The best way to improve safety for cyclists in a city...



Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:38:57 -0800, <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:

>I think the answer to your question is: be psychic :)
>
>Seriously though, I think one does develop a sense of when
>drivers are going to make boneheaded moves before they
>make them. It's obviously not a reliable enough technique
>to entirely depend on. But when I get that funny feeling
>that things just aren't quite right (like when you just
>"know" that driver on the cross street up ahead is going
>to bolt across his stop line, right into your path), I find
>it doesn't hurt to [be prepared to] exercise a little extra
>caution. Actually, I'm impressed by the great number of times
>that 'funny feeling' turns out to be correct. Maybe it's not so
>much a psychic thing, as merely being attuned to car movements --
>maybe there are subtle, premonitory hints in the way a car moves,
>as to its driver's intentions.


It's a basic survival skill that's hardwired into our brains. I
compare it to the similar phenomenon of knowing when somebody is
staring at us.
I think it's natural that we should have this hightened awareness when
we're constantly exposed to potential threats.
--
zk
 
Tom Keats wrote:

<snip>

> caution. Actually, I'm impressed by the great number of times
> that 'funny feeling' turns out to be correct. Maybe it's not so
> much a psychic thing, as merely being attuned to car movements --
> maybe there are subtle, premonitory hints in the way a car moves,
> as to its driver's intentions.


Exactly. It's almost a sixth sense, and it's based on many things that
are often hard to describe. It's not unique to cycling, while driving,
you also develop an intuition. The type of vehicle, the condition of the
vehicle, the brand of vehicle, the driver's gender, age, ethnic
backround, whether or not they are holding a phone, are all part of
intuitively being more cautious in certain situations. The intuition
comes from experience, it can't be easily taught.
 
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:18:02 +0000, Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> Tom Keats wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> caution. Actually, I'm impressed by the great number of times
>> that 'funny feeling' turns out to be correct. Maybe it's not so
>> much a psychic thing, as merely being attuned to car movements --
>> maybe there are subtle, premonitory hints in the way a car moves,
>> as to its driver's intentions.

>
> Exactly. It's almost a sixth sense, and it's based on many things that
> are often hard to describe. It's not unique to cycling, while driving,
> you also develop an intuition. The type of vehicle, the condition of the
> vehicle, the brand of vehicle, the driver's gender, age, ethnic
> backround, whether or not they are holding a phone, are all part of
> intuitively being more cautious in certain situations. The intuition
> comes from experience, it can't be easily taught.


Sounds like "Luke, trust your feelings".

I have a pretty good traffic safety record (no accidents, no incidents,
some serious commuting for a while). I attribute this to riding in the
same direction as the other traffic, staying away from parked car doors,
and obeying the law. The Force had nothing to do with it.
 
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:38:57 -0800, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>Seriously though, I think one does develop a sense of when
>drivers are going to make boneheaded moves before they
>make them. It's obviously not a reliable enough technique
>to entirely depend on.


Sure. You get a feeling for when to watch the wheels, when to back
off because they will cut in anyway, whether they've seen you or not,
and so on.

What really puzzles me here is Robert's apparent insistence that he
"makes space" without being seen. I don't know how to do that!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
Erik Freitag <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:18:02 +0000, Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>> The intuition
>> comes from experience, it can't be easily taught.

>
> Sounds like "Luke, trust your feelings".


bah, it's called experience. you wouldn't have the intuition unless you'd
learned it from experience. if you're getting it without experience then
it's called genius & congratulations, that's a rare gift.
--
david reuteler
[email protected]
 
"Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> R15757 wrote:
>
>> It is definitely not "highly reliable."
>> You have an overblown opinion of your
>> visibility enhancing methods.
>> Ramming into the side of a car that
>> turns in front of you is a bit of a
>> smoking gun in that regard.

>
> In this case, it often isn't that they don't see the cyclist, even
> without a "visibility enhancing method," it's that they still
> don't yield to the cylist because either they think that it's the
> cyclist's reposnibility to yield to vehicles, or they misjudge the
> cyclists velocity. The most dangerous part of my commute is at
> traffic lights where vehicles turning left (while I'm going
> straight) try to cut me off.


One of the great things about riding in Manhattan is that you can
almost completely avoid intersections with two-way streets leading into
them.

--
Mike Nitabach
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Zoot Katz <[email protected]> writes:

> It's a basic survival skill that's hardwired into our brains. I
> compare it to the similar phenomenon of knowing when somebody is
> staring at us.
> I think it's natural that we should have this hightened awareness when
> we're constantly exposed to potential threats.


Unfortunately it's so difficult if not impossible to document
in qualitative/quantitative terms, so it can come off sounding
like a bunch of New Age razmatazz. I think the effect is real,
but is simply a matter of unconsciously "reading" the traffic
in finer detail than can be described in an instructional book.

Anyhow, I figure the basic 5 points of EC provides a good
foundation for safe riding. But that foundation can also
support a little further nuance on top. One nuance thing
I've been thinking about lately is how a motor vehicle
directly in front of a rider affects the rider's visibility
to drivers behind. Maybe having a big white cube van in
front of you is like standing on a movie theatre stage when
the blank, white screen is lit up, and can be used to enhance
your visibility. And maybe having a dark, dingy ol' dump
truck in front of you, on a dim overcast day, just drinks up
any of your efforts to be visible?


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
"Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

<snip>

> I've been thinking about lately is how a motor vehicle
> directly in front of a rider affects the rider's visibility
> to drivers behind. Maybe having a big white cube van in
> front of you is like standing on a movie theatre stage when
> the blank, white screen is lit up, and can be used to enhance
> your visibility. And maybe having a dark, dingy ol' dump
> truck in front of you, on a dim overcast day, just drinks up
> any of your efforts to be visible?


And don't forget about night riding.

Years ago, I was on a motorcycle at night stopped behind a car on a two-lane
road. The car in front of me was waiting to turn left into a driveway,
waiting for oncoming cars to clear. A car coming up behind us did not see me
in the confusion of lights but did see the car in front of me. Being
rear-ended on a small motorcycle is not fun.

I think what I did wrong was to stop too far behind the stopped car.
 
>And you're backing out of explaining what your method really is.

It is quite difficult to pin down
in words but I made an admirable
attempt in my recent post to Guy,
which he of course snipped and
pretended I never wrote.

R
 
Guy wrote:

>You still have not described any other way of avoiding drivers who you
>assume have not seen you, from hitting you.


Yes I did.

>Given that you assert the idea that drivers can never be assumed to
>have seen you, you are left with a situation where you either have to
>have a contingency plan, or you *never* ride across the front of a
>stationary motor vehicle. I had a contingency plan, which by your
>rules is evidently wrong, so I am assuming that you take the latter
>course. Which must make you both the slowest and the safest bike
>messenger in the world :)


Why don't you answer what I actually
wrote instead of making up all this
crazy ****. Or maybe you don't have an
answer to what I actually wrote.

Robert
 
Guy:>OK, so you are circulating round a roundabout, a car is waiting to
>enter the roundabout. What is your magic solution for ensuring that
>the car cannot hit you?


Why are you pretending that I didn't answer this
already?

R
 
Frank K:

>Is it true, then, that you've never had a collision with a car?


I had one serious collision, while riding
lawfully according to EC principles, btw.
The driver was legally at fault, but I
accept personal responsibility for the collision
and for the injuries I sustained. I failed
to leave enough space for the conditions
at hand and my speed at the time. (I was
riding just to the left of a bike lane; I should
have been closer to the center of the street.)
It was a momentary lapse on my part
that coincided with a garden variety
motorist mistake.

>That technique is a standard part of EC instruction.


"Instant Turns" are too little too late and, as I
said, the need for them is a symptom of poor
awareness on the cyclist's part.

Robert
 
David Reuteler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Erik Freitag <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:18:02 +0000, Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> >> The intuition
> >> comes from experience, it can't be easily taught.

> >
> > Sounds like "Luke, trust your feelings".

>
> bah, it's called experience. you wouldn't have the intuition unless you'd
> learned it from experience. if you're getting it without experience then
> it's called genius & congratulations, that's a rare gift.


The process can be accelerated if the rider understands
that what they are doing is learning every time they
go out. Maybe that's what genius is.

Robert
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 27 Nov 2004 23:05:45 GMT, [email protected] (R15757) wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >>Question: how do you tell in advance, with such remarkable accuracy,
> >>which of the drivers you assume have not seen you will stop, and which
> >>will not?

>
> >You can't really tell, that's the whole point.

>
> OK, so you have to stop and wait until every single intersection is
> clear before proceeding across it. Thanks for clearing that up.
> Although this is an admirably safe way of riding I prefer to get to my
> destination the same day I set out.
>
> You still have not described any other way of avoiding drivers who you
> assume have not seen you, from hitting you.


You seem to be conveniently ignoring an entire large
paragraph I wrote in my post there. Here it is again:

"Whether you are seen or not is not up to you, it's up
to them. The best you can do is place yourself
in the best position at the best speed to mitigate
a worst case scenario, within reason. This doesnt
mean stopping, although it could. It could mean
speeding up or slowing way down. It could mean,
in rare instances, executing a fake right turn to
cut behind a very jumpy driver. Most often it means
moving as far away from the hazard as is reasonably
possible while keeping in mind the other hazards
around, while subtly adjusting speed to minimize
risk. Avoiding right-turners (left turners for you) is
usually pretty easy--we can leave a massive buffer
by definition, because if the driver is going to
start around the corner it almost always means
that there are no vehicles coming other than the
cyclist, who is easy to overlook, so the rider is
able to move way out, even to the center of the
street (or the far left of a one-lane one-way like on
a roundabout), without difficulty. Cyclists need
to be aware of the big picture of traffic around
them and should take advantage of the available
space in this situation. If there are other cars
coming down the road, the intrusive pull-out is much
less likely, so the need for space is less urgent."

Did you catch it that time.

So the question is, when you got hit, were you as far
away from the hazard as possible, or did you
mistake your traditional EC spot on the road for the
best place to be at that particular time? That would
have been your mistake.

If you were as far away as possible, (which would almost
by definition mean the very far side of the street if its
a one-way, available space at that time almost by definition
because if the guy is going to pull out there are likely no cars
near behind you) then you were going too fast. See how simple that is.

> >>What would you have done differently?

>
> >Let's put it this way. The fact
> >that you smacked into the car
> >means that you failed. You failed
> >in one or both of two ways.

>
> >(1) You failed to leave enough space.
> >(2) You were going too fast for your
> >skill-level or the conditions at hand.

>
> You missed (3): I anticipated the possible actions of the driver, and
> although these possible actions had not been taken by the previous 900
> or so drivers --<snip massive denial>


Guy it's very simple. You didnt leave enough space
or you were going too fast or some combination.
Your inability to accept responsibility
for this minor mistake does not bode well for your
ability to avoid larger mistakes in the future.
You claim not to put your safety into the hands of
others, but it is plain to see you don't want to keep
the responsibility for yourself.

Furthermore, you're going to ram 1-in-900 drivers and
call it a success? That would probably be about three
or four collisions each day for me.

> What of the other one, where I bailed out? What would you have done
> there? Applied Prescience and not used that road that day? Stopped
> in the road and been run down? What?


Not enough information. I am a diligent route finder so probably I
would have been on a different road.

Robert
 
RobertH wrote:

> Not enough information. I am a diligent route finder so probably I
> would have been on a different road.


Well sometimes there are no alternate routes. I have one hairy section
on the way to and from work which can't be avoided (at least for another
few months, since they're opening a freeway underpass multi-use path
which in this case will be a much better option). OTOH, I've worked
around the problems in this section, with a judicious violation of the
tenets of EC, including the use of a sidewalk.

You're absolutely correct, 1 in 900 is unacceptable, but to be fair,
that number was probably pulled out of thin air, given who posted it.
I'm sure it's a much higher ratio.

There is one "being seen" tool that I've found pretty effective in
encouraging drivers to leave more space, it's one of those flags that
sticks out sideways. They are either terrified of scratching their
vehicles, or it is so unusual that it actually makes me more visible.
 
Tom Keats wrote:

> Anyhow, I figure the basic 5 points of EC provides a good
> foundation for safe riding. But that foundation can also
> support a little further nuance on top.


That's the crux of it. You're not just supposed to follow the tenets of
EC blindly, you need to go beyond them when the situation dictates.
Knowing when the situation dictates is gained by intuition, and that
intuition is gained by experience. You can be sure that Guy will not
make the same mistake again.

I have to find my old mimeographed copy of EC, but I'm reasonably
certain that Forester didn't advise anyone to blindly follow his tenets
without allowing for situations that require that the cyclist do to
something that violated the tenets in order to avoid an accident. "The
operation was a success, but the patient died."
 
R15757 wrote:

> Frank K:
>
>
>>Is it true, then, that you've never had a collision with a car?

>
>
> I had one serious collision, while riding
> lawfully according to EC principles, btw.
> The driver was legally at fault, but I
> accept personal responsibility for the collision
> and for the injuries I sustained. I failed
> to leave enough space for the conditions
> at hand and my speed at the time. (I was
> riding just to the left of a bike lane; I should
> have been closer to the center of the street.)
> It was a momentary lapse on my part
> that coincided with a garden variety
> motorist mistake.


Guy had one crash and no injury from a "didn't see the cyclist" crash.
You had one crash (any injuries?) from a "didn't see the cyclist" crash.
So I _still_ fail to see much difference in what you're preaching and
what's taught in Effective Cycling.

I also note that Guy avoided injury by executing an instant turn, as
taught in Effective Cycling. Seems like it worked - and as I said:
>>That technique is a standard part of EC instruction.

>
>
> "Instant Turns" are too little too late and, as I
> said, the need for them is a symptom of poor
> awareness on the cyclist's part.


I recall one instance, long ago, where an instant turn saved me from a
collision of this type. It was NOT "too little too late." I turned
away from the oncoming left-turn driver who would have otherwise hit me.

Of course, you've got to be alert - and I was. You've also got to have
the "moves" to do the emergency maneuver. A standard EC class teaches
those moves.

Now understand: nobody is saying there's nothing more to learn once you
take such a class, or read such a book. As an example, you won't be
expert at emergency maneuvers until you've experimented and/or practiced
with them for quite a while. But the foundations are taught in the
course, and those foundations are valuable.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 
Steven M. Scharf wrote:

>
> That's the crux of it. You're not just supposed to follow the tenets of
> EC blindly, you need to go beyond them when the situation dictates....
>
> I have to find my old mimeographed copy of EC, but I'm reasonably
> certain that Forester didn't advise anyone to blindly follow his tenets
> without allowing for situations that require that the cyclist do to
> something that violated the tenets in order to avoid an accident. "The
> operation was a success, but the patient died."
>


I agree with Steven on this one. Robert looks on EC as dogma which the
followers may never violate, but it's not presented that way and it's
not used that way.

Forester is strident, to be sure. It's not an attractive trait, but he
feels this is necessary to counter the alternative approaches to "bike
safety" that were out there.

Understand: When Forester began this project, there were plenty of
people actively hoping to get cyclists completely off the roads. There
were plenty of "bike safety" programs that advocated riding in the
gutter, stopping at every intersection (right of way or not), walking
bikes across crosswalks, and even riding wrong-way to see the oncoming cars.

In this context, "Vehicular Cycling" was radical indeed. And to say
Forester was promoting it strongly is an understatement.

But look at the result. Now, it's commonly accepted that cyclists have
a right to the road. If someone advocates riding wrong-way, or stopping
at every intersection, they get quickly corrected. Certain states are
distributing bike manuals based on EC principles. For the most part,
Forester has won - and not because of his charming personality!

In my view, the guy isn't always correct. I've certainly challenged him
on certain points. And there's always more to learn, and detail
exceptions to rules. But Forester's done literally groundbreaking work,
and it's paid off. If you ride by his principles, you'll find they work.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 
>Guy had one crash and no injury from a "didn't see the cyclist" crash.
>You had one crash (any injuries?) from a "didn't see the cyclist" crash.
>
>So I _still_ fail to see much difference in what you're preaching and
>what's taught in Effective Cycling.


It's an obvious and fundamental difference.
I accept responsibility for my own mistake
which contributed to the accident. Guy
refuses to accept responsibility for his
collision. To me, the collision is an undeniable
failure. To Guy, his collision is proof of
his success!! And with that attitude, he
can look forward to a lot more success.

R
 
R15757 wrote:

>>Guy had one crash and no injury from a "didn't see the cyclist" crash.
>>You had one crash (any injuries?) from a "didn't see the cyclist" crash.
>>
>>So I _still_ fail to see much difference in what you're preaching and
>>what's taught in Effective Cycling.

>
>
> It's an obvious and fundamental difference.
> I accept responsibility for my own mistake
> which contributed to the accident. Guy
> refuses to accept responsibility for his
> collision. To me, the collision is an undeniable
> failure. To Guy, his collision is proof of
> his success!! And with that attitude, he
> can look forward to a lot more success.


Ah. So the difference is not in riding technique at all. The
difference is in one's attitude if a car-bike crash occurs!

Since car-bike crashes are actually very uncommon (on a per-mile basis),
I think we can agree that over 99.9% of the time, there is no difference
at all between your own method and Effective Cycling.

That certainly puts the "importance" of this debate in the proper
perspective! Thanks for the clarification!

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 

Similar threads

P
Replies
8
Views
773
UK and Europe
Dave Larrington
D
P
Replies
11
Views
564
UK and Europe
Dave Larrington
D