SSP

Your test is irrelevant to the issue of cyclist safety.

Helmet Head

You're putting the cart before the horse. If my theory is invalid, then yes, the test is irrelevant to the issue of cyclist safety.

But our entire dispute is about whether my theory about cyclist safety is valid.

And the test is specifically relevant to your challenge of my theory. In particular, your challenge of a specific fundamental premise in my theory. Are you rescinding that challenge?

Helmet Head

I know what you and Hurst think. You know what I think. We're trying to break it down to fundamental premises that my theory is based on.

SSP

I believe that I've done a more than adequate job of explaining why I, and others, think skeptically of your theory.

I don't believe the "test" you propose would have any impact on my skepticism, and I know that nothing I or anyone else would say would have any effect on your strident, single-minded defense of your theory.


Your silly "test" would do nothing more than show that drivers will react to things in the roadway...another way of conducting this test would be to hide in the bushes near the road and throw a basketball out from between parked cars.

But just because drivers would "react" doesn't mean that riding in the roadway is safer than riding in a perfectly functional bike lane.

joejack951

There's no hair splitting going on here. Either you've tested riding out in the middle of the lane during gaps and observed drivers reactions (which earlier you stated you did), or you haven't and you are simply stating your assumptions that their reactions to your presence won't be any different, which, of course, is a physical impossibility and is the reason why we started questioning whether you've really tried it.

SSP

I question your premise...clearly drivers will "react" to things in the roadway (just hide between parked cars and roll a basketball out into the road to test this "theory" ). But, just because they'll react doesn't mean I'll be any safer in the roadway, than in a perfectly serviceable bike lane.

chipcom 

Only to a relative noob like you, HH.

ghettocruiser

Because you started off calling the thread "narrow lane crashes", and then said this:

Hence, I'm comparing the risks of taking a narrow lane to the risks of riding off the the side on a shoulder or WOL. They are different road types, but comparing them was your idea.

Except how often are motorcyclists actually overtaken by cars from behind, compared to us?

This sounds less like a logical argument and more like a leap of faith in the attention-grabbing novelty of a cyclist appearing in the front windshield.

I think we all made that realization a while ago or we wouldn't be having this discussion. But I still don't think it's too much to ask people to look where they're going, or anyone is being paranoid by preferring to be off to the side of the traveled portion of the road in traffic.

Helmet Head

That's not questioning the premise (that motorists are more likely like to notice a cyclist up ahead in their path/lane and perceive him to be relevant and meaningful than a cyclist up ahead in the bike lane), acknowledging that drivers will react to a cyclist riding up ahead in the path/lane is accepting the premise.

You've lost me.

You explained that your objection to the argument centered on your inability to accept the premise that drivers would be able to discern differently a cyclist 1/8th of a mile up ahead in a bike lane, and a cyclist the same distance up ahead in their lane/path. You went to great lengths to explain why you could not accept this premise. So I said fine, this is easy enough to test. You seemed to agree, and said you already had. Then JJ called you on that, and you've seemingly totally backed off on the position you've been arguing for several pages now, and in two different threads.

Yet you still claim the argument overall is not persuasive. Okay, fine. Now, what specifically about the argument makes it not persuasive to you? Is it that you can't accept one or more of the premises? If so, which premise(s)? Or is oy that you believe the premises do not support the conclusion? if so, how so? Or is it not a matter of reason and logic to you? If so, then why are we even discussing this?

Helmet Head

Yes, I know. But when I wrote:

You objected, in #365, saying: "... but my examples dealt with accidents from cyclists taking narrow lanes, as the thread title suggests."

That's a separate issue. You're attempting to use the significance of how often cars are rear-ended by cars with respect to the potential dangers of bicyclists taking the lane. I'm saying a better comparison than cars rear-ended-by-cars is motorcyclists rear-ended-by-cars. If your objection to that is how rarely motorcyclists are overtaken by cars from behind, I'd say it's probably about the same as cars overtaken by cars.

Frankly, I'm lost. I'm not sure what part of my argument you have an issue with, much less why. You seem to jump around all over the place.

How does this address anything in my argument?

A few posts back in our discussion I identified the main premises in my argument. Do you have an issue with any of them? If so, which ones? If not, do you feel they do not support the conclusion? What is your issue with what I'm arguing?

pj7

Please refer to post #14, made by yours truely.
I've never been hit from behind while in my bicycle, but have while on my motorcycle.

Helmet Head

No doubt it can happen, which is why whenever there is room to get out of the way before they reach me, I do.

ghettocruiser

Again, I objected because you announced you are now comparing two riding styles irrelevant to the original topic, i.e. narrow lane accidents, which was what you originally solicited crash reports on, which were provided.

My question is, why did you drop that original topic?

I'd say it's less, since motorcyclists tend to move fast than cars. I don't know any active motorcyclists, although at least one motorcyclist reading this has been hit from behind, it seems. The reason for using cars rather than bikes was to get a bigger pool of local data, since cars are all over the place. There are far fewer motorbikes and bikes, hence I rarely ever see any accidents involving either.

Funny, I was going to say the same thing to you.

Yep:

You say: Cyclists are much more noticeable when taking the lane ahead, and from-behind collisions are rarer than drift-over and hit the guy in the bike lane collisions.

I say: We're a bit more noticeable in the central part of the lane, and I move left during gaps in traffic just like you. But I think you're ignoring evidence if you think hit-from-behinds are rarer than drift-overs, since I have never heard of a drift-over-into-a bike-lane accident anywhere other than A&S.

You say: Even though motorists run into the back of each other, they are unlikely to run into the back of a cyclist because we are unusual and grab more attention than cars.

I say: We do grab more attention than cars. But these accidents happen with cars VERY OFTEN. We know that even minor ones are in cars would be major on a bike. We're clearly not grabbing enough attention, either off to the side OR taking the lane, as accident studies and news reports from my area suggest.

Helmet Head

My intent was to ask about square-on from-behind crashes in narrow lanes where the motorist never saw the cyclist riding in his path/lane in front of him, and where driving into the sun is not a factor. But I asked it wrong, and it ended up being about all kinds of narrow lane crashes.

I respectfully suggest that you probably never paid attention to whether a given crash involved drift into an unnoticed cyclist or not. Sometimes the word "drift" is not used, but the situation is clearly inferred. For example, it might simply say the cyclist was in the bike lane, the motorist was going in the same direction, didn't see him, and hit him. Another might say a cyclist in the shoulder was killed from behind by a hit-and-run.

But from now, start paying very close attention to overtaking collisions, in particular with respect to whether the cyclist was separated by a road edge stripe of one sort or another.

Do the accident studies and news reports you cite differentiate between cyclists hit square-on from behind by a motorist who simply did not see the cyclist up ahead in his path/lane and cyclists riding in stripe demarcated road margins who were drifted into?

ghettocruiser

No, of course news and police reports almost never provide any meaningful information on cyclist lane position. However, they DO tend to mention when there is a bike lane. This is easily seen and reported by a police officer or journalist on the scene. Again, I think this adds up to a data collection artifact that you are interpreting to mean something.

That's why, with the two examples I provided (which as usual were light on details) were both on roads so narrow (I know from being out there) that the cyclists had to be on the traveled portion of the roadway prior to being hit.

Which, of course, was what you asked for, I think.