant. The argument (see above) does not even address moving to the left. Whether the conclusion justifies moving left is a separate issue; the issue here is simply whether it is true that "Being hit from elsewhere is much more likely to kill you while you are cycling than is being hit from behind in daylight."
4. Argument is ineffective because cyclists deaths are discouraging. Irrelevant. Whether the argument is effective at getting cyclists to ride further left is irrelevant to the issue of whether the argument is valid.

Do you still think I missed any of your points? If so, please specify which one(s)?
Do you still feel any of your points were not addressed? If so, which one(s)?
Are you still contending that any of these points address the argument above? If so, identify which point you think does, and address my explanation for why I think it doesn't.

Thanks.

noisebeam

Yeah, what are 'leaves' and why do they need to be cleaned from the road?

Al

Helmet Head

I don't think so, because so many cyclists use a full lane so often, and yet the rear/passing deaths (daytime) remain so rare.

Another indication is the utter lack of close calls reported by vehicular cyclists who use the full lane regularly (not to mention the utter lack of VC deaths, much less VC deaths from rear-enders). I for one, have never heard screeching tires behind me, nor have I ever seen anyone in my rear view come even close to not seeing me.

Not to say that it won't happen. But just like an isolated airliner crash doesn't keep me from flying, an isolated rear-ender death is not going to keep me from using the full lane (because the likelihood of death is still higher if I don't use the full lane).


Now that I believe is definitely true.

noisebeam

Isn't this contradictory? On one hand you assert that 'so many cyclist use full lane often' on the other you agree that intersection accidents are common because so few cyclists ride in the middle of the lane. Which is it? My observation is that only about 5-10% of cyclists I see ride further than 2ft from curb if they are on the road at all.

Al

noisebeam

There is a road I ride daily for 2mi. Several lanes with a very narrow outside lane. I have posted its picture before. I've ridden it hundreds of times. I've tried both center lane and to the right, but not curb hugging - generally in the right tire track which is about 3ft from curb. I always get more close calls when riding in center of lane. Always. I also get far more annoyed motorists who honk and then intentionaly close pass me when in center of lane. I've been bumped/near brushed three times while in center of lane and once while far to right, but I based on my experience on this road ride to the right more often.

While I agree with the principle of riding fully in lane to prevent dangerous passing and I have found it to be the best solution on most narrow roads, it does not in my experience work on all roads.

Here is the link to the image: https://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/i1/IMG_8531w.jpg (note these cars are going 45-50mph at this density)

Al

Helmet Head

Of course it's not contradictory... I said it!


Almost all experienced cyclists use the full lane from time to time whether they are VCs or not. Very few do it consistently, but my point is that there is a LOT of full lane use out there at this very moment.

It's almost 3:30 on the west, so 6:30 in the east. There are probably hundreds if not thousands of cyclists throughout the U.S. riding in the center of the lane right NOW. That's my point.

In other words, cyclists don't divide up into two nice groups: lane users and curb huggers. There is a wide spectrum, and each cyclist does some of both. What varies is how much of each each cyclist does.

So, enough cyclists do both full lane using and curb hugging such that if they were dangerous activities, the stats would show it. And, indeed they do.

The stats show that full lane usage is safe, and curb hugging, when extended across intersections, is not. See the new invisible cyclist syndrome thread for a related theme.

genec

You missed your own main point.

The very point you were trying to make... that is because all your logic cannot determine that it is OK to ride further to the left. You cannot prove that, your data does not show it, and your logical arguments do not even address it.

The only thing your data may show is that fewer cyclists are killed in broad daylight, in overtaking accidents. Period.

There are no references in any of your arguments or data to show that it is OK to move further to the left, or that any lateral position on the road is safer than any other. Period.

The speculation that Noisebeam makes regarding "most cyclists" riding to the far right, may be more true than what you contend.... especially since "most cyclists" are NOT VC riders.

genec

That is a bad assumption. The majority of riders out there are the "here and there" type riders that do not ride in the center of the lanes. They are the Xmart bike riders and the students and recreational riders. They tend to ride on sidewalks, bike lanes, paths and yes, the street... they do not tend to be assertive VC type riders... otherwise you would not have to "train" the vast majority as you have often mentioned.

Helmet Head

Most of the experienced cyclists I see and ride with are not VCs and are not trained, but they regularly, though not consistently, and often contrary to VC principles, using the full lane. That's what I'm talking about.

Helmet Head

Gene, you're just repeating what I numbered as point 3 in #56, "moving to the left may indeed be the proper move, it cannot be justified using 'dead cyclist statistics.'"

I addressed this point originally in #48:
"Gene, you continue to ignore the proof in #32 which makes no reference to where anyone should ride on the street."

You never responded.

I addressed it again in #56:
"Irrelevant. The argument (see above) does not even address moving to the left. Whether the conclusion justifies moving left is a separate issue; the issue here is simply whether it is true that "Being hit from elsewhere is much more likely to kill you while you are cycling than is being hit from behind in daylight."

You ignored both of my responses, and just repeated your point a 3rd time in #62. What kind of discussion is that? I'm not going to respond a 3rd time until you address at least one of my first two responses.

genec

Note the qualifier you had to use... "experienced."

Most cyclists do not fit into that catagory... the vast majority of cyclists out there are what you would classify as "inexperienced." They are the ones that are riding the wrong way, riding on sidewalks, running lights, doing exactly the things that tend to give "experienced cyclists" a bad name.

Now these folks can and do commute, but may not know anything about VC, EC or lateral lane positioning at all. These are the vast majority of cyclists.

Just look at the SDCBC membership as an example... what, 900 or so members... then there are folks like me, that are not members... we make up an even larger group, and beyond that... all other riders.

I don't think the 5 bike shops in my area could live on supporting 900 cyclists... so there is a huge number of cyclists out there that fall into the area of "not experienced cyclists," or "here and there" riders. These folks are barely getting into bike lanes... no where near the center of the road.

genec

Dude... your whole point was that it is OK to move further to the left as of the 700 deaths that occured last year, few were from behind.

Post 2 you tell the OP to move to the left, in post 7 you justify post 2 with your comment regarding 700 deaths.

In post 8 I defend your move to the left comment, and then tell you that your use of stats to justify it, is bogus.

And I have told you way.

The rest is history.

SpokesInMyPoop

you guys are too cute.

Helmet Head

The part you're ignoring is that in #8 you quoted my statement and started a side discussion that had nothing to do with moving left justification.


The side discussion has continued ever since, with the key disagreement being crystalized in #17:


None of this disagreement has anything to do with justifying moving left. You quoted me, and called my assertion that being hit from the elsewhere [not the rear] is much more likely to kill you is a fallacy, period, without any qualification about whether it's used to justify moving left or anything else.

That's what spawned the argument that was most recently presented in #56.

Now, please, either finally address the argument, or withdraw your statement that its conclusion,
being hit from elsewhere is much more likely to kill you while you are cycling than is being hit from behind in daylight, is a fallacy.

And simply repeating any of the points 1,2,3,4 without addressing my responses to why they do not address the argument does not count as addressing the argument.

genec

Uh you left out part of number 8:
You pretty much missed that I said it's OK to move left, and you keep harping on your logic regarding fewer deaths from overtaking accidents, while ignoring that you brought up the accident stats in the first place to justify moving left. You also ignored all the responses I have made telling you that there is nothing in the accident data that cites lane position.

Spin all the "logic" you want... there is nothing in your data to support any particular lane position, which was your reason to mention the data in the first place.

I think this thread has been rather beaten to a pulp now...

Helmet Head

Gene, I didn't ignore the rest of #8, it was just not relevant.

Perhaps the problem is in separating these two issues.

1) Is the following statement TRUE, or not? Being hit from elsewhere is much more likely to kill you while you are cycling than is being hit from behind in daylight.

2) IF the above statement is TRUE, can it be used to support a particular lane position?

Starting with post #9, we've been discussing issue 1 exclusively until your mind drifted back to issue 2 again in #44, all without addressing issue 1 along the way, excepting calling the statement a fallacy and BS without providing any basis. It took me a while to figure out that's what happened, in the mean time I kept responding that your points (addressing issue 2) were irrelevant (to the issue we were debating, 1).

Please stop diverging to issue #2 before resolving issue #1. Issue #2 is so clearly dependent on issue #1.

In fact, if you can't agree on the truth of the statement in issue #1, which happens to be the conclusion of the logical proof presented in post #56, what's the point of moving on to #2?

Would you please ADDRESS #1, and the argument defending it, without referring to #2?

genec

False

We don't know that number 1 is true, as there is no data to show how many people have been hit from "elsewhere" and simply walked away... My own personal experience, as an example, is I am not dead, and have been hit 3 times from "elsewhere," further, only one of those accidents may have been "registered" as any type of statistic, because police were involved.

The only conclusions we can derive from any compiled available bicycle accident data are that more cyclists die in raw numbers from accidents involving being hit from "elsewhere;" but NOT that being hit from "elsewhere" is more deadly.

Regarding your statement 2, there is no data available regarding bicycle accidents and lane position. There is data regarding type of accident, time of day and regional area, but nothing to support whether riding in the middle or side of the road is any safer. So 2 is also False.

Helmet Head

What this thread has boiled down to... (prior to Gene's last post, FINALLY!!!):


HH: Is the following statement True or False: "Being hit from elsewhere is much more likely to kill you while you are cycling than is being hit from behind in daylight."

GC: False.

HH: False? Why?

GC: Because you can't use it to justify moving left.

HH: WTF?

genec

Only in YOUR mind...

Helmet Head

Why would you need to know "how many people have been hit from 'elsewhere' and simply walked away..." in order to detrmine whether being hit from elsewhere is much more likely to KILL you while you are cycling than is being hit from behind in daylight? We're back to you repeating without basis what you said before without basis, and not addressing how I responded to it before.

You first made this "no data" claim back in #31:


I responded to this in #32 by pointing out, in detail, that this claim does not address nor refute the logical argument. You did not respond to this argument.

In #33 you simply reworded the claim as "simple math", ignoring the point I made in #32.

In #34 I explained that the reason your claim was irrelevant was because you were ignoring the frequency factor. No response.

You restated the "no data" claim, without addressing any of what I had said about it, in #38:


Here's how I responded in #41:


You never responded to any of that.

Later, in #50, I said:


You never responded to that either. And to top off all that ignoring of my arguments, points, and counter points, you had the gall to claim that I was ignoring you! In #51, you said:


In #56 I asked you to identify where I've ignored your attempts to address my argument, and you of course ignored that...

Yet here you go again, in #72, repeating your "no data" claim again without basis, without explaining how it's relevant to the argument, and without addressing my previous responses to this claim.

Anyway, if you could finally address the points I made back in #41, copied above for your convenience, that would allow us to make some progress here, I think.