Are you afraid?

[Hampsten88]

Hampsten88, I think you have got it right, Ninety5rpm doesn't get it, he is not a bad guy and he has a right to pose his opinion, but he can't see out of his own box. Instead of reading and understanding another person's perspective, he turns inward back to his same program. You can't reach everybody, I'm sure many out there got what we were saying, I'm OK to let Ninety5rpm stay where he is. We made an attempt, but it is better to let him go on in a circle alone, no progress will be made here.

I don't think it is not seeing out of his own box, I just think he makes illogical assumptions based on things that are not explicitly spelled out for him.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I don't think it is not seeing out of his own box, I just think he makes illogical assumptions based on things that are not explicitly spelled out for him.

Such as?

Seriously, I admit I make assumptions based on things not explicitly spelled out. I refer to them as unintended and unrealized implications of what is being said. That's exactly what I'm pointing out and commenting on.

I dispute the characterization of them as being illogical.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Right... so you:
1) know blind spots
2) stay out of blind spots whenever possible
3) when you're in a blind spot, either speed up or slow down quickly to get out of it
4) while you're in a blind spot be extra vigilant
5) look for evidence of being noticed (just looking at you doesn't mean they noticed you!) before you put yourself in a position where you need to have been noticed to not be hit. For example, someone that is 10 seconds behind does not necessarily need to have noticed you to not hit you, not yet, but some time before they are about 4 seconds back you need evidence of being noticed (they slow down because of your presence). Same thing with intersections, don't enter an intersection when someone across from you might enter and turn into your path unless they've clearly indicated that you've been noticed.
etc.

This might seem complicated, but the bottom line is that there is a moment 10 seconds prior to almost any crash where you should be able foresee the potential crash and take appropriate action to avoid even becoming vulnerable to it, or at least take evasive action to not get hit.

If you don't feel you can "keep up" with all the potential conflicts, then you're probably in a situation more complicated than you're ready to handle... back off and get more experience riding in less intense traffic situations, and build up to the more complex situations as you get quicker at processing and evaluating everything. Once you learn to pay attention and take responsibility, it comes quickly. If instead you're obsessed with "staying out of the way", you're just going to get frustrated.

I agree with your pointers and take preventive measures myself. That's all well and good. I'm just saying things can happen that the cyclist just can't prevent... other than simply not riding the route to begin with. And those kinds of things are exacerbated by heavier traffic. Hekl, just the other day I just about impaled a pedestrian who stepped off the curb, backside facing me, in front of the car I was driving. There was no forewarning. Streets were narrow, traffic heavy, so there was no where to go. Had I not been traveling 10 mph and hit the brakes immediately that person would have been a hood ornament. Now, if I had been riding my bike at 15-20 mph along the curb and a pedestrian popped out in front of me just like that I definitely would have torpedoed the person. Just as an example.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I'm just saying things can happen that the cyclist just can't prevent... other than simply not riding the route to begin with. And those kinds of things are exacerbated by heavier traffic.

I don't dispute that in theory. In practice, however, if you look at actual bike-car crashes and causes, about half are primarily caused by blatant error on the part of the cyclist, and almost all of the other half could have been prevented by the cyclist had certain safe/defensive/savvy practices been followed.

Hekl, just the other day I just about impaled a pedestrian who stepped off the curb, backside facing me, in front of the car I was driving. There was no forewarning. Streets were narrow, traffic heavy, so there was no where to go. Had I not been traveling 10 mph and hit the brakes immediately that person would have been a hood ornament. Now, if I had been riding my bike at 15-20 mph along the curb and a pedestrian popped out in front of me just like that I definitely would have torpedoed the person. Just as an example.

And that's one reason the safe/defensive/savvy practice is to NOT be riding "along the curb", especially when moving as fast as 15-20 mph, and to not travel faster than is safe for conditions.

The bottom line is that taking full responsibility for what happens to you means accepting that it is your responsibility to do whatever it takes to prevent all undesirable situations you wish to avoid. And yes, about 999 out of 1,000 of us should be able to accomplish that without staying home. But if you believe you're the 1 in 1,000 that will encounter the truly unavoidable undesirable situation, I suggest that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I don't dispute that in theory. In practice, however, if you look at actual bike-car crashes and causes, about half are primarily caused by blatant error on the part of the cyclist, and almost all of the other half could have been prevented by the cyclist had certain safe/defensive/savvy practices been followed.


And that's one reason the safe/defensive/savvy practice is to NOT be riding "along the curb", especially when moving as fast as 15-20 mph, and to not travel faster than is safe for conditions.

The bottom line is that taking full responsibility for what happens to you means accepting that it is your responsibility to do whatever it takes to prevent all undesirable situations you wish to avoid. And yes, about 999 out of 1,000 of us should be able to accomplish that without staying home. But if you believe you're the 1 in 1,000 that will encounter the truly unavoidable undesirable situation, I suggest that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I can't argue against defensive riding that's for sure.

 

[Burnette]

Ha!

Yiou're right Hampsten88, his extrapolations are way off.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Yiou're right Hampsten88, his extrapolations are way off.

If I'm making illogical assumptions and extrapolations that are way off, why can't anyone actually identify an assumption or extrapolation I've made, and explain how it's illogical or "way off"?

I don't doubt that it really seems that way to you guys, I'm just saying that your inability to be specific about what you're claiming about my posts indicates you're the ones who are not understanding, illogical and way off.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I can't argue against defensive riding that's for sure.

Good. Defensive driving consists of certain skills and good practices, but it starts with attitude. Expressing fear and blaming others are both indications of an attitude that has not about being defensive and taking full responsibility for your own safety.

 

[RedheadDane]

And that's one reason the safe/defensive/savvy practice is to NOT be riding "along the curb", especially when moving as fast as 15-20 mph, and to not travel faster than is safe for conditions.

Where else would you be riding?

---

But sure you need to be awake. When I ride my bike home from school I pass close to a primary school. Problem: Several of those kids need to cross the street to get to the bus. I have developed what I'll call a justified prejudice. Sometime you see around 10-or-so of those children run out from the school, right onto the biking-lane, right onto the street because "OMG!! WE'RE GONNA MISS THE BUS!!" (Or something... There's about ten minutes between the buses, hardly a long wait! )

 

[Hampsten88]

Where else would you be riding?

At least 12 to 24 inches inside the lane. Just enough to make sure cars have to see you and to move over to get by, if you ride right along the curb cars feel they have plenty of room to get by and you put yourself in danger from things on the sidewalk or side of the road.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Where else would you be riding?

It depends on the situation.

Roadway positioning is probably the least understood and least appreciated skill among cyclists, including among very experienced bicyclists.

The first mistake almost everyone makes is even thinking about positioning relative to the road edge. There might be some disagreement about how far from the edge you should be, but few realize that where you are relative to the road edge should often not even be a consideration when deciding where to ride. There are much more important considerations. If you follow a course relative to the road edge, you are often following a path that is weaving relative to other traffic. So, I always think of where I am relative to the roadway center, or relative to the nearest traffic lane stripe, which runs parallel to road center, unlike shoulder and bike lane stripes, which run parallel to the road edge. By the way, per the MUTCD, bike lane stripes are supposed to be painted parallel to traffic lane stripes, but they almost always follow the edge of the road, like shoulder stripes. Following a shoulder stripe or road edge is not problematic when there is only one line of traffic in your direction, as it is for car/truck drivers on most rural roads, but it's basically never the case for bicyclists.

Anyway, I could write a chapter on the topic, or maybe even a whole book, but others have already done that. I again strongly recommend Cyclecraft by John Franklin. The original version is for the UK, but there is a new edition for North America.

Riding near the edge, even two feet from the edge as recommended above, should be avoided as much as possible, because your safety is greatly compromised riding there as compared to being well out in the traffic lane. Not only is the road edge where all the rubble and debris collects, but it's also where you're closest to roadside hazards (like a pedestrian suddenly stepping off of the sidewalk, or a kid or dog suddenly running out from between parked cars), you're in the door zone if there are parked cars, sight lines to you and from you are compromised as compared to being out in the traffic lane left of center, and you're much less conspicuous and so easier to overlook. That's because you're not riding where most people are looking for traffic most of the time. Bicyclists complain about not being noticed, but they usually don't realize how that's not just because of their relatively small size, but because of where they are riding. Motorcyclists have trouble being seen too, but that's partly because they are typically going much faster than bicyclists (so further away and even smaller so harder to see when someone might look), but still not nearly as often as typical bicyclists, because they tend to ride out in the traffic lane where others are looking.

Have you ever been passed by someone who then turned right in front of you? If you talk to them, they'll say, "sorry, I didn't see you", and no, they're not lying. The thing is what people "see" depends a lot on relevance (google for "inattentional blindness"). A cyclist riding along near the road edge is not relevant to motorists - this is obvious by how they drive by without slowing down or adjusting laterally, as if you're not even there. So you're not really noticed... plus they're on auto-pilot, not really thinking. On the other hand, if you're out in the traffic lane, you're forcing them to notice you and deal with you. Use a mirror just in case, but you'll be shocked at how much better you're treated. Without exception everyone I know who has changed their riding like this has reported vast improvements in how well he or she was noticed and treated.

Here's a good article and video on the topic:
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/11/29/helping-motorists-with-lane-positioning/

 

[RedheadDane]

Well... If I'm riding on a biking-lane I always make sure other people can get past me (personally I hate, hate, hate those people - often girls - who go side-by-side reeeeeally slow and yadda yadda yadda!)
Same if I'm just riding in the car-lanes. I don't go so close to the curb I all but scrape my feet along, there are drains and stuff which I don't wanna end up in! (Not to mention parked cars, you should keep a distance to those, especially newly parked cars due to the random door opening some people seem to deploy.)
But I don't ride in the middle of the car-lanes either. Lets face it, unless there's some congestion going on (and then it just sucks being on a road without biking-lanes) cars do tend to be faster than bikes. If I ride in the middle of the lane cars coming up behind won't be able to overtake, unless they cross into the opposite lane, and if there are just as many cars there that won't be a possibility. The only time I'll go into the middle of a car-lane is if I'm riding on a road without biking-lanes and have to turn left away from a traffic light. (At traffic lights I just follow the ordinary rules; cross over for green, turn your bike, wait for the other direction to get green (make sure you're out of the way of right-turning vehicles), go!)
As for going into the middle of a biking-lane (other than for overtaking purposes); When I ride home from school I have to go down a road with some sideways coming up. Main problem; there are some rather tall hedges. When going down there I move out towards the middle of the biking-lane when nearing on of those sideways, both so I can see earlier if there is a car, and to give them a chance of seeing me. Also to try and keep them from making the stop your car right on the biking-lane trick.

And before you start going OMG! Who taught you that?
My parents! Basically following the guidelines the "Road Safety Council" puts out.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Where else would you be riding?

At least 12 to 24 inches inside the lane. Just enough to make sure cars have to see you and to move over to get by, if you ride right along the curb cars feel they have plenty of room to get by and you put yourself in danger from things on the sidewalk or side of the road.

Hampsten (and 95) have great ideas on how to best avoid the pileup. But since I was the one present in this near-crash example I can honestly tell you that if I was riding the bike 12-24 inches inside the lane (actually in the traffic lane, because there was no where else to go), then I would not have been riding 15-20 mph... I would have been riding at the speed of traffic which was about 10 mph. Just the reduced speed would make the severity of any crash much reduced. But (since the pedestrian who nearly became a hood ornament was as close as hand-on-hood) I'd still give the chance of a pileup in that situation as 50-50... a cyclist might have been able to swerve out of harms way or hit the brakes. Again, a much less severe result... provided the cars behind were giving enough distance to the cyclist in front to avoid any pileup that might have resulted. In any case, I agree with Hampsten that riding 1-2 feet inside the lane would have been the safest choice.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Hampsten (and 95) have great ideas on how to best avoid the pileup. But since I was the one present in this near-crash example I can honestly tell you that if I was riding the bike 12-24 inches inside the lane (actually in the traffic lane, because there was no where else to go), then I would not have been riding 15-20 mph... I would have been riding at the speed of traffic which was about 10 mph. Just the reduced speed would make the severity of any crash much reduced. But (since the pedestrian who nearly became a hood ornament was as close as hand-on-hood) I'd still give the chance of a pileup in that situation as 50-50... a cyclist might have been able to swerve out of harms way or hit the brakes. Again, a much less severe result... provided the cars behind were giving enough distance to the cyclist in front to avoid any pileup that might have resulted. In any case, I agree with Hampsten that riding 1-2 feet inside the lane would have been the safest choice.

Wait. So there is a line of motor traffic moving about 10 mph, and you're suggesting a cyclist should be riding between that line and the curb, 1-2' from the curb, passing on the right at 15-20 mph? That's the safest choice? Really?

What about the cyclist passing the slow/congested traffic, you know, on the left?

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

No. Let me try to paint a better picture. The border between the 'bike' lane and traffic lane is not painted. What the safest would have been would be in the car traffic lane, and to the right side (this is U.S. now... not UK) of that lane proceeding at the speed of traffic (~10 mph). Again, narrow street, 2 lanes, no parking lanes on either side, with the curb close to the right edge of the traffic lane, but not so close a bike could not use the gap (~2 feet or bit more) between the curb and traffic lane. This is not a 'designed' bike lane with painted stipe and bike logos.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

No. Let me try to paint a better picture. The border between the 'bike' lane and traffic lane is not painted. What the safest would have been would be in the car traffic lane, and to the right side (this is U.S. now... not UK) of that lane proceeding at the speed of traffic (~10 mph). Again, narrow street, 2 lanes, no parking lanes on either side, with the curb close to the right edge of the traffic lane, but not so close a bike could not use the gap (~2 feet or bit more) between the curb and traffic lane. This is not a 'designed' bike lane with painted stipe and bike logos.

If it's not a "designed" bike lane, it's not a bike lane, period. Bike lanes are made to certain standards for a reason, including needing to be at least 4 feet in width because that's generally the minimum space required for a bicycle. A person on a bike is about 2' wide, so even 4' allows for only 1' of buffer on each side, assuming the cyclist is centered in the bike lane. But just because there is no formal bike lane on the road doesn't mean there isn't room for one, there very well might be - some traffic lanes are that wide. But if there isn't room for a bike lane in a traffic lane, then the traffic lane is too narrow for safe side-by-side travel, and the bicyclist is not legally obligated to keep right at all, nor for reasons of safety.

I ask again, why not pass on the left? Faster traffic normally passes slower traffic like that, not on the right. Plus, on the right, you're always vulnerable to someone in the line of traffic suddenly turning right into a side street or driveway or something.

What's the address/intersection/city of this location so we can check it out on street view?

And if passing on the left is not an option, why travel on the right side of the lane rather than closer to the left tire track, about where someone on a motorized cycle would likely be? Our traffic system is designed assuming drivers are in vehicles where they are sitting on the left side, a bit right of the left tire track. That's the ideal location in a traffic lane for a driver, whether driving a car, motor bike, or organic engine bike. Why drive anything, including a bicycle, in the passenger part of the lane?

Another video on this topic:
www.youtube.com/user/CyclistLorax

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

What's the address/intersection/city of this location so we can check it out on street view?

Lahaina, Hawaii. Somewhere between Dickenson St, past Lahainalua down almost as far as Papalaua St. You might know of some other way, but google maps lets you zoom in past the maximum, which takes you to a webcam view... just like you are standing there looking at the streets. Then you can navigate yourself down the street... pretty intuitive in the navigation.

There are some pull off parking spots for cars, but these are always full. Then imagine traffic full both lanes and lots of tourist traffic on both sides.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Lahaina, Hawaii. Somewhere between Dickenson St, past Lahainalua down almost as far as Papalaua St. You might know of some other way, but google maps lets you zoom in past the maximum, which takes you to a webcam view... just like you are standing there looking at the streets. Then you can navigate yourself down the street... pretty intuitive in the navigation.

There are some pull off parking spots for cars, but these are always full. Then imagine traffic full both lanes and lots of tourist traffic on both sides.

I presume you mean Front Street.

goo.gl/maps/Vign

Yes, I would be riding near the yellow center stripe. I've been there when it's crowded with tourists (I was one of them!)... stay away from the curb for sure!

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Has anyone been watching the videos which I've linked?

Here's another...



commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/03/01/the-dance-on-video/

Don't be afraid! Cycling in traffic is a dance!

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I presume you mean Front Street.

goo.gl/maps/Vign

Yes, I would be riding near the yellow center stripe. I've been there when it's crowded with tourists (I was one of them!)... stay away from the curb for sure!

oh ya. sorry, front street is correct.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Black Black Black

Over the last couple of weeks now I have become less and less sympathetic with cyclists getting knocked over by cars.

What is it with you men with wearing BLACK WINTER GEAR ????

Okay you have a light front and back but you're on a wing and a prayer if you think motorists can see those. Why wont you wear hi-viz jackets ??

Yeh they look crap but its only for winter.

I,m also curious as to what kit Bradley Wiggins had on when hit. I bet my bottom penny that he had on the Black Sky kit...no hi - viz stuff...probably a tiny light. Anyone know ?

So - no sympathy with cyclists wearing black kit. Even in Holland, where the motorist is liable for any incident involved with a cyclist, it would be hard to convict when the rider is dressed in black.

 

[Aapjes]

Even in Holland, where the motorist is liable for any incident involved with a cyclist, it would be hard to convict when the rider is dressed in black.

Eh no. Dutch law only requires a light and a driver who misses a cyclist with a front and rear light is going to be guilty by default. You are probably from the UK with the hi-viz victim blaming mentality. In Holland, people ride bikes in regular clothes.

 

[avanti]

I moved to Boulder, Colorado and it is amazing how bike friendly car drivers are. There are still accidents (usually inexperienced riders) and the occasional nutty driver.

 

[aphronesis]

Eh no. Dutch law only requires a light and a driver who misses a cyclist with a front and rear light is going to be guilty by default. You are probably from the UK with the hi-viz victim blaming mentality. In Holland, people ride bikes in regular clothes.

I've been riding in the city here for the better part of two months and, with a few exceptions, am far more trusting of most drivers, cabs and buses to act with competence on the roads than I was for several years in New York. There've been a few cases of getting on people's blind spots on the right side, but I don't rely on people to see me in those cases anyway.

From what I've seen of the high-viz jackets here, there's no guarantee at all that they'd be seen in situations and areas (late at night) by any driver who going too fast and is incapable of seeing decent lights.

 

[winkybiker]

Even when I ride my mountain bike along trails you get morons of which you ring the bell at and they actually walk in front of you because they are clueless of the rule which is to keep to the left & move to the left side when a cyclist is passing.

There is no "rule". Just slow up and give pedestrians space. Getting all worked up about it isn't the answer. Lose the bell. "Ding, Ding! I'm a cyclist! All you lowly walkers, move from my path of destiny. Now! Or suffer the consequences you minions. Don't you know who I am?!"

Ride as if the pedestrians don't know you're there. Don't inconvenience them at all. Works much better than the imperious and arrogant "bell".