Crazy Motorists

[Cobber]

Is it safe to ride in a paceline at 20-30+mph (30-50+kph) on these things? It looks okay if it's as empty as it looks here, but I can't imagine doing that safely when it's more crowded. At the same time, with such a "nice" bike highway "available", cycling on the road is probably frowned upon, if not outright illegal, no?

Also, does the "highway" support bike travel in both directions? If so, two cyclists each riding 20 mph (30 kph) in opposite directions are approaching each other at 40 mph (60 kph). With no center dividing stripe? Yikes!

I mean, it looks great for casual riding and relatively short transportation needs, but not for anything really serious. And that's fine, except for the point above, if its very existence precludes the use of the road for more serious cycling needs.

Only an American could find a problem with dedicated bike "roads" across the countryside!

These are good points 95rpm..... but I guess in some respects these are similar "problems" that we have on the road. There are plenty of roads in the countryside and city with no dividing lines and, for the most part we don't continually have head-on collisions with cars coming in the opposite direction. It looks like there is pretty good visual clarity on these bike highways, so it would be easy to accommodate a slower/oncoming rider if riding in a paceline. I mean, we have to do that now anyway, and stop for traffic lights, pedestrians, turning cars, etc....

In Atlanta we have something similar to a bike highway called the Silver Comet Trail. It can be really crowded at the start of the trail, but once you get 5km out it isn't too bad. And this is one of the few places we have in a city of ~5 million people and pedestrians/rollerbladers etc also use it. I think the benefits of a bike highway would far far far outweigh any problems with them!

 

[pedaling squares]

Death of a cyclist

This is a sad story about the death of a cyclist in Toronto, allegedly due to the actions of Ontario's former Attorney General. The first version of events is that a minor collision between car and bike led to an altercation, with the cyclist holding onto the side of the car. The driver crossed over the oncoming lanes and used a mailbox and tree to force the cyclist off the car. The cyclist died.

Very very sad. No doubt both men acted badly, but for this to escalate into criminal negligence causing death is just crazy. Some of us turn into assholes when we turn the key, some of us when we turn the cranks. I wonder what the final version of this story will be.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/01/toronto-cyclist-collision-death481.html

 

[pedaling squares]

I got distracted reading after I saw where you were from. You live in the most beautiful corner of the planet!

+1. One day my wife and I will manage to get the bikes up to the Charlottes...

You are one lucky old derailleur.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Only an American could find a problem with dedicated bike "roads" across the countryside!

These are good points 95rpm..... but I guess in some respects these are similar "problems" that we have on the road. There are plenty of roads in the countryside and city with no dividing lines and, for the most part we don't continually have head-on collisions with cars coming in the opposite direction. It looks like there is pretty good visual clarity on these bike highways, so it would be easy to accommodate a slower/oncoming rider if riding in a paceline. I mean, we have to do that now anyway, and stop for traffic lights, pedestrians, turning cars, etc....

In Atlanta we have something similar to a bike highway called the Silver Comet Trail. It can be really crowded at the start of the trail, but once you get 5km out it isn't too bad. And this is one of the few places we have in a city of ~5 million people and pedestrians/rollerbladers etc also use it. I think the benefits of a bike highway would far far far outweigh any problems with them!

I've been on "bike highways". They are too narrow for high speed travel, and no one follows any rules whatsoever. I mean, they're great when they are empty. But when they have to be shared, they suck. Roads are much better for bicycle travel.

 

[mherm79]

I've been on "bike highways". They are too narrow for high speed travel, and no one follows any rules whatsoever. I mean, they're great when they are empty. But when they have to be shared, they suck. Roads are much better for bicycle travel.

+1. i agree. we have a dedicated bike path which is great when it's empty. but once you add joggers, walkers, prams, kids on bikes, it can get congested. but then again i guess that's better than cars doing 80km/hr?

i occassionally use the path to commute, but never in the dark. i don't have, or want, hardcore night lights on my bikes and the thought of hitting a rabbit i can't see makes me head towards the roads.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

+1. i agree. we have a dedicated bike path which is great when it's empty. but once you add joggers, walkers, prams, kids on bikes, it can get congested. but then again i guess that's better than cars doing 80km/hr?

I think sharing with same direction cars at 80 km/hr is better than sharing with oncoming cyclists at 30 km/hr. Roads that accommodate motorists traveling at 80 km/hr (50 mph) are usually good for bicycling. Remember the closing speed of a 50 mph car behind a 20 mph bicyclist on a road is 30 mph, while between two 20 mph oncoming bicyclists on a narrow path it's 40 mph.

I'd like to see bicycling facilities money diverted to be spent on converting signal controlled intersections into bike friendly traffic circles. The money and resources it takes to build a mile of "bike highway" could probably convert several intersections.

 

[Steampunk]

This is a sad story about the death of a cyclist in Toronto, allegedly due to the actions of Ontario's former Attorney General. The first version of events is that a minor collision between car and bike led to an altercation, with the cyclist holding onto the side of the car. The driver crossed over the oncoming lanes and used a mailbox and tree to force the cyclist off the car. The cyclist died.

Very very sad. No doubt both men acted badly, but for this to escalate into criminal negligence causing death is just crazy. Some of us turn into assholes when we turn the key, some of us when we turn the cranks. I wonder what the final version of this story will be.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/01/toronto-cyclist-collision-death481.html

All over the news tonight. Sad and ugly story...

 

[Rupert]

Toronto

Bottom line is, car 1 cyclist 0 (dead). It NEVER goes the other way. At least he's being prosecuted, but since he's connected and (presumably) financially well off, he will get the minimum his lawyers can engineer...

Reminds me of the Tucson El Tour hit and run last year - the guy got off with basically nothing... He left the scene, hid the evidence (washed off blood on his car), contacted a lawyer, then left the state before his sentencing. Got a slap on the wrist, not even sure he lost his driver's license. Can't seem to find anything about his sentencing online...

http://www.azstarnet.com/sports/268536
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/104037.php


On a separate subject, Bob Mionske talks about lane placement in his Oct column in Bicycling magazine (print version, haven't looked online)

 

[Ninety5rpm]

This is a sad story about the death of a cyclist in Toronto, allegedly due to the actions of Ontario's former Attorney General. The first version of events is that a minor collision between car and bike led to an altercation, with the cyclist holding onto the side of the car. The driver crossed over the oncoming lanes and used a mailbox and tree to force the cyclist off the car. The cyclist died.

Very very sad. No doubt both men acted badly, but for this to escalate into criminal negligence causing death is just crazy. Some of us turn into assholes when we turn the key, some of us when we turn the cranks. I wonder what the final version of this story will be.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/01/toronto-cyclist-collision-death481.html

Don't know about the initial crash (though odds are the cyclist could have avoided that too), but clearly the motorist was at fault for driving his car recklessly with the guy hanging on.

However, my point in this thread stands: even when the motorist is blatantly "crazy" and at fault, almost every time there is a way for the prudent cyclist to remain safe.

Knowing how to behave in order to avoid escalating road rage (or, preferably, not spark it in the first place) is an important aspect of being prudent and remaining safe.

 

[Aapjes]

Is it safe to ride in a paceline at 20-30+mph (30-50+kph) on these things?

During my commutes, I almost never see a paceline with more than 2 riders (I do see some foreign groups of cycling tourists, but they do a bit of touring). I'm under the impression that most cyclists ride solo in my neck of the woods, but I ride a very urban route, full of traffic lights and such. Not very suitable for riding many km's at speed. It might be different for rural roads and better road like the cycling highway, although it doesn't seem to be intended for racing clubs. Perhaps your expectations are different from mine.

It looks okay if it's as empty as it looks here, but I can't imagine doing that safely when it's more crowded.

Keep in mind that this is a 30 km route. That is probably too far for most casual cyclists (at least during commuting hours). I can't see it being too crowded.

At the same time, with such a "nice" bike highway "available", cycling on the road is probably frowned upon, if not outright illegal, no?

No, only 80 - 120 km/h highways are illegal for bikes (recently a team that now competes in the Vuelta accidentally got on the highway and was escorted off by the police). All other roads can be used (seperate cycling lanes/roads are mandatory when they are available). There are plenty of dedicated cycling lanes/roads, especially as an alternative to the 50 - 120 km/h roads.

Also, does the "highway" support bike travel in both directions? If so, two cyclists each riding 20 mph (30 kph) in opposite directions are approaching each other at 40 mph (60 kph). With no center dividing stripe? Yikes!

In my experience, there is little to fear if you ride solo and anticipate well. The highway has plenty of room to pass two riders side by side, that are coming your way. If that's not enough, you can even move onto the black stones.

I mean, it looks great for casual riding and relatively short transportation needs, but not for anything really serious. And that's fine, except for the point above, if its very existence precludes the use of the road for more serious cycling needs.

This is simply one point-to-point connection. There are plenty of other roads that can lead you to the same place, although it will mean a bit of a detour. No one is going to kick you off the other roads (except for those that are already forbidden, regardless of the existence of this highway).

 

[Steampunk]

Bottom line is, car 1 cyclist 0 (dead). It NEVER goes the other way. At least he's being prosecuted, but since he's connected and (presumably) financially well off, he will get the minimum his lawyers can engineer...

South of the border, maybe, but the court of public opinion is Canada (so far, anyway) seems to be squarely on the cyclist's side. Money certainly talks, but I don't think this will wash over. The offender is a former Attorney-General and this has been splashed all over the media.

 

[craig1985]

Attempted murder charge after cyclist hit - The Australian

Ipswich is a pretty feral area it has to be said.

 

[Rupert]

The latest...

Driver runs over a group of cyclists for no apparent reason (aside from stupidity, inattention, drunkenness, texting, or whatever)...

http://www.tucsonbikelawyer.com/injuries-and-mayhem-on-the-shootout-ride/#comment-7711

 

[TheDude]

Unfortunately there are no plans for my commute, but it is a great idea. For cars and trains, direct links are made between major urban centres, where obstacles are seized using eminent domain. So why not do the same for the least polluting, most healthy and least intrusive form of travel.

Wonderful if they are swept at a regular interval. Local bikepaths here are unusable to anything but a slow mountain bike. Any driver induced crash should be an automatic carge of assault with a deadly weapon.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Any driver induced crash should be an automatic carge of assault with a deadly weapon.

In the U.S. at least, assault requires proving either intent or gross negligence. Hard to prove when neither is at play, which is the situation in most crashes.

 

[Rupert]

Responsibility issue

In the U.S. at least, assault requires proving either intent or gross negligence. Hard to prove when neither is at play, which is the situation in most crashes.

Unfortunately, driving in the US is treated as a right, not a privilege. Anyone who drives a car should assume the responsibility to do simple things like see and not hit things on the road, like cyclists for instance. But drivers often get off with no punishment for injuring or killing someone when the only excuse they have is “I didn’t see him.” Sometimes they even get away with intentional assaults. I think the burden should be on people to prove they are competent and safe drivers before they are allowed on the road, and be removed from the road when there's reason for doubt. Unfortunately, the attitude that cyclists don’t belong on the road seems to carry the day, and the result is that it’s “open season” on cyclists.

The act of driving means assuming responsibility over and above what is required otherwise, and "ordinary" negligence resulting in injury/death should constitute criminal behavior subject to serious penalties, regardless of intent. Unfortunately, that's not how it works around here. Most judges and juries are more sympathetic to the driver than the dead cyclist, if it even comes to a trial (rare).

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Unfortunately, driving in the US is treated as a right, not a privilege. Anyone who drives a car should assume the responsibility to do simple things like see and not hit things on the road, like cyclists for instance. But drivers often get off with no punishment for injuring or killing someone when the only excuse they have is “I didn’t see him.” Sometimes they even get away with intentional assaults. I think the burden should be on people to prove they are competent and safe drivers before they are allowed on the road, and be removed from the road when there's reason for doubt. Unfortunately, the attitude that cyclists don’t belong on the road seems to carry the day, and the result is that it’s “open season” on cyclists.

The act of driving means assuming responsibility over and above what is required otherwise, and "ordinary" negligence resulting in injury/death should constitute criminal behavior subject to serious penalties, regardless of intent. Unfortunately, that's not how it works around here. Most judges and juries are more sympathetic to the driver than the dead cyclist, if it even comes to a trial (rare).

Most crashes caused by "ordinary" negligence - like running a red light, or looking left while turning right and hitting an unnoticed sidewalk cyclist - are easy enough to avoid by the prudent cyclist. I do wish motorists would be more careful - hey, the more careful the better - but realistically I know it's not going to happen, and I really don't think heavier penalties would make much if any difference.

If you already believe it's not going to happen to you, then a heavy penalty for doing it is not going to cause you to alter your behavior. And it turns out there is good reason to believe that it's never going to happen to you. The vast majority of drivers will get through their entire lives, and 100s of thousands of miles of mediocre driving - including regular instances of "ordinary" negligence, without hitting a single pedestrian, bicyclist, motorcyclist, another vehicle (except maybe a fender bender in a parking lot or something), or tree.

A small minority of them will have the bad luck of actually hitting, hurting, or even killing another human being, or perhaps themselves. Yet, by and large, they will not have been doing anything all that different from anyone else. Penalizing them for being unlucky -- just because their typical mediocre driving actually resulted in tragedy -- seems profoundly unfair. I believe this is why judges and juries are often sympathetic to the driver, whether they can articulate this reasoning or not. When they hear what the driver did, they know they've done it too, and happened to get lucky.

 

[Rupert]

Unfair?

Most crashes caused by "ordinary" negligence - like running a red light, or looking left while turning right and hitting an unnoticed sidewalk cyclist ...A small minority of them will have the bad luck of actually hitting, hurting, or even killing another human being, or perhaps themselves. ... Penalizing them for being unlucky -- just because their typical mediocre driving actually resulted in tragedy -- seems profoundly unfair. I believe this is why judges and juries are often sympathetic to the driver, whether they can articulate this reasoning or not. When they hear what the driver did, they know they've done it too, and happened to get lucky.

I'm sure that's what judges and juries are thinking, but do you really believe that hurting or killing someone with negligent driving doesn't deserve serious punishment because it's " profoundly unfair?" So what do you think is fair to the dead/injured? I just think that strapping on a 2000 pound vehicle carries responsibility with it (to not kill/hurt anyone by screwing up). You sound like you're saying it's the cyclist's fault if they're hit. Did you read the link I posted earlier? A driver ran into the back of a group of riders riding 2 abreast on a quiet road in broad daylight - I see no way they were at fault here.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I'm sure that's what judges and juries are thinking, but do you really believe that hurting or killing someone with negligent driving doesn't deserve serious punishment because it's " profoundly unfair?"

Yes, I'm against anything that is profoundly unfair.

So what do you think is fair to the dead/injured?

In many cases, nothing. None of us was born with a guarantee of always being treated fairly. Also, being treated unfairly is not grounds for treating someone else unfairly.

I just think that strapping on a 2000 pound vehicle carries responsibility with it (to not kill/hurt anyone by screwing up).

To not kill/hurt others by screwing up is more responsibility than any human being can be fairly burdened with, because we're all capable of screwing up.

You sound like you're saying it's the cyclist's fault if they're hit.

Not at all. You're assuming a false dichotomy - if it's not the motorist's fault then it must have been the cyclist's fault. And I'm not even saying it's not the motorist's fault - just that serious penalty for "ordinary negligence" is unfair.

But I have been arguing throughout this thread that cyclists have the power and ability to avoid almost all crashes. It's a matter of applying defensive driving principles and practices to bicycling. Easier said than done, but not a matter of rocket science either. Please reread and respond to my previous posts if you are interested. By the way, I would say that this Tour de Tucson incident might be one of those very rare truly unavoidable cases, unless the cyclists were riding far right in their lane and not clearly taking the lane, which might explain why the left-turning 91 year old driver failed to notice them until too late (especially considered the driver was going east into the sun, though it was already 10:20 AM).

To return to a theme I've stressed many times here, 91 year old drivers - and their relatively slow reaction times - is yet another reason to ride in a manner that causes motorists to notice us early... When in doubt, take the lane!

Did you read the link I posted earlier? A driver ran into the back of a group of riders riding 2 abreast on a quiet road in broad daylight - I see no way they were at fault here.

Yes, I read it. It makes my point. First, hit and run is not ordinary negligence, and, justly, carries a heavy penalty. Yet that wasn't enough to inhibit the driver in this case (and in many other cases) from engaging in and run behavior. Again, heavy penalties for behavior in which one does not believe he will be engaged in has little effect. Consider that the vast majority of drivers consider themselves to be above average - so they are likely to be thinking that it's never going to happen to them, and almost all of them are right. This is why I believe serious penalties for injuring or killing others will not have any significant effect on driver behavior.

In this case the driver was 91 and dementia or who-knows-what might have been a factor, and probably was. This is a case for requiring serious annual retesting for elderly drivers, not for seriously penalizing those who screw up and hit 10 cyclists.

By the way, he did not hit them from behind (if that's what you meant by "into the back [of the group]"). The driver was traveling the opposite direction from the cyclists and turned left into them. He probably never saw any of them, until too late.

 

[Bala Verde]

During my commutes, I almost never see a paceline with more than 2 riders (I do see some foreign groups of cycling tourists, but they do a bit of touring. [...]

Much of what you are saying, reflects my own experience when I still lived in the Netherlands. I mainly rode alone, just like many other 'amateur riders'. Since the 'connecting roads' are too long (30+K) for random bikers, only serious tourists or die hard commuters ride the whole stretch. Most other people would take the bus instead.

I only experienced problems while riding through some of the dune sections between The Hague and Zandvoort, in spring/summer time when too many people such as joggers, tourists, families with strollers, old people AND racers are on the roads that are too narrow in any case.

The 'highway' in your picture looks nice and wide, and would accomodate 3-4 riders riding abreast. On most bike lanes I have seen dividers; maybe they are planning to paint those on later?

In any case, not having dividers on a bike path is probably less mortal then the lousy last minute warnings (warning sign for a huge bump in the road comes 10 meters before the actual bump on a highway) or the outright lack of road paintjobs including sidelines or dividers (take West 66) when road work is carried out on US highways.

The pavement looks amazing. Compare that to many of the roads you have to take in the US - some seemingly built for military vehicles like a hummer or any massive four wheel drive - and you know how much safer you are. With your 2x mm road tyres, try not to disappear in a road crack or lose your front section in a sewer grate hat easily sits 1 foot below the actual roads surface.

The US has much to learn...

 

[Rupert]

Wrong

I am all for defensive riding. But a cyclist can do everything right and if someone runs over you from behind there is not much you can do about it. To not hold a driver responsible for causing death or injury is just wrong.

Yes, I read it. It makes my point.

You didn't, and it doesn't. You are referring to a totally different incident.

Again: Shootout Incident

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I am all for defensive riding. But a cyclist can do everything right and if someone runs over you from behind there is not much you can do about it. To not hold a driver responsible for causing death or injury is just wrong.



You didn't, and it doesn't. You are referring to a totally different incident.

Again: Shootout Incident

Sorry, you weren't specific about which link you were talking about in your previous post, and I just went back to the first post of yours with a link to a bike crash I could find.

In this crash, it sounds like they were trying to share a lane that was too narrow to be safely shared. One of the main reasons to not do that is because it invites overtaking motorists to try to squeeze in next to you... from a long way back it may not be obvious to them that they will have to cross the center line in order to pass, and slow down if they can't. This is particularly true, of course, if they are distracted by a phone call or texting. This is from the account of the crash:

All was going well–we were riding 2 abreast in a rotating
paceline, not even occupying half of 1 lane on Mission, just south of Valencia.

As near as I can tell, this is a google map street view of Mission just south of Valencia. No way is that lane wide enough to safely share, yet these guys were off to the right "not even occupying half of the lane". Rotating pace line on the flats... probably going 25-30 mph... right? Trying to share what looks like a 10 or 11 (12, max) foot lane at that speed? That's crazy solo, much less in a group. In that situation you want to be clearly taking the lane, so that motorists approaching from way behind can see that they will have to change lanes to pass, or slow down, and have enough time to plan accordingly, even if they're distracted. That's just being prudent.

Here, by the way, is another street view, looking north on Mission, showing a white pickup truck in the lane, and how little room there is in the lane. This is simply not a shareable lane. The only way I would ever move aside in this lane is when I have confirmed that the driver behind me has noticed me and slowed down, then, and only if there was no oncoming traffic at the time, I would move aside to encourage them to pass. Yeah, technically, it's their legal responsibility to pass me safely, but it's their legal responsibility to not open a door into my path either. Sorry, but I just don't trust my life and limb to complete strangers like that.


This is also from the account:

She never claimed that she
didn’t see us. She was “just trying to pass us.” She claimed oncoming
traffic, but I was off the phone with 911 before the first oncoming car arrived
(and 911 doesn’t just let you go…I talked to at least 2 dispatch people, maybe
3). If she was drunk, it wasn’t obvious. She did have her phone in her hand as
soon as she got out of the car, but we don’t really know if she was talking or
texting when she hit us.

Classic. This is probably a regular route for the driver, and she was yacking on the phone probably on "auto pilot". Some part of her subconscious probably noticed the cyclists up ahead, but didn't register as an alert because it appeared, at least from a ways back, that there was room to pass. If there was no oncoming traffic at the time she reached the cyclists, she probably would have naturally adjusted left into the oncoming lane, over the double-yellow, to pass, without even thinking about it. Happens all the time. If you asked her a minute later if she saw any bicyclists on her drive she probably would have answered "no". But in this case it appears what happened was that there was oncoming traffic preventing her from moving across the center line. The claim of oncoming traffic is probably true. Note that this is no excuse. But it explains what happened, and why. By the time she realized the space left over by the cyclists (more than half a lane) was insufficient, it was too late. Sounds like she hit the inside (left) line of cyclists.

Again, this is obviously totally the fault of the motorist. However, the point of engaging in defensive practices is to avoid crashes even when it's totally the other person's fault. One of the least appreciated defensive traffic cycling practices is to take the lane in various situations, including whenever the lane is too narrow to safely share side-by-side with a vehicle.

 

[Rupert]

Impatient drivers

In this crash, it sounds like they were trying to share a lane that was too narrow to be safely shared.

Having been there many times (same road, same group), I don't think "attempting to share the lane" is an accurate description. No prudent driver would have attempted to pass a double paceline there, if there was oncoming traffic (and the road is very straight, with no obstructions to vision). Staying in the right half of the lane should just allow a prudent driver to have a clear view down the road, to see that there is or is not oncoming traffic, and give them more room to pass and still have good clearance from the riders. With a double paceline on that road, there is no way a reasonable driver would have attempted passing while not crossing the centerline. This driver was apparently not prudent, and/or not paying attention for whatever reason. There are conflicting accounts as to whether there was an oncoming car. If there was one she shouldn't have passed, and if there wasn't she could have easily passed using the 1 1/2 lane the riders left clear for her.

One of the scary patterns around here is impatient drivers who are determined not to slow down and will pass regardless of the conditions. I suspect that is the case here. For example, there have been may occasions where I was consciously taking the lane (at 30+ mph) on a blind curve, and was passed by cars (usually big pickup trucks) who went fully into the oncoming lane without being able to see if there was or was not oncoming traffic. I am fairly sure that if things went wrong (an oncoming car appeared) they would run me off the road rather than have a head-on collision... If that happened I would either get hit or, with luck, be able to get out of the way and probably crash anyway. With an overly aggressive, imprudent, impatient driver I can do everything right and still get hurt...

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Having been there many times (same road, same group), I don't think "attempting to share the lane" is an accurate description. No prudent driver would have attempted to pass a double paceline there, if there was oncoming traffic (and the road is very straight, with no obstructions to vision). Staying in the right half of the lane should just allow a prudent driver to have a clear view down the road, to see that there is or is not oncoming traffic, and give them more room to pass and still have good clearance from the riders. With a double paceline on that road, there is no way a reasonable driver would have attempted passing while not crossing the centerline. This driver was apparently not prudent, and/or not paying attention for whatever reason. There are conflicting accounts as to whether there was an oncoming car. If there was one she shouldn't have passed, and if there wasn't she could have easily passed using the 1 1/2 lane the riders left clear for her.

The driver was clearly not being prudent.
However, it's also not prudent to assume that all drivers will be prudent. That's just playing Russian Roulette with your life. I, for one, prefer to be more defensive than that.

One of the scary patterns around here is impatient drivers who are determined not to slow down and will pass regardless of the conditions.

You will find those drivers everywhere, especially if you tend to ride too far to the right in narrow lanes. You will encounter much fewer of them if you don a rearview mirror, learn to establish and maintain rearward situational awareness, and use lane position as well as body language and other techniques to communicate with them, long before it's too late.

I suspect that is the case here. For example, there have been may occasions where I was consciously taking the lane (at 30+ mph) on a blind curve, and was passed by cars (usually big pickup trucks) who went fully into the oncoming lane without being able to see if there was or was not oncoming traffic.

It happens, but, again, you can seriously reduce how often that happens by establishing a relationship with each driver. The goal is to convey to them that you know what you are doing, and instill confidence in them - that you are in control and will let them know when it's safe to pass. This has to happen long before they are already in the adjacent lane passing you, and can only occur with prudent and effective use of a rearview mirror.

I am fairly sure that if things went wrong (an oncoming car appeared) they would run me off the road rather than have a head-on collision... If that happened I would either get hit or, with luck, be able to get out of the way and probably crash anyway. With an overly aggressive, imprudent, impatient driver I can do everything right and still get hurt...

Keep repeating that part in bold and it will probably become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I suggest the following mantra instead: I have the power and ability to avoid all crashes, even with an overly aggressive, imprudent, impatient driver, by not only doing everything right, but going beyond that and being defensive.

That's my kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. YMMV.

 

[Rupert]

Philosophy

That's my kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. YMMV.

Not sure what YMMV means but... Personally I try to do everything I can to maximize my chances, not screw up too often (I will sometimes no matter what), pay attention, and hope for good Karma... I flew in fighter airplanes for many years and cannot remember ever thinking I was about to die, even in an inherently dangerous environment. Maybe I just blocked those memories, but probably not. I cannot chalk it up entirely to skill - there is also a certain amount of luck involved. But if you think ahead and be reasonably careful there are less chances for bad luck (or bad drivers) to kill you. I try to apply the same thinking to cycling and so far it's worked. Unfortunately some things are beyond my control. However, if I didn't think my chances were good I wouldn't be out on the road at all.