AlmostTrick

Thanks genec, I watched both of your posted video's. Both are geared towards convincing motorists NOT TO TEXT while driving. No problem, I don't even have a cell phone and wouldn't know how to send a text if you handed me yours! This leaves me more time to watch for all the reckless cell addicts.

Well, I certainly don't have close calls every week or I'd be looking to change something up. Pedal On!

genec

No problem... of course if those motorists are texting and hitting things outside their vehicles... it could just as easily be a cyclist. My point was to show that 5 seconds here and there is NOT exactly what happens...

BTW, I was doing my commuting in the 9th largest city in the US... so no doubt population density had something to do with what I encountered... as did the time of day for my commute... Rush hour is not for the faint-hearted.

jon c. 

Taking the lane doesn't preclude one from moving over when there is a truck approaching from behind. I ride a lot of roads like that (except they tend to have more trees) and the center of the lane is the safest place to ride. When a vehicle approaches, you move to the right to more easily facilitate their passing. Just like you would if you were driving a tractor.

Kontact 

It strikes me that the antihesis of VC isn't Segregated Cycling but Deferential Cycling, which is all we'd have in the US today if cyclists hadn't taken some ownership of the road with VC, encouraging dialogue by drivers on Segregated schemes.

Ninety5rpm

Indeed, Forester calls the antithesis of VC, "cyclist-inferiority cycling", which is pretty much what you probably mean by Deferential Cycling. Regardless of what it's called, it's the belief that roads are primarily for motorists, and, cyclists, if they are to use roads at all, are inferior users of the roads, and are to be deferential to the motorists. So, given this belief, of course a desire for segregation of cyclists from the motorists on the roads where cyclists are inferior and are to be deferential is understandable.

avole

No, it's the realisation that motorists are surrounded by tonnes of metal and cyclists only by flesh. Only a fool would not give way to a car turning right ahead of them if they are continuing straight on. Deference has nothing to do with it, more a desire to string out the short existence we have on this planet.

Kontact 

That's actually the opposite of what I was getting at.

If cyclists had remained "inferior", there wouldn't be any segregation schemes because the vast majority of drivers would view bikes as pedestrians who have rights only to the sidewalk. The fact that drivers have been told that bikes have an equal right to the road is what makes drivers even begin to take seriously plans for dedicated cycling infrastructure. Drivers might not like sharing the roads, but at this point they can't imagine simply telling the bikes that neither road nor dedicated lane is available. In drivers' minds it has to be one or the other, so the cycling infrastructure gets funded.

Otherwise bikes would be regarded more like skateboards.

Ninety5rpm

I see. I get it now. Yes, well, Forester has also been saying that "motordom" (as he calls it) favors segregation to get bikes off the roads. So you have this odd coalition of motordom and segregated cycling infra advocates working together to get bikes off the roads.

Ninety5rpm

Motorists that are on motorcycles are also surrounded only by flesh, and they travel much faster so are even more vulnerable than people on bikes. So what?

Kontact 

Not sure what that has to do with avole's point that bikes have to be more careful than drivers do. Motorcyclists do as well, but they do have several advantages over bikes including better braking, greater acceleration than cars, better traction than bicycles, lights, horns and turn signals.


You seem to be making a more political point out of it, but the fact that certain people end up as bedfellows doesn't change whether one system or another is desirable or practical.


As far as I'm concerned, if something is a bad idea, it is a bad idea even if an oil company also thinks it is a bad idea.

Ninety5rpm

Just pointing out that not all motorists have cage protection. While motorcyclists do have some technical advantages over bicyclists, these are overshadowed by the disadvantage of usually traveling at significantly higher speeds. That makes collisions more likely and injuries more likely to be severe.


Agreed.

Anyway, I think the motivation for segregation for both sides is about to be deflated with the advent of self-driving cars. People as AV passengers won't care nearly as much about bicycle-caused slight insignificant delays as people as car drivers do, and once people develop confidence in the safety of AVs, they'll feel more comfortable out on the streets and will stop demanding separation.

genec

The vast difference between a motor cycle and pedal cycle is the speed at which they travel... which you mention, but you somewhat ignore that such speed gives motorcyclists the ability to blend in and match speeds with automobiles... which cyclists can only do at low speeds... thus the issue of the vulnerability of cyclists is largely due to speed differential and motorists (of any type) simply not seeing the slower vehicles.

Indeed motorcyclists are also overlooked, and this usually happens when automobile drivers make left turns in front of them.

Kontact 

If motorcycles were only operated at bicycle speeds, the injury rate for motorcycles would be significantly lower than bicycles. But bicycles don't go 60mph on the freeways and are spared that danger.

Ninety5rpm

I get that. I'm saying the relative low speed of the bicyclist is a net safety gain over the relative high speed of the motorcyclist.

The relative high speed of the motorcyclist is also what makes a motorcyclist more likely to be rear-ended in stop and go traffic.

Let me put it this way: would you rather have your 16yo kid riding around on the streets on a Trek or Kawasaki? How about your 80 year old aunt?

KD5NRH

Primarily because then at least some of them might be able to handle a curve without wiping out. Any YouTube compilation of motorcycle fails seems to be about 85-90% people who just can't turn.

Around here, it's the college kids and farmer-wanna-bes (usually people with 1-3 horses on tiny acreage trying to justify their 1-ton "farm truck" and cowboy hat) that you've got to watch out for. The real farmers and cowboys are well aware that this might be over that next hill:


When they see your narrow bicycle blasting along well over that tractor's speed, they just slow down a bit, move over, pass safely and they're out of your hair.

Ninety5rpm

How do you figure?

Kontact 

Because of the aforementioned motorcycle advantages in traction, braking, acceleration, lights, signals, engine noise and horn. Plus the ability to always go traffic speed and no one having any expectation of passing one in the same lane.

I've had scooters, motorcycles and bicycles. The scariest stuff about motorcycles is what happens above 40 mph.

Ninety5rpm

Well, motorcycles at bicycle speed would certainly be safer than motorcycles at normal motorcycle speeds; we certainly agree on that. But the advantages they have over bicycles - traction, braking, acceleration, even lights, signal, engine noise and horn - are less advantageous at lower speeds. And the heavy weight, at bicycle speed, remains a relative safety disadvantage compared to bicycles.


Anyway, that's hypothetical. The reality is that motorcycles are generally ridden at much higher speeds than bicycles, and so riding bicycles is generally much safer.

I found this related post, albeit from 2006, on another forum:


Straight Dope Message Board - View Single Post - Risk of riding a bicycle vs. riding a motorcycle.