Letter to the Editor
 

I'm going to unmask from my nick here, with a link to a Letter to the Editor under my real name here! This was published this morning in the Lafayette Journal and Courier

I hope it does some good! Not only from the cyclists viewpoint, but maybe let a driver see things from our side!:D

ps: Feel free to forward this to the editors of your local paper, my contact information is gunsel2001@yahoo.com .

It seems more directed toward novice cyclists, so maybe those who were former drivers but as a result of the high gas prices, have switched to cycling.

I voted no mostly because your letter didn't address motorists' responsibilities when sharing the road with bicyclists. Yeah, sure, us bicyclists can do everything in our control to be safe. But that does no good if motorists aren't doing what they need to be safe with others.

Also, where to ride on the road, i.e. lane positioning, is also important. I'm not trying to be harsh, sharing the road requires the BEST efforts of BOTH driver AND cyclist.

No, not because of any fault of the letter but because drivers are often misguided as to their own abilities such as reactions, awareness and perceptions. The average driver reading that will imagine that they would never endanger the safety of a cyclist and will not need to adjust their behaviour.

[tt]"The best method I know is to pretend you are invisible."[/tt]

Interesting. That's the one of the worst methods I know. It's mentally debilitating, and makes riding in busy traffic practically impossible.

It also reiforces the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of motorists, which supports the idea that a cyclist who is not staying out of the way of motorists, a cyclist who is not pretending like he is invisible, is doing something wrong.

I know you mean well, but your letter illustrates that we cycling advocates have a long way to go with regard to educating each other before we move on to educating those outside of our circle.

The method I prefer is trust but verify. That is, trust that they see you, but verify that they are actually aware of you before you rely on that trust.

Granted, that is my target audience. I wnated to give a small dose without making the noncyclist's eyes glaze over.

By the way, I don't find that treating my ride as if I were invisible a debilitating mindset, rather keeps me alert. That philosophy also stood me well over 3.5 million miles driving a Tractor Trailer....with no accidents!:D I was bringing experience from being a defensive driving instructor attached to the Safety department over a 10 year period along. I don't care who has right of way, whether it be me or them. If it's them, no problem, take the right of way. If it's me.....well, I'm certainly not going to defend that right of way to the death! I prefer to avoid the situation rather than evade, and evade rather than contact. If I ride proactively in a defensive mindset, I can generally avoid and if that fails, have the room and time to evade.

Perhaps you mean something other than pretend you are invisible when you write, "pretend you are invisible"?

Say you're approaching an intersection where you don't have a stop sign, but cross-traffic does, and there is someone stopped, waiting to go. Do you pretend you are invisible and slow down to let them go (after, all you're pretending they can't see you, so they have no reason to wait)? Or do you maintain your speed and conspicuous position (which would be pointless if pretending to be invisible, as would be wearing bright clothing), while remaining vigilant (trust but verify) in case they don't see you and pull out in front of you, prepared to hit the brakes and/or make an emergency evasive turn if necessary?

I think there is a big difference between the pretend you are invisible and trust but verify methods, and it's a mistake to refer to one by the name of the other.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear in what I'm saying. I operate on the presumption I am not seen until I know I'm seen. I guess trust but verify is in there as well, except I don't trust the driver of the steel cage any further than I can throw the car! :D

The stop sign scenario you mentioned:
I plan on avoiding or evading, to put it simply, that way, if they do go, I don't get graunched! Essentially, I always have an escape route. Like I said, my philosophy has stood me in good stead for a lot of years under a lot of comditions, including operating a 75' long, 80,000 pound Tractor Trailer in Los Angeles and NYC traffic. I've had near misses that would have been at least severe injury events if I wasn't proactive in maintaining a defensive mindset. You say "Trust but Verify", and I say "I don't trust and am pleasantly surprised when you do see me". The viewpoints aren't that far apart, more a matter of semantics really, other than I take a slightly more guarded stance where getting hit by a car is concerned.

Well, if you mean "assume you are invisible until you have verified that they are aware of you", then you're not making yourself clear when you write, "pretend you are invisible", period, instead.

However, I still find that assuming you are invisible until you've verified awareness leads to behavior that often makes it impossible to politely assert your right of way when necessary in busy traffic. That's what I mean by debilitating, and why I've settled on trust but verify, which I find to be liberating in comparison. Works for me...

But, then, I'm a software engineer. Have you heard about the software engineer who died of exhaustion in the shower? He was following the shampoo instructions... lather, rinse, repeat.

OK, you say potato, I'll say potahto! Like I said, semantics

Yes, it's semantics. But when you're trying to convey meaning, semantics is kind of important...

Your letter to the editor will serve to remind all who see it, at least fleetingly, that bicycles are among the vehicles one may encounter on the road. That, by itself, makes it worth your effort.