Distractions
 

After reading the "useless forum" discussion, may I submit for consideration the following study done in Boston and published by the National Institutes Of Health. Subject is distracted cycling - seems to have merit, since distracted driving is a major issue it seems to follow that the same may be true of cycling.

As a side note - two days ago I almost had a head-on accident with a phone zombie on a bike as he came around a curve on my side of the trail. I hit my brakes and shouted at him, he swerved at the last second and missed me by inches. Actually, this was the second time this has happened to me recently.

Anyway - submitted for you consideration. Have at it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4785823/

I can't think of a time I saw a cyclist checking his/her phone while cycling, I'm sure it's happened, but not too common around here. I consider myself a very focused rider, but it does take practice. I've been distracted before by focusing on what's in my mirror or looking at my computer, but I've trained myself to always have my eyes darting around.

Thing I notice is that a fair number of cyclists don't look before they change their line, I always make a wide berth when passing.

However, I live in Florida and there are a lot of hot, scantily clad females...I'm still practicing....:bike2:

Gotta say, I'm not impressed. They're counting any headphones or buds, no consideration of whether they are set so people can hear. Also counting cell phones on handlebars as distracted. I use my cell phone as a gps, speedometer, etc, and it sits in a bag on the handlebar. A phone set up in a car in that manner would not be considered distracted driving. They're also counting holding anything in a hand.
Conspicuously missing from this study is the slightest evidence that any of these behaviors actually increase the likelihood of accident, only contains statements that they "could" or "might".

Frankly, this is really poor. There's no meaningful interpretation of the data.

ETA--I realized after I wrote the above that if they happened to observe you drinking from a water bottle, that would count as distracted riding. Sorry, but that's just absurd. I hope this garbage study doesn't gain traction with any policy makers.

The study is an attempt to dramatize an alleged problem in order to support so-called "evidence-based public education and awareness programs that aim to reduce distracted bicycling behaviors"; programs that are either non-existent or have demonstrated little or no evidence of increasing cyclist safety.

This study provides zero data that any of the alleged "distractions" increased the cycling risk to any of the observed cyclists or that the allegedly distracted cyclists behaved in any manner different than the cyclists who were observed as not distracted.

The study makes ridiculous stretches to include everything they could think of as "distractions" in order to boost their "distraction" count, including anything carried in a hand, large purses and book bags that allegedly obstructed the riders’ legs from pedaling, certain style of women's shoes, and loud music from speakers on the handlebars.

The study provides zero evidence that any of the alleged "distractions" are associated in any way with increased cycling risk, only vague opinions are stated that distraction "could be" a contributing factor in Boston bicycle crashes. ANYTHING "could be a contributing factor" to include listening to the birds singing, reading road signs, or looking backwards for traffic from behind, or even looking in a mirror at the wrong moment.

The study concluded that "Education and public awareness are essential in preventing distracted biking incidents." but the study provided zero data or evidence of a single biking accident, crash or mishap in Boston or anywhere else related to the cyclist being "distracted."

Just think what the authors of the study would say if they saw a cyclist smoking while riding! Oh the Horror, death and destruction "could be" next!

Surely we've all seen people weaving erattically down the path/lane while their attention is engrossed in their phone.

Some study may have overcounted, but the problem is real.

I hate passing such unpredictables, because you never know what they'll do.

I see those people on bikes erratically weaving and I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to pass them, but it's not from them checking their phones, it's just how they ride; it seems like any direction they look, their bike follows. However, I'm not sure how many of them I can call "cyclist". :eek::innocent:

Living in a beach town, we get a lot of people on bikes...I know I risk sounding like an elitist. :speedy:

It really doesn't bother me too much, since I only see these people as I'm coming home (in the last mile of two), I ride on the beach roads as a cool down, I never see them on the major roads I ride when I'm on my ride, so it's not as if they're slowing me down significantly.:recum:

It won't be long before a court case comes down to "the driver turned left right in front of me" and "the cyclist was on his phone and didn't see me turn".
I have no idea who would win in court, but I know who's going to lose on the street.

I've seen pedestrians do this, but not bicyclists. The problem on paths I occasionally have is a headphone/earbud deaf cyclist suddenly pulling into the lane I'm passing him in. I announce my passes, but you can't always see the earbuds to know it wasn't heard.

Anyway, this study wasn't about paths, and it didn't just overcount, it defined distraction absurdly. My fear is that someone in power will run with this absurd definition and we'll end up with a lot of really stupid laws.

Also, the distraction problem doesn't translate neatly from drivers to cyclists. The speed and weight of the vehicles are absurdly different, and frankly, if something like a bag is interfering with the operation of the bike, you probably will slow down or rearrange the load. In a car, if you're driving with your hands full, it's a lot easier for the vehicle to become uncontrolled at speed.

The phone distracted rider is a problem I've unfortunately seen more than a bit of.

In contrast to incompetent bike handling, I've often seen the erratically weaving person I was unnnerved to pass later blow by holding a straight line at a fairly fast pace once they stopped playing candy crush and remembered they were on a bike.

Not saying the other problems don't also exist - seen those too - but distracted riders are real.

Situational Awareness
 

What strikes me about the general approach to this, and a lot of ineffectual safety initiatives, is the rules-based, eliminate-the-negative approach. These approaches assume that if you discourage dangerous behaviors you get safe behaviors. To paraphrase ILTB, where's the evidence that's working?

I read the study and my take-away is "we're gathering evidence to support future rules and campaigns around specific behaviors". They are not observing situational awareness, which is what matters.

When you are on the road, as a pedestrian, cyclist or motor vehicle operator, you need to maintain situational awareness. That's the positive to be promoted. If we valued situational awareness, then we'd have one over-arching objective and not have rule after rule after rule.

Are you going to take a drink? The situationally-aware person does that when there is no nearby traffic or when stopped. Approaching a railroad track? The situationally-aware person rolls down the window and turns down the background noise. Semi-trailer truck? The situationally-aware person is going to provide it a large margin and will stay out of its blind spots. At a busy urban intersection? The situationally-aware person is fully occupied in getting through that space without incident. Driving 70 mph on a straight interstate during the day with dry conditions and no vehicles nearby? The situationally-aware person knows that will change relatively slowly.

Most people in the United States grow up in a cocoon that is very forgiving, physically, legally and "shared-values-ly" of not maintaining situational awareness.

I'd like to see a study about how we can promote situational awareness on our roads. Maybe fighter pilots can help?

Oh, and transporting things by hand on a bike? That's best left to the professionals:

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...86c97c5cc4.jpg
Snipped from internet but I saw a lot of this in Cairo. You can bet your sweet bippy he's got situational awareness.

I wonder if this riding around looking at one's phone is a Boston thing?
Did anyone look at the Allstate Best cities rankings, from the above link? Boston is way at the bottom.

https://www.allstate.com/resources/a...eport-2014.pdf

I have never observed that "problem" displayed in the real world.
But then there are those like the authors of the OP study that are sure they see their pet "problem" everywhere.

Lucky you.

I've had the misfortune to encounter more of it than I cared to.

In my experience its been more prevalent in some places than others, which is perhaps why you're not seeing it.

That you haven't personally experienced a problem is irrelevant to the fact of its existence.

I do a lot of riding in the Boston area. I've seen no evidence whatsoever it's a real problem in Boston, and I don't think this study provides ANY evidence that it is.

And I have no idea what your link has to do with bicyclists, it's about "safe drivers." Boston has a reputation for bad drivers and completely confusing roads and intersections, so that ranking is not surprising.

Yes, but that you have is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a common and/or serious problem. People being annoying on paths is not the same thing as causing injuries and fatalities on roads, which is the alleged topic of the op study.

Somebody market that as a helmet!

He's probably going about what, 5-10 mph? The speeds involved are one of the reasons the comparison to distracted driving is not at all straightforward.

Other than to check immediately to the side of me, I may not look behind me when I change lines.

In my opinion, if you don't announce your presence behind me, then that road or path is all mine until you safely complete your pass and take the line in front of me.

That is so true!

I have a few friends who ride motorcycle and they tell me that situational awareness is only taught for riding motorcycles but not driving.

if there is daylight, the pedestrian has a walk/flashing signal & the vehicle making the turn has a permitted traffic signal, the driver of the vehicle should be found as at fault.
If the cyclists is going thru the green light & the left turning vehicle has a flashing yellow & then hits the cyclist, it is the vehicle's fault for poor judgement when determining a turn is safe to proceed.

Smartphones is the the most dangerous distraction for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. The second most dangerous distraction is wearing ear buds and listening to music...It's no wonder that there are millions of zombies hypnotized by their electronic devices stumbling around completely unaware of their surroundings and what's happening around them.

Wait about a month and then take a cruise through your local college or university. You can see more exotic bad cycling ideas in an hour than you can shake a stick at. More likely, you will be shaking your head.

My phone is mounted in a top tube bag and that's where it stays while I'm riding. Though it may as well just stay in a jersey pocket, since I don't look at it very often. When I'm riding I'm focusing on riding, traffic, and scenery and have little time to play on my phone.

Focusing on Scenery? Isn't that where the "sharks" are hanging out? Watch out that you don't get bit by that distracting behavior. :twitchy:

I am not sure what you meant by "bad cycling ideas", but back when I was in university (a long time ago), I saw extremely negligent bike maintenance (even by my then admittedly low standards).