These folks challenge the assumption.
On a first quick read-through, one of the ways that the authors were trying to minimize variables was to keep between 0.5 and 0.8 metres (or meters, if you prefer) from the kerb (or curb, for those of us on this side of the pond--it would perhaps be an acceptable assumption that if there was no curb as I know it, the fog line would have been a comparable marker).
Some folks I know criticize this study (admittedly not to the level of scientific, according to the authors) for not having a variable for driver behavior compared to edge-riding behavior (0.8 meters being less than three feet from the road edge, and far closer to the edge than I ride as a general rule). One reason could be that in the earlier paragraphs, the authors cite the Walker (2007) work suggesting that cyclists who ride centered in a lane get less passing clearance (which contradicts tests by Gutierrez, et al, and the results of many of us who ride well left in the lane in drive in the right lane countries).
At any rate, I'm not sure what this study means to me, if anything. It doesn't give me any reason to doubt that being visible and relevant at greater distance is important to my own safety, and I continue to hold that the relevance is more important than simply being visible (there are many signs along my commute route that are quite visible, but are irrelevant to my commute, so I ignore them with regard to whether I use my brakes or change lane positions--being viewed as relevant at greater distance gives overtaking road users more time to adjust their speed and lane choices, as you've seen me post before).
On a first quick read-through, one of the ways that the authors were trying to minimize variables was to keep between 0.5 and 0.8 metres (or meters, if you prefer) from the kerb (or curb, for those of us on this side of the pond--it would perhaps be an acceptable assumption that if there was no curb as I know it, the fog line would have been a comparable marker).
Some folks I know criticize this study (admittedly not to the level of scientific, according to the authors) for not having a variable for driver behavior compared to edge-riding behavior (0.8 meters being less than three feet from the road edge, and far closer to the edge than I ride as a general rule). One reason could be that in the earlier paragraphs, the authors cite the Walker (2007) work suggesting that cyclists who ride centered in a lane get less passing clearance (which contradicts tests by Gutierrez, et al, and the results of many of us who ride well left in the lane in drive in the right lane countries).
At any rate, I'm not sure what this study means to me, if anything. It doesn't give me any reason to doubt that being visible and relevant at greater distance is important to my own safety, and I continue to hold that the relevance is more important than simply being visible (there are many signs along my commute route that are quite visible, but are irrelevant to my commute, so I ignore them with regard to whether I use my brakes or change lane positions--being viewed as relevant at greater distance gives overtaking road users more time to adjust their speed and lane choices, as you've seen me post before).
I'm reminded of a post I saw a couple years ago, from "The Lazy Rando Blog."
1 comment:
It's an interesting study from the perspective of British cyclists, since the Highway Code says that cyclists should wear high visibility clothing - basically implying that it's illegal not to do so. I'm not sure if it's actually on any law books anywhere or how this has played out in courts in the UK, but I've always seen it as a discriminatory rule, since it seems cars in the UK are not required to be painted bright yellow or orange.
Post a Comment