Pay Attention to Motorcyclists

From Youtube

This morning, I saw a motorcycle video that has direct application for how we bicyclists can better operate more defensively (safely) on the road. The video is embedded at the top of this post. While I think the whole video is well worth a watch, it gets down to brass tacks about 2:07 in.

The video, at top, concerned how motorcyclists might operate in order to reduce the liklihood of a motorist up ahead pulling out or making a crossing turn (left turn for us in the US or right turn for our compatriots that operate on the wrong side of the road). I don't know if it might help with following traffic. I suspect not.

This accident is often called the "SMIDSY,' (Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You). The counter to this was termed the "SIAM" (SMIDSY Identification and Avoidance Maneuver." While cyclists ususally ride slower than motorcyclists, most of the other items in the video apply. I've experienced SMIDSY situations myself, such as one related here. The video does not address the greater probability of experiencing a SMIDSY in the dark. It DOES touch on high vis vests, noting that they might add to biker camaflage by breaking up the biker's outline. I'm not sure breaking up the outline really hurts visibility, but it's a point I'd never considered before.

At bottom is another video, focused purely on the SIAM - which the videographer calls the "SMIDSY Weave." The relevant maneuver starts just twenty seconds after the start of the video. It was made in the US so the sightlines are more what I'm used to seeing. It DOES help if we pay attention to motorcyclists!

Standards - Be Ignored

Might Topeak Have put Holes in to Help the Poor Cyclist?

For a brief, shining moment, I thought that Topeak would let me install legally required equipment without an undue amount of fiddling. Alas, it turned out not to be so. As my loyal reader knows, I've figured out how to install a SAE reflector on a Topeak rear rack. That post is shown here.

Last week, I got ANOTHER Topeak rack. This one was going to go on one of the other bikes. I picked Topeak because their stuff works together. I particularly like the way their bags slide into their racks interchangeably, without needing to use velcro to finish things. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean it works with stuff MOST people consider standard fitment. Like legally required stuff.

Close, but no CEE GAR!

This week, my brand new Topeak rack included a cheesy, plastic mount for a rear light/reflector. Looking at it, it looked as if it'd work with my SAE Standard reflector. Sadly, Topeak did not make it more than close enough to get me briefly excited. In other news, you can see how the rack pretty much obscures the CPSC-required reflector that Trek put on the bike. The photo below shows this, as well as just how much reflector I'm getting for those dark mornings. For the time being, I suspect the adhesive on the back of the SAE reflector will work pretty well, though a plastic Topeak piece probably isn't as good to keep it stuck as the painted metal of the rack. We shall see.

If you Use the Mounts Trek Provides, You Cover Up the Reflector Trek Provides

It looks as if Ace Hardware and tin snips will still be required for a permanent solution. I guess I'm glad I documented that solution earlier and that I've already got a tie cut to precisely the proper shape!

Roundabout Tourists

Google Maps Shot Looking Down on the Ocean Shores Roundabout. North is at Top of the Photo

Previously, here, I wrote about the Ocean Shores Roundabout. I noted that the painted bike facilities, if followed, would put cyclists into crossing conflict with lawfully operating motorists and might even put cyclists in violation with the OS Municipal Code. Myself, I simply operate my bicycle pretty much as any locals would in their motor vehicles. Over time, anybody in Ocean Shores routinely learns the rules of the roundabout and knows where to watch in order to avoid conflicts. My speed through the roundabout is not much different than anybody else’s – there is a 15MPH posted speed limit and few motorists try to go faster.

On occasion, however, there is a problem with my strategy. Mostly, these problems pop up when there are LOTS of tourists in town. Tourists, you see, don’t understand the roundabout or its rules. When there are only a FEW tourists, they mostly just watch and see what everybody else does, and do the same. If they’re coming into town, they typically turn right in order to get to their hotel/motel. When there LOTS, however, they start trying to drive around town and I’ve experienced trouble from this, both when on my bike and when I motored through the roundabout.

The basic principle of the Ocean Shores Roundabout is that, entering the roundabout, you do so from the LEFT lane if you intend to turn left or make a U turn. That limits crossing conflict to the point of roundabout entry, when you are yielding to any traffic already in the roundabout. Three of the street exits from the roundabout are four-lane, median separated streets, and the fourth is a two-lane street. The last exit is where the problems mostly occur.

The problems occur in two ways. The first problem is that tourists entering from the north don’t realize that they are supposed to be in the left lane if they want to turn left. While in the roundabout, they suddenly make a lane shift to the left. As you can imagine, it can be a little disconcerting (whether on a bike or in a car), to suddenly see a motorist shifting into YOUR lane. To minimize this, on weekends with a lot of tourist traffic, I ride closer to the right side of the left lane, and faster than usual. I also watch the wheels of any nearby motor vehicles for the “oops, I’m in the wrong lane” reaction that roundabout novices often experience. That gives me time and space to move over if the adjacent motorist wheels start moving left. If the motorist indulges his/her “MUST PASS” impulse, I point at the exit, which seems to snap them out of their confusion. This is worst at the aforementioned exit because both roundabout exit lanes merge. At other exits, I can always stay in the left lane until the conflict evaporates. At worst, that’d involve a second trip around the roundabout.

The second problem is that many tourists don’t seem to understand that traffic already IN the roundabout has the right of way over traffic wanting to enter it. That is compounded for cyclists since we simply aren’t as obvious as an ambulance flashing its lights. In such cases, when I see vehicle wheels looking like they might sprint forward into the roundabout prematurely, I hold my right hand up, with the palm facing the prospective offender. It isn’t any sort of official or proper signal, but it seems to work and nobody has yet actually violated my right of way. If someone DID simply charge into the roundabout, I guess I’d have to decide whether to change lanes, brake, or accelerate. Sometimes cycling in traffic DOES benefit from some extra speed, though this is rather the exception than the rule.

Actually, roundabouts, even though they aren’t perfect, are fun and safe for cyclists that understand how to operate in accord with general traffic principles. Nobody’s going too fast and you’ve got a lot more lane room about you when you’re on a bike. Truck drivers are probably not so fond of the Ocean Shores Roundabout.

Southbound Tourists Apparently Don't Notice this Sign SAYING "Left Lane if You Want to Turn Left"

Banned From Bike Shops

Old Reflectors Looked Like This One, Which Was Made in the USA

Way back when, people bought rear reflectors for bikes like the ones in the photo above. It was all that was available. It was basically made to the same SAE standard as automotive reflectors. Unfortunately, these reflectors had poorly engineered attaching hardware that caused the metal to fail as shown in the photo below. In addition, reflector technology is better than it was 40 years ago. In the normal course of events, this would have been no big deal, since better combinations would have evolved. Unfortunately, government got involved, namely the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. Instead of doing the sensible thing and requiring a rear reflector using an existing standard, they required ALL new bicycles to be equipped with their own standard which compromised rearward reflectance in favor of “all direction” reflectance. You can see discussions about reflectors here, here, and here, as well as many other places. I’m not going to repeat all that.

 

Old Reflectors Failed Like THIS

The practical effect was that every manufacturer and every bike shop stopped selling SAE reflectors in favor of the CPSC variety. I have never seen a SAE reflector at any bike shop. It’s sort of like the Snell bike helmet standard, which has been eclipsed by the inferior CPSC standard. I can’t say that I’m happy with an inferior standard legislated for cyclists when better exists, but government DOES get influenced by industry as well as the public, and we might not always endorse the outcome. Perhaps I’ll cover this in some future post or posts.

 

However, things are not all bad for those that are willing to do a little extra work. SAE reflectors are readily available at auto parts stores and RV supply stores. In Ocean Shores, people also frequently buy them to stick to posts and mailboxes. Following is the story of how I adapted better reflectors for my bike. Better reflectors than you can currently buy at almost any bike store.

First off, current SAE reflectors are not configured to make them real easy to attach to a bike rack or rear fender, much less any other bike part. Fortunately, I was able to find a “Tie Plate” that was just big enough to mount two reflectors and even had holes in it that matched the spacing I needed. The only item I needed to buy that cost over $3 for two reflectors were the tin snips I needed in order to cut the tie plate to a “good for a bike” size. Interestingly, the tie plate was located for me at Ace Hardware by a clerk that caught on after he realized I did not want to attach my reflector to a car, RV, or post. Thanks, Ace! You may not have a bike rack, but your people know their stuff.

STEP 1: Cut the tie plate in two with the tin snips.

Tie Plate is Cut into Two

STEP 2: Cut each half of the tie plate with the tin snips so that the sharp metal edges won’t extend past your reflector. A Sharpie pen helps here to mark enough of the metal to trim, while leaving a lot left for the reflector adhesive to stick to.



Tie Plate Trimmed to Suit the Reflector. Excess is at Upper Right. Fasteners are at Upper Left
Ace Hardware Part Number is on the White Tag

STEP 3: Attach the modified tie plate to your rear rack. The photo shows it attached to a Topeak Explorer rack which has two holes that conveniently EXACTLY match the holes already in the tie plate. If you have an old Pletscher rack, it’ll only have one hole, so you’ll have to make a choice between a less solid fastened installation, or reinforcing things with glue. If you have other racks, you’ll have to improvise, or not. Either way, it’ll be FAR better than either an ancient reflector or anything the CPSC would endorse.

Tie Plate Installed on Topeak Explorer Rear Rack Prior to Reflector Installation

STEP 4: Stick the reflector to the tie plate. I used nails as a guide, as in the photo, to ensure that the holes lined up before the adhesive contacted the tie plate. That ensured I’d be able to put fasteners in afterwards. See “Belt and Suspenders” post recently.

Reflector Getting Stuck to the Tie Plate - Nails Act to Line the Holes Up

STEP 5: Install the fasteners and you’re all done! A better reflector than is available in any bike shop, or from any bike manufacturer, all for about $2 in parts per reflector. This reflector is installed strongly enough that I expect it to last for decades to come.

Finished Installation on Topeak Rear Rack. Cowabunga!

NOTE: I selected a RED reflector. If you read literature, such as here, you might wonder why I picked a RED reflector, rather than an AMBER one that has double the reflectivity of a red one. Well, it is because most local laws require RED. While I typically ride in the dark with a red rear light as well as my reflector (meaning I comply with the law even if I had an amber reflector), should the light fail (not uncommon with bike lights), only a RED reflector would comply with all state and local laws. Sigh…

Round About the Roundabout

Google Maps Satellite View of Ocean Shores Roundabout
More About The Bike Lanes Later...

Not long ago, the Bike League instructor email list had a discussion about roundabouts. Roundabouts are an up and coming feature of roads that allow traffic flow without the disruption of four-way stop signs or traffic signals. They work quite well for motorized traffic, but cyclists and traffic engineers do not seem to understand how they can also work quite simply and well for cycling. The Ocean Shores roundabout is a case in point. The roundabout replaced the only traffic signal in town.

Uneventful Traffic Flow Through Ocean Shores Roundabout
The Wrong-Way Motorist Wasn't Using it Today!
If You Ride a Bike, The Bike Lane Striping Appears to Direct You into the Crosswalk

At the beginning of this post, you can see a “Google Maps” overhead view of the roundabout. Mostly, traffic flows through it without incidents of any kind, though I heard a motorist tried to go through it the wrong way a few days ago. Most motorists are competent enough to go around in the right direction and mostly they also pay attention to the signs. Ocean Shores is a tourist town, and so a lot of these motorists that do well have not encountered roundabouts prior to their visit.

I’ve ridden through this roundabout many times now and, up until a week or two ago, it’s been the height of simplicity to simply follow the signs that apply to the rest of traffic. Basically, if you plan to turn right or go straight, you stay in the RH traffic lane. If you plan to make a left or U turn, get in the LH traffic lane and exit into the street appropriate to your destination. As with most well-designed roundabouts, traffic entering the roundabout must yield to those already going around. This works well for motor vehicles OR for bikes, since bikes can go around in a circle at least as well as the typical motor vehicle. It is a simple case of elementary destination positioning. For those not recalling this principle, it states “stay in the rightmost lane that serves your destination.”

Simply Follow the Arrows and Get in the Lane that Goes Where You Want to Go

HOWEVER, recently, the city restriped the bike lanes, creating needless conflict. The approach reinforced my belief that traffic engineers are often clueless dweebs that are ignorant about how to keep all people safe. In short, remembering that Ocean Shores made it ILLEGAL foranybody to ride on city sidewalks (even little kids on bikes with trainingwheels), these traffic engineers striped their bike lanes to direct cyclists on to and off of sidewalks into their painted lanes. You might wonder how this puts anybody in danger, considering that there are few crossing driveways on these sidewalks. Well, once so directed, people on bikes then use the pedestrian crosswalks across the roundabout. This IS a problem, since pedestrians without wheels travel fairly slowly and have the equipment to stop without problems. On the OTHER hand, people on bikes are going much quicker and they cross the roundabout in a manner that is unexpected for motorists using the roundabout. Personally, I also have a problem with city-installed infrastructure that encourages behavior that the same city has made illegal.

Following the Striping "Suggestion" Leads a Cyclist onto the Illegal Sidewalk and to Cross the Road at Right Angles to Traffic

Once again, traffic engineering in action – creating danger and encouraging illegal behavior when doing NOTHING would have been far better AND safer. I look forward to their next folly, when they create problems on the street immediately north of the roundabout…

Odd Striping Strategy for a City that Made it ILLEGAL to Ride Bikes on Sidewalks. I Guess They Expect Everyone Will WALK Their Bikes for a Block?

Inspired by Scott

On occasion before, I have admitted to aviation inspiration in my cycling, such as here, here, and here. In my last cycling commute, on April 5th, I took my cycling commute inspiration from another source; a fellow University of Washington alum. Scott Crossfield.

Scott appeared in a supporting role in "The Right Stuff" as a "civilian pilot" of the D558-2 that was the first plane to exceed Mach 2. Less well known was his attitude towards flight that was demonstrated in his role as chief contractor test pilot in the X-15 program. Scott endured much in that program, including a vehicle that exploded under him, and another that broke as he performed an emergency landing. Even so, in his last X-15 flight, he followed orders and did not exceed Mach 3 or climb into space. Watch the embedded video starting 46 minutes and 50 seconds in and for the following minute.

That example was my inspiration for my commute on April 5th. I went in and came home. No close calls, no "death on my left," no attempts to advocate cycling by exaggerating its danger (no links for this one, but I'm sure my loyal reader can think of many such sites and organizations). Simply getting the job done.

Thanks, Scott. UW Aero Class of 1947. Watch starting at about 46 minutes and 50 seconds in to the video. The entire show is, IMO, worth watching but that segment contains Scott's recollections and attitude. Simply getting the job done. So now we can move on to new topics...

Scott Crossfield Gets the Job Done Starting at 46:50

 

Mirrored Reflections on Safety



Wasn't ONE Enough?

My recent post discussed the ways in which mirrors are used and how they might help reduce bad things within the safety pyramid. On my birthday, I received not one, but TWO new mirrors (don’t ask me to explain this), and I’ll start using one of them shortly. I also purchased a new headlight. All of this, in combination, prompted me to ponder two different safety elements; namely that of primary safety and secondary safety, and how they play against notions that might just reflect imagined safety aspects.

PRIMARY SAFETY
Primary safety consists of the things that are really IMPORTANT in keeping you safe. These include things like riding in the same direction as traffic, using a legal headlight and a tail light or reflector at night, not violating the right of way of other people, riding where you can be seen and so on. These primary safety actions are the main riding emphasis in Bike Ed, whether we’re talking about the Bike League curricula, CAN Bike, or Cycling Savvy. Many people violate these principles daily and over long periods of time without ever getting hurt. All that proves is cycling IS fun and safe. Such people are, however, disproportionally represented in the small fraction of people on bikes that DO get seriously hurt or killed. The new headlight I got was a primary safety item. It replaces my backup for “the flamethrower.”

SECONDARY SAFETY
Secondary safety consists of things that many swear by, and others swear at, but they represent a lesser increment of safety over doing the “primary” things right. In the secondary safety category fall things like high visibility clothing, helmets, and MIRRORS. Those that ride against traffic, in the dark, shoot stop signs without looking while wearing a high visibility vests and helmets with mirrors are, IMO, cousins to those asking for a diet drinks with a “supersized” fast food meals. Some know I’m not a cheerleader for secondary safety items. Yes, I wear a helmet on my daily commute. Yes, I wear high visibility clothing if it is what I pull off the shelf – and if everything else is equal, I’ll pick new items with better visibility when I make purchasing choices.

I’ll use this mirror, at least for a while, because it has the potential to provide supplemental situational awareness to me. I DON’T believe that it enables me to ride somewhere in the lane I couldn’t ride without one. I DON’T believe a mirror will enable me to predictably influence the behavior of any road users behind me, nor that it would give me warning if I were about to be run down. My dear departed mirror used flat glass and gave a pretty good view of things. My new mirror is different, and I’m not sure that’s a good or a bad thing. The new mirror has a convex surface and is made of plastic. We shall see. How much secondary safety is enough? I think that is up to the individual and I am reluctant to criticize anybody who chooses to step back from the “I can do more so I MUST do more” mindset – or someone who WANTS that little extra edge. I guess I rate primary safety a lot more importantly than secondary safety, but as long as one isn’t confused for the other, I think both are just fine and probably good.                              

CONFUSING THE TWO
One commenter noted the defense attorney in a trial implied that a mirror is a bike safety item. As you can see from the above, I agree that it CAN BE a safety item. I also agree that wearing a Snell rated helmet is a safety item for a motorist, turning the radio off is a safety item for a motorist, and refraining from texting while driving is a safety item. In truth, few motorists would disagree the items I’ve ticked off CAN add to their safety. However, most would consider such as requirements to be UNREASONABLE. And, by and large, I’d agree with them. Where I get a burr under my saddle is that these same motorists (like that defense lawyer) are sometimes perfectly happy imagining that secondary safety items ought to be necessary for cyclists, or that their omission should represent negligence more than failure of a motorist to wear a Snell 2000 helmet (a requirement in Jaguar Club autocross). These things often get confused in the “safety advice for cyclists” you read in newspapers and pamphlets. Sometimes REASONABLE depends on your perspective.

Stepping Down the Pyramid with Mirrors

My Own Dear Departed Mirror

In the last couple of weeks, I was prompted by a couple of events to think again about mirrors when using a bike. Namely, how might mirrors help a cyclist reduce unsafe ("at risk") behaviors; which are the base of the safety pyramid. Some of those behaviors belong to us cyclists. Other unsafe behaviorsbelong to our motoring companions. It isn't always easy to separate the former from the latter. To REALLY be safe, we need to find ways to reduce both.

The Safety Pyramid - You Want to Move DOWN IT!

FIRST EVENT
The first event was a long, drawn out discussion amongst Bike League cycling instructors about mirrors. One point that stuck with me was the inquiry by Khal of Los Alamos Bikes, namely:

"Question to those who strongly advocate mirrors. How often do you check mirrors in traffic, and does this give you adequate warning of a suddenly developing situation?"

It seemed to me that most of the ensuing discussion focused on feelings and faith rather than "what do we need to do."

SECOND EVENT
The second event was the rare "drama behind me." In it, seeing a motorist proceeding in the middle lane of three choices, and me planning to cross those three lanes prior to making a left, I initiated a right turn into the right lane (right turn on red). Normally, the motorist would have swept by and then I'd be up to speed and move over to make the left. I COULD have simply waited, but it seemed to be pretty simple. This time, however, the motorist swerved from the middle lane into the right lane - MY lane. What? Suddenly I was in a lane at about 10mph with a motorist directly behind, doing 50 and closing fast. I considered my options, not knowing exactly WHY this lady had swerved from a "clean and simpl pass" position into a "hit from behind" position; things didn't seem clear. As a result, I fell back on experience and hung a left turn signal while keeping close watch. If the lady was going to make a right, she'd see it and we'd be good. If she was wondering about my intent, she'd see it. Either way, I was definitely going to watch this motorist's wheels to see what would happen next. While my stress level edged up. At this point, anything other than "stay the course andO signal my intent" seemed to be a poor bet.

Well, as it turned out, the motorist then swerved left, back into her original lane, passed me with plenty of clearance (remember, I was signaling an intent to go INTO that lane she swung back into), and proceeded apace. After she passed, I exhaled, completed my leftward shifts and made my left turn; thinking about the safety pyramid and pondering how any mirror might have helped. Lest you think I'm simply being "dramatic," one of my engineers saw the event and said he was wondering if he needed to be calling 911. Lest you think I narrowly escaped death, the lady's closest approach was probably ten feet as she swept by in her original lane. I have no idea what the lady had in mind, other than she imagined I'd cross all the way across the street in front of her instead of following traffic protocol, and decided her best chance to miss the "idiot" was to swerve right. Assuming she was paying attention (she was NOT chatting on any mobile device), despite my concern, I was in absolutely no danger whatsoever UNLESS I'd done some ill-advised evasive maneuver at the last moment - mirror help or hurt? I guess my "proper" behavior simply fooled her. Who really knows. Regardless, as PM Summer once said: "no harm no foul."



Second Event - View from Google Maps - Arrows from Yours Truly

I'm neither a big fan nor opponent of mirrors. The one time I used one, it proved a useful added means to help in overall situation awareness. I think, however, that mirrors are a bit oversold, as are other safety things such as "high vis" and helmets. In the final analysis, our FIRST line of defense as road users (or on other public travel routes) is that our fellow road users know what we plan to do and what they in turn need to do to avoid disaster. That is the basis of traffic law.

Let us consider the actual USE of mirrors. Any mirror has three uses; the first is to see what is directly behind, the second is to see what might be developing in the lane to one's left when you might be considering such a shift, and the third is a similar function for a rightward shift. We'll consider them in order.

BEHIND
If you are looking to see what is going on behind you in a mirror, you are motivated by concerns about the general situation or you think you may want to send some message to following traffic. In the case of the "second event," what message would a mirror enable me to send? In reality, in such a situation, clear consistent operation seems to be the best principle when encountering another road user that seems to be doing illogical things. Even a wave or a "slow down" signal might confuse things for a distracted driver. What's more, for looking behind, we on bikes have no need for the "behind" mirror to keep from backing over people or stuff in the driveway. As you might see from the photo below. The rearview mirror is imperfect in that regard even in the MIGHTY LAND ROVER.



Mirror to Look Directly Behind. Mostly Useful for Backing Up

OTOH, a mirror is quite useful to look behind when one is wondering what happened to that motorist behind that should be ready to pass now. In the one day I had a mirror, it repeatedly answered such questions. No safety issue, but I, for one, dislike even short-term mysteries when riding. Score a point for mirrors.

SIDE (left or right)

LH Mirror - Aim it at the Lane to Your Vehicle's Left According to SAE

A mirror has definite uses when considering a left or right lane move in traffic. That is one reason that driver side mirrors have been required for cars starting in 1968 (prior to 1968, no side mirrors were required). They also became ubiquitous on the far (right) side of cars by the early 90's. In the case of a side mirror, it is "aimed" at the next lane over so you can see what will crunch you if you shift over. Such a mirror is clearly aimed differently than the "behind" mirror. Go HERE for a discussion on mirror aiming. Cyclists have an advantage in this regard over motorists because their head movements that effectively change mirror aiming are less than for their motoring brethren. Still, a mirror is either optimized to see behind or to one or the other sides. And THAT is a point mostly missed in the LAB discussions: if aimed behind, what action can you suddenly take that does not make you LESS predictable? If aimed to a side, how often does it really make a difference? While we are talking about SIDE mirrors, the reason RH mirrors came along much later is that they are a lot less likely to be really useful. Think about it. If you are on a bike (or in a car) and making a right turn, motorists on your right are a rare event. If you are making a lane shift to the left; much more likely. As for pedestrians, we on bikes really don't need mirrors to see them.


RH Side Mirror. Look HERE to Check Before a RH Lane Change. Objects are Closer Than They Appear!

OTHER FACTORS
If you are in a car, the side view mirror is much closer to the lane divider than it would typically be if you are on a bike - UNLESS you are riding a bit left of the LH tire track. This is simply due to the much wider width of a car. In my own experience, I get reduced passing clearance if I ride "close" to the LH lane edge. Things are much more congenial if I ride somewhere within the range of tire tracks. Personally, I like the "left center line of sweetness," but as with a lot in life, "it depends."

BOTTOM LINE
Very little of the mirror discussions I've seen address how mirrors are used for different purposes, nor exactly HOW you can reliably use a mirror for any safety purpose when considering traffic approaching from behind. For a movement you plan to the side - yes. From behind, not so much unless you are planning to jump on the brakes without warning.

MY VIEW (no pun intended)
A mirror can help in overall situation awareness. I'm going to get another mirror partly for this reason. What's more, it'll be a bar end mirror and NOT the one I already have that mounts on my helmet. A mirror makes a useful part of the "eyes moving" sequence of seeing what is all around (if that is any different than overall situation awareness) as long as it doesn't become an "end" in itself. A mirror can also help you prejudge a lane move. In this case, however, I'd never make a lane move without the "trust but verify" Ronald Reagan full head check. My kids were taught the same principle when motoring. NEVER change lanes without actually SEEING things are clear. In that regard, mirrors mainly help you know what to expect when the REAL look occurs.



 

"Trust, But Verify" Applies to Nuclear Weapons - AND Traffic (photo from Wikipedia)

ONE OTHER THING
All the above presumes you have normal vision or are farsighted. For those that are NEARSIGHTED, the mirror also helps them see what is happening back there and off to the side in conjunction with their eyeglasses. Otherwise, they are looking beyond the edges of their glasses.

JAGUAR CONSIDERATION
If you were wondering, NO, I have NO side mirror on my 1967 Jaguar. I have no plans to add one either - unless I find some of those that'll clip onto one's window but can be removed when one drives on to the show field. Just sayin'



No Side Mirror on THIS Vehicle!

Share the Road Indeed!

Amongst cycling advocates, there are ENDLESS arguments over the details of sharrows, the merits of "Bicycles May Use Full Lane" (BMUFL) signs versus "Share the Road" signs. I find such discussions alternately frustrating and amusing. Perhaps they are a modern-day counterpart to medieval arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

You see, such signage and paint is not really meant for motorists. It is meant to reassure "the converted" and those "considering conversion" that it is OK. With such signs, Lucifer is kept at bay. Well, I hate to say it, but cycling CAN be dangerous. In point of fact, despite an aggressive and continuing safety education effort, two-wheeled road users are being killed at a dramatically higher rate than other users. With or without helmets. What's more, I really do not think any of these added signs are going to help because I really do not imagine that motorists are prompted to some sort of "driving behavior conversion" by the presence or absence of such.

This week, I saw a "Share the Road" sign that illustrates the problem. I'd be interested to hear theories on how the motorist in the photo could have kept that motorcycle safe by merely "sharing." I expect there's a good chance that the first warning even a careful motorist got was the "whap" of sheet metal crushing. Perhaps he/she pulled forward from a stop sign to get a better view of traffic. Perhaps the two-wheeler had the stop. We'll never know, other than that BMUFL or "Share the Road" signs provide no actual useful information that might have prevented this tragedy.

The death rate for people on motorcycles is FAR higher per mile than for motorists or for people on bicycles. This is despite Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF) education, better helmets, better equipment and "Share the Road" signs. One obvious conclusion is that speed really DOES kill. Cycling is fun and safe. Motorcycling would be safe as well if you didn't have people popping wheelies on the Freeway at 100+MPH and ASSUMING that all motorists will stop at stop signs in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Good thing those wrong-way sidewalk bicyclists can't ride at 100MPH! Do stay safe out there...

Seen in Tacoma this Week. Share the Road Y'all!

Watch for Tricky People on Bikes

Approaching Bellaire Elementary from the North. Today's Subject Passed Through the Intersection About Where the Middle Car Is
Nowadays, There's a Traffic Signal Instead of the Stop Signs. At Least He had a Green for THIS Intersection

In any given situation, the safety of someone on a bike depends on his or her actions and the actions of other road users. This morning, on my commute to work, there was a guy on a bike going southbound down Bellaire a bit north of Bellaire Elementary School. He was hugging the right edge where the gutter pan meets the traffic lanes. Before long, he sort of wandered across the street, more or less in the middle of the left turn lane as he went into the intersection at Bellaire. He proceeded to ride down the street; now headed south in the northbound lane. After a couple of blocks, he zipped up onto the sidewalk, still headed against traffic. He rode along the sidewalk at about 18MPH; almost as fast as I was going on the road. It was fascinating to watch his driveway/intersection crossing technique –keep the head straight and keep going. Any motorist, however diligent, coming from one of the side streets, would have had no chance to avoid him. Any pedestrian approaching from the side would have gotten smacked. After a couple of more blocks I was far enough ahead that the show came to an end. Not long after, I arrived at the red light at Highway 10.

The Red Light at Highway 10. Back When it was Dark When I Got There
Today's Scofflaw Was ANOTHER Guy on a Bike. He Crossed on the Left Sidewalk
and Swerved Through the Highway Traffic

For an encore, while I was waiting for the light to change, along comes “clueless wrong-way sidewalk rocket guy,” who shot through the red light off of his wrong-way sidewalk, across three lanes of traffic and a left turn lane, threading through oncoming westbound motorists on Highway 10 that were naively expecting that their green light meant “GO” instead of “watch for a person running the red on a bike.” Though I knew it was NOT a teachable moment, I couldn’t help myself and yelled “it’s a red light!” in his direction. I admit it, sometimes I forget you’re supposed to watch for people on bikes, not yell at them. This guy then proceeded to ride eastbound along for the better part of a half mile on the left side of the left lane of a highway with a 50MPH speed limit before swerving across three traffic lanes in order to hop onto a sidewalk off to the side of the road. Lots of eastbound motorists got to watch this tricky guy. They all avoided him – THIS time. Cycling really IS safe!

One popular explanation for “safety in numbers” promoted by Jacobsen and many advocates is that motorists watch for bikes better when there are more bikes. I’d like to propose an alternate reason since I don’t see how ANY amount of added motorist diligence would help this tricky bike guy. Isn’t it more likely that with added bikes on the road, people on bikes have more opportunities to observe and simply ride less dangerously? Wouldn’t that result in lower crash rates? Motorists are trained NOT to run into things they see. That’s true whether that object is a bike, a parked car, a pedestrian, or even stuff floating in the wind. West of Amarillo, I was amazed to see motorists swerving all over the road to avoid running into tumbleweeds blowing across the highway. I suppose it is POSSIBLE that they were watching for tumbleweeds because there WERE a lot of them blowing across the road, but I doubt it. Avoidance training runs deep and it kicked in for the Motorists on Highway 10 this morning. Simply put, if the fraction of bikes shooting through intersections going the wrong way drops dramatically, the fraction of people killed doing such things will also drop. Maybe if people doing dim bulb stuff get yelled at by many more cyclists, they'll catch on.

Heading North, This Morning, the Guy on the Bike Would Have Been Headed Straight Towards Me

Certainly my loyal reader can think of other reasons for improved safety with added numbers – “with more bikes, traffic engineers stop ignoring bikes” is a personal favorite, but reduced DANGEROUS behavior seems more reasonable than others getting better at anticipating and avoiding that DANGEROUS behavior.

My Track This Morning, With Bellaire off to my Right. Rocket Guy was Headed the Same Way Two Lanes Over to the Left

TCS ATP and More

John Romeo recently made a post about what he called "Total Cycling Support" versus "As Traffic Permits." IMO, it was a thought-provoking and important post. Go read it if you haven't already. Clearly, based on THIS post, it provoked some thought at this locale. After consideration, I'll toss out the notion that, in reality, it isn't really one versus another. For TCS, simply look here. We might debate the relative importance of various elements under various circumstances. But I think we really pretty much agree. JRA noted the Netherlands as an example. I think the Dutch would mostly agree with the LAB link. Indeed, I just saw an interesting post about the role of education in Dutch cycling, here. TCS consists of many elements.

As for ATP, my own position was, perhaps, cited here or here. However, when you are out on your bike, on a road that you might prefer not to be on, what ARE you going to do? On such a day, the "IF" choice may be irrelevant as you look at that busy highway you HAVE to cross in order to get home. It matters little whether you prefer something else. Starkly, you either ride as safely and well as you can, or you find some way to slink home. Perhaps, if you are not unusually determined, you never ride again and, instead, commiserate with your fellow motorists about how dangerous things are. Yeah, I wouldn't mind if things were better for cyclists. But they're not. At least not today. Not in the good ol' USA. While I think cycling is fun and safe, I also don't think my knowledge is likely to become anything more than a "fringe" opinion. Certainly not in the near future.

And THAT is the fundamental difference between our blogs. JRA, in his blog, makes excursions into the world that never was and says; "why not." I, in my blog, more often stick to the world that is, and ask; "how." IMO, we need both. Perhaps the "how is less inspired than the exposition of how things SHOULD be and MIGHT become. Perhaps the focus on "how" is the curse of the engineer. On the other hand, where would the crew of Apollo 13 be without the engineers who solved the problem of surviving an explosion in deep space?

In the world, we need both dreams AND pragmatism.

For the first, I'll refer you to a speech, made on my birthday, by John Kennedy at Rice University. He epitomized the dream. Without the dream, we would never have made the attempt.

John Kennedy Expresses a Dream

For the second, I'll refer you to a desperate attempt to save the lives of men sent to the moon in fulfillment of that dream. Without that engineering, those brave men would have died.

Engineers Brought the Astronauts Back from the Brink of Death

In reality, the human race needs both elements. TCS is a vision of what we might wish and work for. ATP gives us a way to get back home - today. The choice, in my opinion, is not whether to favor one or the other. The choice is to use the other while achieving the dream.

Typical Commute DUG UP

I thought that today I'd take a shot of the most dramatic, unusual, and dramatic event of my typical commute. I wondered if I'd dig up some blood curdling danger, or other item that would cause my loyal reader to consider whether cycling might be other than fun and safe.

Well, on the way in, I DID face a real stiff headwind. That slowed things down a bit, but I still arrived at work pretty much at the same time as usual, thanks to a couple of green lights I typically have to stop for. Still, a photo of a green traffic light hardly seems like something I'd be paid millions for the movie rights for.

To spice things up, I also saw a dog on the loose. Perhaps that dog was appraised of my recent post, here, as he slunk off in the opposite direction without so much as a close approach or even a friendly tail wag. Perhaps word has been making its way around the canine world. Even a dog or two that typically run along their fences barely looked up this morning.

Before you knew it, I was at work, with nary a photo-worthy event. But, there was still the afternoon commute to look forward to. Perhaps I'd have a thrilling brush with something or other on the way home.

Broken Front Derailleur. But Not MY Bike

Well, things started out promising. A fellow bike commuter noted his gears weren't working right. I fiddled with his bike a bit, finding that the spring on his front derailleur had "sprung," leaving him stuck in the big chainring. I called him up to appraise him of the mechanical difficulty. I suggested he manually move the chain to his middle ring and reset the stop in order to get home without having to push excessively big gears.

Feeling better, from at least having done my "good deed daily," I continued home. Nothing too dramatic, other than feeling good at seeing the now fixed "Hurst Killer Grate." It'd be tougher for kids riding to school to hurt themselves. Nothing real scary there. No honking or close passes, or abuse, or much of any other dramatic traffic events. Pretty much the same as the morning commute. Oh, I DID hit two more green lights, but again, they're not going to get me a movie deal. Actually, green lights are pretty much the same in Dallas County as they are around my parts of Tarrant County. In Washington State, on the other hand, they orient the signals up and down instead of side to side. Perhaps that will be another thrilling commute post. Perhaps my loyal reader, being asleep, will not notice one way or the other.

Green Lights Hardly Seem Like Thriller Material

But, suddenly, it came to me, I'd really DUG up the commute thrill of the season. It's in the photo below. What, you might ask? Well, those dead palm trees got dug up. Some of us have boring enough commutes that removed landscape foliage is worth an entire post. It is enough to give the "Safety Pyramid" a bad name.

On the other hand, despite propaganda to the contrary, it illustrates that cyling IS fun and safe. Well, even when it isn't a whole lot of fun, it's pretty safe. And, the free coffee from taking the major coffee chain survey made it a little more fun as well.

Something Has Been "Dug Up" Here. What Could it Be?

The Very Same House, Recently, Before the Excavation. Two Palm Trees Were Killed By the February 2011 Ice

Perhaps the "Safety Pyramid" is NOT All Good When the Most Exciting Thing on the Commute is Yard Work Along the Route

Helmetlessly Hurting

Yesterday, I wasn't wearing my helmet. I knew that not wearing it exposed me to the risk of a brain injury. I, too, have read the newspaper scare comments about cyclists eating (or is it drinking?) through a straw and (insert your favorite troll comment here). I've even hit my head before. As is usual in such cases, the event was totally unexpected, though foreseeable to any dispassionate observer. To modify a phrase to better suit the collision in question: "When an engineer and a filing cabinet collide, the cabinet always wins." Though, in my own defense, the cabinet suffered a dent and thus did not get away totally unscathed. When I donned my helmet for the ride home, I felt that cabinet's pain all the way home. Ditto for the commute today. Luckily for where I work, it did not QUITE rise to the status of a recordable incident. Darn that Safety Pyramid!

FKS Revisit the Safety Pyramid

If You are Experiencing Close Calls, Consider You are at the Second Step...

I posted about the Safety Pyramid once before, here. I'm prompted to revisit the topic by Fear, Khal, and Steve to illustrate how it applies to cycling.

If you will recall, the Pyramid suggests that crashes are related to the number of "near misses" or, commonly in cycling talk, "close calls." And "close calls" are related to the number of "at risk" incidents.

One problem with this in cycling is that some like to use fear as part of the sales pitch.

DISCLOSURE: I had a traffic close call myself on a bike. As I recall, it was in 1974 or 1975. In West Seattle. More recently, I had a pickup driver threaten to back over me in North Richland Hills, and another pickup crew in Bedford come by in a threatening "second pass," but I'm unsure if that is equivalent to a close call. On the other hand, I had a crash in a car in 1996 when another motorist crossed the road through a stop sign and smashed into the left front quarter of my Jaguar.

Anyway, on to the comparisons:

Fear: A blog I follow, had its writer bemoan three close calls in one week. The particular blogger advocates riding on the sidewalk as the safest form of travel; and I can't really argue with that if one really makes a full stop at each and every driveway and intersection, and yields to all pedestrians as the author claims to do. In such a case, close calls would tend to consist of motorists who crash into the curbs of sidewalks or simply drive up onto same. Regardless, if I were to adopt this method of riding, it would be quicker to simply ditch my bike and walk the seven miles to work. Quicker still would be to join the motorized majority. I pray that the three close calls in a week is simply a blogger exaggerating - based on the possibility that the Safety Pyramid has validity as we are taught at work.

Khal: Mr Spencer, in his excellent blog, related a case of a close call. He doesn't have a lot of close calls so pretty much each really becomes notable. In offline correspondence I didn't ask for permission to put up here, he noted:

"...even when things start to go wrong, one has some options left if one is paying attention. I don't like to have to manage unsafe actions, etc., mind you."

I do not think this unauthorized quote will make headlines, since it is not much different than something I might have said - in words not too much different, except I'd have probably added "cycling is fun and safe."

Steve: I had an unsafe incident last week. Tuesday morning to be specific. I was coming south down Bedford Road; crossing the Airport Freeway. It was dark. I had on my usual dark clothing. The "Flamethrower" headlight was on, but I had it on the "low" setting that is merely brighter than most bike headlights and not the "high" setting that is brighter than automotive lights. This fact is mainly relevant to "Safety Pyramid" corrective action.

Anyway, on the service road, off to my right, a motorist decided to make a "free right turn on red." Myself, I was in the left lane since the right one is closed to make more motoring roads. Typically, as I enter the intersection, I drift right into the right lane that begins again just south of the intersection construction. Except for "Teal Escort Guy," (who isn't going that way anyway) any following traffic understands why I'm in that lane and that my right arm hung out means I'll be going into the right lane when it reappears.

The motorist SHOULD have waited for traffic going with the green light to clear the intersection before he began his right. Them's the rules. Still, this was not a big deal to me since I was still a lane to his left. I'd simply stay in the left lane until the motorist's acceleration took him ahead and then complete my shift into the right lane. Well, that plan evaporated when the "free right turner" went further into scofflaw territory by then beginning a move into the left lane. My lane. Now, I had to decide what this guy was going to do next. He could accelerate or he could run into the median. Figuring that it was more likely that the guy was simply clueless rather than inebriated or otherwise incapacitated, I moved further left in the left lane and slowed down a smidge. I think "free right turner" realized he was potentially going to run over a cyclist who had the right of way, because at this point he slowed down as well. Seeing this turn of events, I turned up the burner a bit and merged into the right lane ahead of him. As it turned out, this was precisely the best action I could have taken since the motorist was intending to go into the grocery store in the mini mall off to my left. I have no idea what he was going to shop for at 6:30AM, but this is Texas so he wasn't buying booze.

When Close Calls Are Rare, Even the "Unsafe Act by Others" Must Suffice
Cycling IS Fun and Safe...

Hold a Line - Or NOT?

Should the Cyclist Following the Blue Arrows "Hold His Line"or Instead Occupy the Middle Lane Until the Impatient Pickup Driver Passes on the Right?
OR - Hold His Line? Photo from Google Maps

This morning, I encountered an interesting situation prompted by some motorist misjudgement. At no time did it rise to the level of being actually risky or a "close call," but I'm interested in hearing what my loyal reader might have done.

Since we're now in the "George W Bush ridiculously early Daylight let's pretend we're savings time," I was riding in to work in the predawn darkness. I had my usual lighting and reflector, and the "flame thrower"headlight all lit as I waited in the "left turn only" lane on Bellaire at the red light. My intention was to turn left on to E Hurst Blvd and then to upset Rantwick's mom by taking a shortcut into the parking lot where I work. Simply put, I was planning to take the line of the blue arrows.

While I waited, up behind me came a pickup truck, whose driver stopped behind me in the left turn lane. This is a situation that happens pretty much every day, except when I take Arwine (the street of the dangerous grate) instead. I'm not really sure which route is quicker, so I more or less alternate.

The usual scenario is when motorists stop behind me, they may be irritated by a cyclist in front of them, but aren't really too perturbed since it isn't a cyclist they've already passed who sneaks in front of them. The more thoughtful might be amazed that the cyclist is actually WAITING for the light to change. Either way, they see where I'm going and then they pick a different lane. Since I'm going right, they adjust course a quarter inch turn of their steering wheel and probably don't even realize it.

This morning, however, it was different. For reasons completely unknown, the driver of the pickup, decided to take the course of the red arrows and pass the cyclist ON THE RIGHT. Well, while it was a little peculiar to know a motorist was going to attempt an "on the right" pass IN A TURN, in a situation where I was almost certainly going to go into the right lane, it mainly presented me with a momentary dilemma. Namely, do I simply hold my line and see what the guy does or do I adjust my line slightly to ride into the middle lane until the pickup driver passes on the right? As I turned, the truck got closer, bit by bit, off to my right. Unlike you might imagine, I really had a fair amount of time to contemplate the courses of action I had. The pickup really couldn't turn much sharper at the speed the driver was attempting to develop and I am old and feeble enough that accelerating ahead of him wasn't really an option even IF I'd been so inclined.

My choice: I held my line. The motorist, realizing he'd done a boo boo, slowed, and then moved to pass me via the middle lane. He felt it necessary to hit the accelerator and burn an extra gallon or so of gas, but otherwise didn't honk or do anything else inappropriate.

What would YOU have done?
Now, supposing I'd been dumb and we'd collided, would this have been a "left cross" or a "hit from behind?" And would the British government have blamed me for wearing "dark clothes" even though my bike was well lit and the motorist clearly had no reason to not see me, having previously stopped behind me? And, finally, does the chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight? Problems such as this are MUCH nicer than the motorist in the teal Escort.

Cycling MAY be fun and safe, but sometimes it is "interesting" as well...