Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Cyclist Safety
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Is borris gonna ban car drivers from wearing /using ear buds too?
I once tried ear buds but took rhem out after about 2 miles.... hated losing any sound of vehicles aroundd me.....
I see this issue hit the main news today. I've not ridden a bike for a few years now and stopped commuting into work on one as I got to work too stressed.
As for cyclists and ear buds am sorry but they basically deserve what they get, if they are unaware of sounds around them they become the danger. I dont even listen to music on trails wide enough for vehicles now after meeting a log lorry on one.
And as a bit of a wuss I'd never consider pulling my cycle up to the side of a truck at a junction. I'm sad that 6 cyclists have died in London recently and the pictures were horrific but even though Paris had nil deaths I'm not sure it would work in London.
I was once in my car, 2 slow lanes merging into one and a Range Rover seemed intent on pushing me onto the pavement, my horn made no difference and it was only when I tapped the passenger on their arm that the driver stopped then yelled "you shouldn't drive such a small car"!
As for cyclists and ear buds am sorry but they basically deserve what they get,
In a week when so many have died, comments like this really **** me off.
However, what is plainly obvious, even to runners during races, is that people wearing them are PERCEIVED by other people as being dangerous, even if they're not.
Perceptions are very important.
A cyclist with no lights in black clothing on a well lit road isn't necessarily dangerous. Especially if drivers are saying 'look at that idiot' then they can obviously be seen (although, not as well and as soon as someone with lights).
Someone bowling along at 35mph clad in Lycra is perceived as riding dangerously by car drivers.
Someone cautiously crossing a red light is perceived as being dangerous.
Someone not wearing a helmet is perceived as being dangerous.
It's people's perceptions that matter, not what is actually dangerous. Change people's perceptions and you'll get rid of a lot of animosity between car drivers and riders.
I don't think there is a problem with the infrastructure, I think there is a problem with people's attitudes. We're all different and our attitude to risk is different. If you can accept that and not impose your attitude to risk on someone else, and be tollerant to people who are risk averse things might improve. But it's human nature, and you can't change that easily or quickly.
Would Boris be able to ban cyclists wearing earphones? If they are proven to be a significant risk factor then there is a case for banning them, but at the same time they'd have to ban stuff like hands free phones in cars which are proven to be a distraction and probably paying HGV drivers by the load rather than by the hour.
You wonder about car stereos too - I mean if a vehicle has to have a working horn by law what is the logic in allowing most vehicles to have stereos that would drown out the sound of one?
I think this is the point - if you've got a cyclist distracted by music and a driver distracted by a phone call it's an accident waiting to happen.
Maybe there does need to be a real drive (no pun intended) towards getting rid of all sorts of distractions while using roads in towns and cities.
And there are cars with stereos that make my living room floor vibrate as they go past the house - what the f*ck must it be like driving one of them?
I wouldn't single out cyclists on this issue... But perhaps Andi's point is that anyone who is perceived to have compromised their own safety is going to lose sympathy.
All these things are covered under existing law, yet another law seems a bit overkill.
Avon and Somerset police are currently engaged in road safety week and have been tweeting their actions. Yesterday it was the forward cycle boxes at traffic lights.
I beleive there was uproar about radios when they were first put into motor vehicles. Not that I was around but I read it.
I have ridden with earphones on before. Generally only had one in rather than two and not overly loud. Was more than aware of the traffic but helped pass the time in the saddle on some long rides. In the majority I ride without them but I must confess to using them.
I run with earphones as well, don't see that they present much extra danger as long as I am aware that I can't hear other things and take additional precuations. In races they present more of a nuisance as runners are packed close together so being aware of other runners is much more important. Plus marshalls may offer instructions which need to be heard. I don't get marshalls for my evening run.
We can't ban trucks, it has too many knock-ons. Drivers families, noise at night, more congestion at night, more tired drivers, greater cost to goods, construction would grind to a halt etc.
I beleive too many people don't take enough care driving and riding. I for one would like to see further education for drivers once they have passed their test. Even additional tests. Those that cry the loudest about having to take another test are saying something about their own driving capability. I have no fear of taking another test. It isn;t a magic bullet but it would help.
M..eface
There are certainly enough terrible drivers on the roads... Even if cyclists are taken out of the equation there's still a strong case/need to improve road safety... I'm not so sure that having additional tests is the answer... There are plenty of drivers that don't seem to have a problem with using mobile phones whilst driving, travelling at far in excess of speed limits, tail-gating, etc... I'm not convinced that this wouldn't persist in between tests.
Well we could extend the ban on HGVs or look at changing the hours they are banned - of course it would involve inconvenience for some people but others (cyclists and potential cyclists) would gain. What could certainly be done is ban paying HGV drivers by the load which provides a direct incentive for drivers to take risks.
It's not inconvenience it would stop all construction in the city. When they poured the raft foundation of the Shard they had to do it in one continuous pour. 700 trucks in 36hours, a truck arriving every 2 minutes. That's after the demolition of the 24story building that was there before and the excavation of the groundworks.
Two cyclists were killed by dumper trucks/tipper lorries working on the Shard!
It's got to be down to individuals taking responsibility and not looking to blame everyone else for their actions. For people to consider that they might actually be in the wrong occasionally and not see each other as adversaries.
I strongly believe, as mentioned up thread with the blonde wig comment, helmets depersonalise cyclists, and drivers start to see them as objects to be overtaken rather than people.
I think you are right. There are many that don't have a problem with it - quite literally. I think many can drive & text or travel in excess of the speed limit and not cause an incident ever. Many of them are very capable drivers and feel well within their comfort zone for safe operation of the vehicle.
Why is using a phone to make a call which involves pressing one button bad yet operating the BMW idrive system which is fecking complicated OK.
Look at Autobhan rules - you can drive as fast as you like but if you are doing over 120kph and are in an incident it is your fault.
Tailgating is maybe different. If there is no opportunity to overtake e.g. double white lines then it is stupid and dangerous. Yet on the motorway I see lots of middle lane hogging even outside lane hogging when they could allow a faster vehicle past. This is stupid and encourages tail gating. It is still dangerous but is understandable.
I had a friend complaining about a tailgater and elected to stay out as long as possible making the chap more irate. Eventually letting him past my friend said he was dangerous and driving too fast. My friend was doing 85mph at the time of the comments, the other guy probably sped up to 95mph. I wasn't ware that my friend was in charge of the sensible speed to drive at limit committee!
Take personal responsibility for your own safety both driving and cycling. Good awareness is the key.
Use the filter lane for bikes if you are sure you will get to the front before the lights go green. If not stay in the traffic. Be very wary of going inside lorries even in the filter lane if there is the slightest chance of it going green. If the lorry is at the front of the queue make sure you get a long way in front of it in the cyclist box, look up, make sure he has seen you. Hang over the front of the box if you need to so they can see you.
Try and sit in a lorry - it is quite an eye opener. These things are massive and very hard to drive. The drivers are good but some town centre junctions are hard to negotiate.
M..eface
It's the same argument that you drive better after a few glasses of alcohol. All the studies have been done, the evidence and proof is there to support it but the people who are doing it are not in the best position to judge.
Well there was an HGV instructor on TV the other day saying maybe allowing HGvs in earlier then a ban in rush hour might actually suit them better - so I'm going to stick with it being an inconvenience rather than stopping all construction. After all lots of European cities do this - presumably they still have construction. If particular projects require a continuous supply of something then I'm sure there are ways round it such as special permits - they don't build a new Shard every week after all.
As far as taking responsibility goes - the figures are there as far as fault - and cyclists are most often not at fault as far as accidents go. Yes of course you could say well if they hadn't done this or that they would have been safe - demand some extra ability to stay safe over and above obeying the law and highway code - but it's unreasonable to impose a much higher standard of riding on cyclists than is imposed on drivers. It's like blaming a victim of an assault because they didn't become an expert in martial arts.
I mean responsibility from everyone. I've seen lots of YouTube videos of cyclists who've gone out specifically looking for trouble to video and make some kind of point. There are idiot drivers about who follow the Highway Code to the letter and therefor think its the other person who must be in the wrong.
Oh no sorry I was only talking about rush Hour - can't speak for others.
Long term I think the only way we will get close to Dutch levels of cycling though is to spend Dutch levels of money over 30 years like they have. There will be some places where there just isn't space for cycling infrastructure but every time there is redevelopment space can be made and money and engineering can make things possible that aren't obviously so.
Pops, where have you got the figures to substantiate your comment that most cyclists are not at fault? I agree with a lot of what you say but this bit seems to be just a sweeping generalisation. As it stands vehicle driver's have to take at least one test to get a licence (two or even three for commercial licence holders) but cyclists don't currently have to take any test at all! So, I'm not sure it's 'imposing a much higher standard on cyclists than is imposed on drivers'! Just saying!
As someone who has had there live saved in the past by a helmet I can't disagree stronger. For me of was a mistake by a driver pulling out in front of me and going over the bonet. Piled into the concreate and split the helmet almost in two. Walked away for the crash with just a mind headache and a very interesting conversation with the car driver. Certain it would have been my skull split in to if I hadn't have been wearing one.
They won't save you from a 50 mph truck but a seatbeat won't ever in a car. If car driver's are treating cyclist's without helmets differently to cyclist's with them it's a issue to be sorted with driver's not with cycliest.
If we lived in cake world would make not wearing a helmet just as ilegal as not wearing one on a moterbike.
Risk compensation.
There's lots of sub concious things we do as human beings. Treating cyclists with helmets as objects is one of them. Ignoring moving objects that don't pose an immediate threat when we are being overloaded by visual information is another.
Everyone needs to slow down and digest the visual information we are receiving as we're not about to reduce the amount of information being presented to us.
No basically was on a hill and riding the brakes a little anyway this was years back before I started tri stuff. I don't think I was going more than about 15 or so mph. Car pulled out of a car park without even looking and the rest was damage to his bodywork.
TimR -- I'd be interested in some of your examples of where idiot drives are following the Highway Code to the letter and are some how in the wrong, as opposed to the other person (which seemed to be what you were implying)... Just asking...
It depends on the passenger and the conversation - screaming match with the wife, kids causing mayhem in the back. Both can be quite distracting. What about Radio2 at lunchtime - shouting at the radio about cyclists. Or rock music at 12million db. Compare those to a relaxed phone call.
Also some drivers have bigger brains than others and/or are more capable of visualistion and some can drive carefully with a lesser proportion of the brain. Motorway driving in good conditions only uses 20% of brain power.
I use the phone hands free in the car - it is a fully built in car system installed when the car was built with its own SIM and number. I use it nearly every day and call the wife, family & friends. I make the decision if the conditions and the journey make it safe to do so. 385,000 miles since my last road incident (which was a rogue deer in the dark jumping from a hedge). I would be unlikely to use it on unfamiliar roads in the lashing rain and heavy traffic.
I have a simialr view on speed. It has not been proven to cause a single accident. Excess/inappropirate speed for the conditions has caused accidents and made them a lot worse. But not speed itself. 30mph is too fast near schools at pick-up/drop-off but what about at 2am?
70mph is both too fat and too slow on motorways conditions dependant
It is dangerous - take responsibility for your own and others safety.
Perhaps a bit of common sense from everyone and extra awareness is required here? I drive a car and am very careful about cyclists and pedestrians, but increasingly I see cyclists without lights on their bicycles (in the dark) and pedestrians crossing roads in the dark without any high vis on ( in this case it was two school kids and they were not on a crossing point, just randomly standing in the middle of the road).
Last night I was walking my dog and I saw a young lad on his bike, with no helmet, no lights, dark coloured clothes and a massive pair of headphones on - I could hear his music from over ten feet away.
Seems to me that everyone needs a reminder about road safety - just cos Tufty isn't on the TV anymore doesn't mean the roads are a safe place now.....
Do kids still have to do cycling proficiency tests at school? We did, but that was quite a long time ago
- just wondering if reverting back to that, or bringing in the cycling equivalent of the CBT might help???
I think they still do it but it's been a while since I was in scholl as well.
PrinceS - Just some stat I heard either on the radio or TV. Googling it throws up a few stats but they all seem to agree cyclists are less likely to be at fault for collisions.
My point really though was that sometimes people argue well the cyclist had put themselves in a dangerous position. But if they were there totally legally, sometimes even following a cycle route up the left of vehicles, is it really fair to say they are "at fault" for an accident.
Would we ever say a car driver was at fault - say if a foreign based lorry pulled across into them because the car was in the blind spot - would we say never overtake a left hand drive HGV in the adjacent lane and if you do so and it pulls into you it's your fault - I don't think we would.
meface -- There's always going to be an overriding element of appropriateness for the conditions, which I'd have thought would largely be covered by laws relating to driving safely and with due care and attention... Speed is a thorny issue... It's probably fair to say that all motorists speed at some time and can justify it on the grounds of it being safe to do so...
MeFace - I might be misunderstanding our intention but are you saying some drivers can text and drive safely? Or do you just mean some feel they can but are mistaken?