See, this is why I have my doubts about your observation skills. My name has 2 l's, as clearly indicated in every post I make.

Watch the rest of the clips. Part 1 is the quietest part of the route.

Rush hour, but during school holidays, which usually means significantly less traffic.

So, within that 10 minute clip, how many times would you move in and out of the lane?

Satellite photos are not a reliable reference for this kind of exercise. Take a look at the 'lanesplitting' clip in my youtube account, which shows typical commuting time conditions, and compare it to this image of the same road. See the difference?

Of course I check. You still seem to be assuming I'm some kind of amateur just because I don't agree with 'experts' such as yourself. I keep saying that just because I'm not weaving about doesn't mean I'm not aware, and it's still not sinking in.

Left hooks are exceedingly rare, and pretty easy to deal with if you keep your wits about you. No need to habitually hog the lane on the off chance. That's as much an irrational overreaction to a minor risk as kerb hugging.

And yet, miraculously, no-one hit me.

And yet, miraculously, no-one hit me.

Nor do I need to know. The fact that they (miraculously) pass me safely is evidence enough.

That, as I've said many times, is such a minor risk that I'm not about to change my lane position out of fear of it. The pragmatism of riding in a way that doesn't require frequent lateral movements and doesn't require them from motorists unnecessarily overrides it by a long chalk.

That's a huge misunderstanding, since (b) is a subset of (a).
Also, drifts usually occur on ruralish roads with no curbs and no parking.
In urban and suburban environments which are busier, drivers are more reluctant to take their eyes off the road long enough to drift from their intended path significantly.

This type of drift crash on these types of roads is all too common. Here's one example.The SUV driver apparently didn't notice the car and police motorcyclist in the shoulder. But he'd have no problem noticing a lone cyclist in the shoulder.

https://www.policeone.com/traffic-pat...icles/1359627/

So who do you think is at fault there? The driver, or the policeman?

Maybe the cop should've pulled the driver over in the lane rather than to the side, to really grab driver's attention.

That anything is a "subset" affects no relevance. These are your premises (or premise), and since you are unable to back them (it) up with any evidence, I cannot entertain any of your arguments that follow.


Which is why.... there are so "few" rear-end collision accidents in urban areas???

And how does this anecdote provide any evidence that from-behind collisions are less common than drift-overs?

And if what you suggest is correct (and I think it isn't) why isn't the cyclist taking the lane at added risk from right-drifting vehicles in the passing lane?

For bicyclists, yes, (b) drift over collisions are more common than flat on hit the cyclist right in front of you hit-from behinds. The latter are virtually unheard of.

Rubber-necking - paying attention to something else while the driver in front of you slows or stops - is the main cause of rear-enders. It's not that they didn't notice the bus, it's that they didn't notice it slowed and stopped (at least not before it was too late). Again, I think bicyclists (and motorcyclists) are much less prone to these than are auto drivers because:

a) drivers are less careless when a cageless human is in front of them
b) when traffic slows cyclists tend to filter in between lines of auto traffic


Why would you expect me to provide evidence for a contention that I don't hold: that from-behind collisions are less common than drift-overs? From-behind crashes usually include right hooks, sideswipes, cyclist swerves into path of overtaking vehicle, and even motorist drifts, as well as the extremely rare flaton hit the cyclist who is straight ahead in the motorist's path from behind. I've never claimed that all those together, known as "from-behind collisions", are less common than drift-overs alone. I think we've had more drift collisions from the Portland area alone discussed on this forum in the last couple of years than flat on from-behinds from the rest of the country combined.

It's the very rare flat on driver hits a cyclist right in front of him in his path type of crash that I believe is much rarer than the drift type. Evidence? The dearth of newspaper articles describing such crashes, in contrast to the all-too-many drift types.

What if we start a thread entitled "flat on from-behind vs. drift from-behind crashes", in which any time anyone hears of a cyclist death of either type in the U.S., an article would be posted. Right hooks and sideswipes would not count.

Look, I'm ready to change my mind, and I would, if someone could point to a few crashes describing flat on from-behind types. And I'm not saying they never happen, just that they are very rare, in particular as compared to drift types of from-behind crashes. Many collisions seem to be of that type, but usually turn out to be drifts or right hooks into a cyclist who was riding in the margin, not in the main travel area for through vehicular travel.

Because adjacent lane space is relatively relevant to most drivers, shoulders and bike lanes are relatively irrelevant.

"All drivers give most attention to those parts of the highway where there is risk to themselves, and see much less easily anything, or anyone, outside of a quite narrow field of vision. A cyclist is safest riding within this zone of maximum surveillance, not outside it." - John Franklin, https://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/vc99.html

There is potential risk to the driver in the adjacent lane (a car or truck); there is very unlikely to be any potential risk to the driver in the adjacent shoulder. That's why a cyclist in an adjacent traffic lane, where threats are expected, is much more likely to be noticed than a cyclist in an adjacent shoulder or bike lane, where threats are not expected.

Hey, Allister (better?), in your lanesplitting video yeah, that's some pretty heavy traffic. But it's mostly slow or stopped, and narrow lanes. Good video of filtering. Certainly rush hour in many places is like that, I've never denied it. I'm just saying that's an exception, not the norm. The video is of course cherry picking during heavy commute traffic. The satellite video on the other hand is random and shows what is likely to be more typical. Obviously, the wide lane methodology has no application here.

Anyway, after about the 5:45 point, up to around 7:00, there are some very close passes, or at least it looks that way to me. Why aren't you further away from the curb in that section? Your positioning seems to invite a whole series of close passes there.

So? I was using it as an example of the unrealiability of satellite images.

It's the norm for me, mate.

The video shows fairly typical commute time traffic - the time that I most usually ride it. The only thing that really varies from day to day is the length of the tailback.

The satellite image may show typical traffic, but only for that particular time of day/week. Without knowing what that time is, it's useless as a reference for traffic conditions. Satelite imagery can be useful to determine road conditions, as they stay fairly constant, but not for traffic conditions. Your reasoning that random=typical doesn't get any more convincing with repetition.

Yeah, they probably do look close to you.

Edit:moved to appropriate thread

^^^ I'll move on to that thread, as it's the same friggen topic, again.

This is an editorial about actually doing something about landscaping that causes driveway blindspots. Of course temporarily parked cars where they normally are not is different, but there is a relation to this and the original accident:
https://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...-edit1011.html

Al

In similar incidents of crashes of groups of bicyclists, the riders behind the leading riders were considered to have been increasingly "at fault" due to following too closely... those farther behind were more likely to be considered more at fault. Those at the front were not.

In some similar crashes involving groups of cyclists in So.Calif, those following other bicyclists were considered to have been increasingly "at fault" depending on how far back they were in the group... following too closely was the determination.

This is very sad, I have done that ride many times without any problems but there is always the risk of some AH specially on a weekend in Miami where many drivers at that time, in the morning and on that area are probably high on something.... Looking forward to ride with them....kuddos to Bianchi and the whole team,

https://www.nbc6.net/news/17279985/de...l?dl=mainclick

https://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/MI95087/

Pieralberto

Hello,

Definetly not in this case, the driver was sleeping!

https://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/MI95087/

TOTALLY WRONG PICTURE MY FRIEND....AND YOU CAN TAKE IT FROM A LOCAL

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=...cF4s_jAA0jmvlw