Cell Phone violation again
 

Driver was on Facebook before crash that killed three, say cops - CNET

While it didn't involve a cyclist. It is another example of cell phone abuse. All because someone couldn't bear to wait until they were not at the wheel.

It is stories like this. Which is why I am such a proponent of 'taking the lane'.

So how does being in the lane protect you from a driver who is looking at their phone rather than the road and whats in front of them? Seems to me being in the lane would be a much bigger risk than being on the sidewalk or a bike path under this circumstance. Fortunately this type of event is still rare.

I think the model is that distracted motorists do look up just enough to see if there is anything in front of them that they need to respond to. A bike gutter-hugging is less likely to make the grade than one that is right smack in the middle of the lane. In that three-tenths of a second a facebooker is looking up, they may never even look anyplace but the center of the lane.

Of course, there are countless counter-examples where people drive into school buses, big rigs and even buildings. As you say, fortunately these events are quite rare (still not rare enough, but I'll live with risks that are rarer than being struck by lightning).

My objection is that in the case cited as justification for always taking the lane, the distracted driver hit a truck in a lane. Thus, the citation does not provide justification for taking the lane. I believe any safety advantage for as far right as proper vrs taking the lane is minimal.

It seems to me the wisest course of action is to observe ones environment, and choose which option best suits the prevailing conditions, rather than assigning cute names to particular options, and declare their virtues out of hand to suit ones ideologies.
By their very nature, distracted drivers throw a monkey wrench into any, and all dogmatic riding styles.

First off, FRAP is as far right as practicable, which is often the center of the lane.

If we're talking about the relative safety of various lane positions when dealing with a distracted driver (what my wife calls driving while playing with a vibrator), then I agree that there isn't likely to be much advantage in one lane position versus any other.

However, I know that when I switched from gutter-hugging to taking the lane in lanes that weren't wide enough for a safe pass I began to experience far fewer close passes and haven't been hit by a passing vehicle since (got side-swiped a few times when I rode too far right), in spite of many more miles post-switch. It's not really evidence, but things have played out exactly as the model I operate under predicted.

The case of a car hitting a truck in the opposing lane, is totally irrelevant to any question relating to bicycle lane placement. All it shows is that no place is safe.

BTW- based on the report that the was on her phone 2 minutes before the collision (if the timing holds up), I suspect that the DA will have a tough case arguing that she was distracted at the time of the event. I know that if I were a juror, saying something that happened before was a proximate cause would be a stretch. Of course, driving under the influence of prescription drugs isn't good either. I suspect that the drugs might make for a better chance of sustaining a reckless homicide charge. (but then again, I'm not the DA, judge, or possible juror).

Because, There are more options when 'taking the lane'. Than there are 'hugging the side', or being on the sidewalk. Because, Sometimes' the bike route goes on the sidewalk.
While I understand your reasoning, and position. I still stand by my position. Because, The video previously mentioned in another thread of the guy on the sidewalk who yells at one driver supposedly blowing a stop sign as the cyclist was about to cross. Is one example. Also, By taking the lane, a cyclist is seen better. They have a better chance of evading a collision with an ignorant motorist.
I switched to 'taking the lane', a long time ago. For that reason. The only time I was hit from behind while 'taking the lane'. Was when I wasn't moving. Waiting to merge in to the traffic from a dual-turn lane.

This is the reason I ride with such ridiculous taillights. I figure that there are people out there glancing at the road maybe for a half a second once every 4 or 5 seconds. I need to not just be visible but rather so bright it's effectively impossible to ignore, and it needs to be so from 10 seconds away, or about 700 feet.

I went through a lot of the lights on the market, but eventually I gave up and bought a Designshine.

The lane taking cyclist is only seen better when motorists are actually looking.

The glance and go motorists are looking for large car shaped objects... they can see right through a cyclist who is right in front of them. And the most fatal form of car bike collision is still being hit from behind. As long as motorists continue to try to multi-task behind the wheel... taking the lane is an iffy proposition.

I take the lane when I have to... but given the choice, I'd prefer to be out of the way of the distracted drivers of fast heavy vehicles.

Allegedly seen better/allegedly less at risk than cyclist riding to the far right or on the shoulder.

"This isn't the first time a driver has been accused of being on Facebook before a deadly crash. Last year, a 20-year-old from North Dakota was allegedly driving at 84 to 86 miles per hour down a highway while checking pictures on Facebook. Her SUV allegedly went into the back of another SUV."

Ok, maybe they're not sure about whether she was on FB, but that other bit should be easy to verify beyond any reasonable doubt. Or maybe they're just leaving open the possibility that the alleged victim SUV was taking an alleged bad-driver-SUV-shaped dump in the middle of the road when it died of a heart attack.

True dat!

Although sight lines ARE often better for middle of the lane vice far right.

And drivers often drive in a traffic lane, or at least not on the shoulder, and alleged better sight lines are immaterial for these drivers even with this alleged tunnel vision.

It depends on the road.

If the shoulder is wide enough that a car can safely get past a bike without swerving... then being on the shoulder, the car is more likely to just pass by, even without seeing the bicycle (although any cars will cut corners).

On the other hand, if the bike must be in part of the lane which is normally occupied by the car, then perhaps there would be an advantage of being more in the middle.

HOWEVER, keep in mind that you are reducing the options available to the driver.

Consider you riding at 10 MPH in the middle of the lane and a car driving at 60 MPH. If the car doesn't see you early for some reason, there are 2 options available, slow down from 60 to 10, or the car must pass (which may be precluded by traffic), leaving only one option, slowing down... if the driver reacts quick enough. (or the rare third option of hitting the ditch, if there isn't a guard rail or a ravine).

With the bike on the side of the road, there are 3 options.
Pass, slow down... or scootch past. As a bicyclist, you may not like the close brush-bys, but it is a valid option where a car moves over as far in the lane to safely avoid an obstruction (bike, pedestrian), while still maintaining clearance from opposing traffic.

I'd rather hear wind over my shoulder than the squeal of a skid on the road behind. And, what about about a bad road surface or condition. Hill, wet, oily, curve, rain, fog, etc. Do you take that into consideration?

Oh... I should also add...
If things are hairy... It takes less effort to move a vehicle a foot to the left than moving it 8 feet to the left.

Perhaps, but only if here is any significant truth in the theory/Urban Legend propagated by disciples of Vehicular Cycling that cyclists are more visible/safer when riding in the middle of the lane than elsewhere within the same traffic lane.

That's just the thing.......I don't have a "position", and I won't limit myself just to "stand by" an internal belief.
I have situational awareness, and the willingness to adapt to actual conditions.

I ride the same roads every day on my commute, yet I ride them differently every day. Distracted drivers are a concern, but they are a random encounter, and they don't all behave the same, some weave like a drunk, some forge straight ahead without seeing a thing, and the transition to such behavior can be as sudden as flipping a light switch. Not the best circumstances for the expectation that they will see and react correctly in a timely manner. there's simply to many constantly changing variables beyond "being seen" to make decisions based on preconceived notions, or being reliant on a single course of action.

Riding the shoulder would be far more iffy. Because, The safe assumption, is that every motorist is going to be distracted by one thing or another. Just like in a sense, when someone says another person isn't above reproach. Meaning that, always look out for, and assume every motorist is, a distracted driver. Never letting your guard down from that train of thought.

Because, Riding on the shoulder gives no 'wiggle room', in a pinch. If a cyclist is subjected to a 'close pass'. There would be no room to get away from the vehicle, and enhances the inability of a motorist to not see the cyclist while passing. Whereas, Taking the lane puts the cyclist directly in front of the motorist, causing them to have to pay attention.

If what is in front of you causes you to pay attention... why is it that people have driven into large trucks, garbage trucks and other large vehicles... right in front of them?

Alcohol and snow are not the only conditions that have caused motorists to drive right into something right in front of them... did these folks simply just not see the large objects looming straight ahead... how?

One hurt when driver rear ends garbage truck on U.S. 127
Truck Rear-Ends Texas School Bus; More Than A Dozen Hurt
4 injured, traffic stopped after landscape truck rear-ends five vehicles on Ravenel - Post and Courier
Five people hospitalized after truck rear-ends RTA bus in downtown Cleveland | cleveland.com
Crashes and Crossroads, Springfield's Top 10 intersections for accidents

1 dead, 1 hospitalized after truck rear-ends semi in Ness County | Hays Post
Lakeland man, 71, killed in Parrish when he rear-ends tractor trailer; 2 passengers hurt | Breaking News Blog | Bradenton Herald
Firefighters free driver from wreckage after pickup rear-ends log truck | Local & Regional News | Eugene News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KVAL CBS 13

Yep. Allow me to illustrate...

My dogmatic riding style: I cycle in a manner that most reduces the number of motor vehicles overtaking me. All of my cycling is in a densely populated city with maximum 35 mph speed limits. So it is fairly easy to make my way to work 6 miles and only be overtaken be a handful of cars and trucks. This is because I ride fast (20+ MPH) and I selectively run red lights with a plan in mind - to cycle in the traffic gaps created by the red lights. Been doing this for 40 years and I have the technique perfected. Along with limiting the numbers of murderers coming up behind me, I wear a rear-view mirror on my helmet and USE IT. If a line of cars does somehow look like they will overtake me I will very often just pull over in a gap between parallel parked cars and let them all go by, then catch the gap behind them and try to keep up with the last car. This might happen three times a week during my commute. I also run very powerful headlight and tail light. I flash them by day. They can be seen from space.

OK...this^^ is my Dogma. It is well known by most A&S veterans. They are likely tired of hearing it.

The monkey wrench has been thrown! It has gotten so ridiculous (to my sensibilities) how many people are not looking through their windshields, increasing every year seemingly, that I now limit my cycling to the bare necessities - getting to work, grocery, and doctors/dentists. I do not own a car so I must use the bike. But for pleasure riding...done with that. I have seen dozens of cars bump the car in front of them stopped at red lights RIGHT NEXT TO ME as I split the lane past them. I have not cycled one mile over the past 12 months for the joy of cycling. It's just not joyful anymore. I have thrown in the towel.

So my new 2015 dogma: Cycle only when absolutely necessary, limit the number of cars getting a free shot at me, use strobes to get attention, and keep an eye over my shoulder (mirror). The odds of me getting smacked by a distracted driver is still not zero, but darned low for sure. I am just not giving them many shots at me.

To be honest, I'm not real concerned about distracted drivers, just aware of the potential issue. I'm far more concerned with impatient drivers who are in a hurry, but lack skill and judgment. Fortunately they are fairly easy to spot most of the time.

Yes, drivers who became infuriated just 30 seconds ago by some texter who was slow getting off the green light causing half a dozen other cars to catch the red twice. So now, thanks to phone users, there are even MORE drivers late for wherever they are trying to go and pi$$ed at the world. Now there is some idiot cyclist slowing them down.

Its really quite simple. If a drive is not looking, they will not see you no matter where you are. If by chance you actually see a car approaching from behind, and driving erratically because the are not looking, dodging them becomes a best guess, irrespective of you position on the road. IF they are approaching from the front or sides you dodge the best you can. Saying that they have a better chance of seeing you when they are not looking is hoping against hope.

In scenarios other than looking at a smart phone and Facebook, other analyses may be more appropriate.

I think this a good analysis of many instances.