Another sad piece of news, but...

Bike Forum

[closed]

Another sad piece of news, but...

68 posts & 34 voices | Started 1 year ago by juan | Latest reply from stilltortoise

Tags:

No tags yet.

Pages: « Previous 12

Northwind - Member

molgrips - Member

"Well, if you hear them coming up behind you and then you hear them brake when they're alongside (or almost) then you have a good inkling something's up. And then when the noise gets closer you know they are turning into you."

Once they're alongside you should have them in your peripheral vision anyway. "When the noise gets closer", are you serious? Hearing's a precise tool but it's not that precise. And it's far less useful than your eyesight, which is what you should be using to learn about a car that's passing you. I guess if your visual obs are awful then hearing could be of more use, you're blind in your right eye or you never look anywhere but dead ahead in tunnelvision mode.

The scenario you describe just makes no sense. When people overtake you then cut you up turning left they don't do it by trying to drive straight through you, they try and get past then turn across and if you fail to see that coming then your hearing won't help you either, you'll learn far more from your eyes. And even if it did make sense- in this hypothetical situation where people gun it to come alongside then instantly turn into you while alongside (ie, they're not trying to pass you, but actively trying to murder you) what are you going to do? Jump off the bike every time someone overtakes?

Posted 1 year ago #
trailmonkey - Member

Just divide the roads up differ3ently - more for bikes, less for cars. Its what they do in Holland. Every traffic / roads planing bod should go and ride a bike there

Or maybe they should read Monderman's thesis on shared space and not divide anything up.

Back to the debate, if you want to deprive yourselves of a key sense and factor in added distraction to an already potentially hazardous situation, then as adults, I think you should be perfectly entitled to do so.

Posted 1 year ago #
uluru - Member

I hate to sound sexist, but the degree of sheer carelessness that I see women display cycling round london appalls me - they make up something like 95% of fatalies ...

In 2008, 84% of the 115 fatalities were men and 81% of reported injuries were to men. Even taking into account the higher numbers of men cycling (72% v 28%) women aren't making up a higher proportion of the fatalities

I hate to sound sexist, but a lot of men speak out of their arses...

Posted 1 year ago #
MrSalmon - Member

Back to the debate, if you want to deprive yourselves of a key sense and factor in added distraction to an already potentially hazardous situation, then as adults, I think you should be perfectly entitled to do so.

+1 to this. Also to Northwind and Juan for calling the "Deaf people manage, don't they?" and "Cars have stereos, don't they?" arguments respectively- both pretty facile.

Posted 1 year ago #
skiboy - Member

nothing against people wearing headphones... BUT.......

they do affect your situational awareness, I see plenty of people wearing them riding everyday,some in ear, others closed cup, wouldn't do it myself,

What bothers me the most is seeing people, usually young ladies walking through some of the less populated areas of the city while listening to their ipods etc, absolutely asking
to me mugged,raped,murdered or worse, they wouldn't even know You/I/Us* where there until it was all over

*delete as appropriate

personally i prefer to listen to the sound of my chain, the birds, my lungs and heart, I've always felt that if i needed music to make my ride enjoyable then something is wrong in my life.. but that's me , not everyone's the same.

Posted 1 year ago #
MrSalmon - Member

I hate to sound sexist, but the degree of sheer carelessness that I see women display cycling round london appalls me - they make up something like 95% of fatalies ...

In 2008, 84% of the 115 fatalities were men and 81% of reported injuries were to men. Even taking into account the higher numbers of men cycling (72% v 28%) women aren't making up a higher proportion of the fatalities

I hate to sound sexist, but a lot of men speak out of their arses...

I think women are pretty seriously over-represented in accidents with HGVs at junctions though aren't they?

Posted 1 year ago #
uluru - Member

I think women are pretty seriously over-represented in accidents with HGVs at junctions though aren't they?

I believe so, but from what I've read that's more to do with lack of confidence than carelessness

Posted 1 year ago #
uluru - Member

while listening to their ipods etc, absolutely asking
to me mugged,raped,murdered or worse

For ****'s sake...word's fail me

Posted 1 year ago #
skiboy - Member

just read some more of the posts above, my hearing is most definitely 3D, despite being an engineer in a noisy
environment, i can hear things without concentrating that most people couldn't hear with a stethoscope,

if a watch with a mechanical tick is in the same room as me at night i pick it almost as soon as i walk in the room!

i do know where cars are in relation to my position, so i do go with what some of the others are saying

Posted 1 year ago #
skiboy - Member

uluru, clearly not enuf to write that, ever heard of tongue in cheek m8

Posted 1 year ago #
nixon_fiend - Member

Uluru, my 95% figure was just based on an article I read about London cycle deaths over a period last year... I didn't mean nationally. I'm not trying to win any arguments here - just relating how little 'road sense' many women commuters seem to have on bikes (in my experience).

Everyday I see more men making taking stupid risks, squeezing between buses / jumping lights than women, but they generally know they're risking it (they are 'aware') and make a mad dash - whereas women are generally seem to be in a world of their own and pay very little attention to street signs and the often erratic behaviour of other motorists

I personally think, if the government is serious about putting more bikes on the road, it needs to introduce some sort of 'official' adult proficiency test.

Just my observations

Posted 1 year ago #
Northwind - Member

trailmonkey - Member

"Back to the debate, if you want to deprive yourselves of a key sense and factor in added distraction to an already potentially hazardous situation, then as adults, I think you should be perfectly entitled to do so."

The question isn't "Is it OK to give up a useful sense", it's "Is hearing actually as useful as people claim". As I think you probably do understand. Sometimes I ride around breathing only through my mouth, thus depriving me of the essential ability to smell approaching cars.

Posted 1 year ago #
higgo - Member

Remember, it is the motor vehicle that killed her.

That's a bit like blaming the pavement when I throw the wife out of the bedroom window. Not that I'm planning to, obviously.

Posted 1 year ago #
juan - Member

Also to Northwind and Juan for calling the "Deaf people manage, don't they?" and "Cars have stereos, don't they?" arguments respectively- both pretty facile.

Hu where did you read me saying deaf shouldn't ride bikes? Plus if you read me carefully, on the car have stereo, you'll see I have use the " character, and thus said they have mirrors too.

Posted 1 year ago #
skiboy - Member

nothwind,yep like that one,

a favorite of mine i must confess is passing people on the redways that are listening to ipods etc, scares the crap out of them everytime,

had a bunch of girls a few years back, were too busy chatting 4 abreast on the cyclepath to hear me coming even after i shouted mind your backs at about 5 meters , after i passed one shouted 'get a bell' i stopped and let them know that if they couldn't hear a --king 40 yrs old man shouting at them from 5 meters a bell would not be the answer,

Posted 1 year ago #
juan - Member

Sometimes I ride around breathing only through my mouth, thus depriving me of the essential ability to smell approaching cars.

Well if your sense of smell is that good that you can say where a car is just buy using it I know plenty of people that would pay vaste amount of money to hire you. But from a respiratory point of view, using your mouth to breath rather than your nose is plain stupid.

Posted 1 year ago #
bigyinn - Member

Darwin award candidate surely? Im sorry for her family's loss,but she clearly wasn't paying ANY attention to her surroundings. This is not the fault of personal stereos or earphones or whatever, just lack of awareness of her surroundings.
Perhaps she was listening to trance music? IGMC

Posted 1 year ago #
molgrips - Member

Every city and town, and in much of the countryside, much like they do in some European countries, like Holland.

They had lovely wide cycleways in Helsinki. They were half of the really lovely wide footpaths on the side of roads. Just for comparison, here is a typical road on my previous commute. Point out where the cycleway goes, if you can.

I'm all for it, but it's practically impossible in most UK cities I think. on most of the roads I used on my commute there simply was no room.

Once they're alongside you should have them in your peripheral vision anyway. "When the noise gets closer", are you serious? Hearing's a precise tool but it's not that precise. And it's far less useful than your eyesight, which is what you should be using to learn about a car that's passing you

Umm.. you can't pinpoint sounds that are behind you? This is very interesting! If a car is just out of my peripheral vision (say the four o'clock position) and closing fast, I sure as hell know exactly where it is, and I'll look and take evasive action pretty damn quick.

Don't tell me I'm imagining all this stuff! This happened to me all the time on my regular city commute. And of course I've got my bloody eyes open, but I've also got my ears open to which apparently you haven't!

Just because you don't or can't use your ears well, don't assume everyone can't

When people overtake you then cut you up turning left they don't do it by trying to drive straight through you

Oh, well tell that to the lady that forced me down Allensbank road a while back... She wasn't trying to murder me, but I do believe she didn't see me... I took evasive action of course.

You seem to be telling me I'm wrong for using my ears. Perhaps I should block them up, so I can be more right?

I think Northwind has a hearing problem of some kind.

Posted 1 year ago #
skiboy - Member

just a hearing problem !

plus 1 for the darwin award, in mk we have had a few people getting nailed by cars while using headphones, but riding into a lorry thats in front of you, well you can't blame the cans for that one,

Posted 1 year ago #
MrSalmon - Member

Hu where did you read me saying deaf shouldn't ride bikes? Plus if you read me carefully, on the car have stereo, you'll see I have use the " character, and thus said they have mirrors too.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I was agreeing with you that comparing listening to the stereo in a car with listening to headphones on a bike is simplistic.

Likewise with Northwind's point about deaf cyclists.

Posted 1 year ago #
rkk01 - Member

Back to the debate, if you want to deprive yourselves of a key sense and factor in added distraction to an already potentially hazardous situation, then as adults, I think you should be perfectly entitled to do so.

This is absolutely correct, as is the post about listening to chain, lungs etc. Tried riding at Afan once with iPod - just didn't feel right, I'd lost a whole set of sensory cues about how the bike was handling...

For all those who dispute the value of hearing I suggest a lone trip to a dark, unfamiliar forest. Your ears will provide you with a 3d map of what is around you. What's moving, which direction, going away, coming towards... Shooting in close woodland is very difficult with hearing protection because you loose your ability to know what is going on around you beyond your limited visual horizon

Some people are just not used to using their full range of senses.

Posted 1 year ago #
skiboy - Member

rkk01,

well done some sense at last, like the technique of listening with the mouth open, it opens the ear fully and your hearing feels like it goes up 25%, was trying to explain this to the wife once but she just doesn't get it or even care, some people are like that they just don't want to use all their senses,

Posted 1 year ago #
Northwind - Member

Molgrips, I've never seen anyone quote themselves out of context before. You wrote:

"Well, if you hear them coming up behind you and then you hear them brake when they're alongside (or almost) then you have a good inkling something's up. And then when the noise gets closer you know they are turning into you.."

But now you say...

"Umm.. you can't pinpoint sounds that are behind you? This is very interesting! If a car is just out of my peripheral vision (say the four o'clock position) and closing fast, I sure as hell know exactly where it is, and I'll look and take evasive action pretty damn quick."

How does a car turn into you from behind you? 4 oclock should be within your peripheral vision even with your head straight forward, test it with your arms for a second and see.

"You seem to be telling me I'm wrong for using my ears."

No, I think you're either deluding yourself as to how useful they are, observing very poorly with the far more important visual obs meaning the ears are picking up things that the eye should have caught. Or possibly making a total nonsense argument on the internet despite knowing you're wrong. Most likely it's the first.

"I can tell when they're coming up close or giving me a wide berth, from a good 10-15 feet back."

I bet you a shiny scottish pound you can't. 15 feet back the difference between 6 inches out and 2 feet out is only about 4 degrees, you claim you can identify that amidst other traffic and background noise? Perhaps you do, but I'm sure you don't claim you can tell from that whether they're just about to pull out. Or again, perhaps you do.

"Oh, well tell that to the lady that forced me down Allensbank road a while back... She wasn't trying to murder me, but I do believe she didn't see me..."

In that situation what did your ears tell you that your eyes didn't, what was happening before she moved alongside you that warned you?

Posted 1 year ago #
molgrips - Member

4 oclock should be within your peripheral vision with your head straight forward, test it with your arms for a second and see

My peripheral vision goes 9 to 3. I have tested it. 4pm is out of sight.

No, I think you're either deluding yourself as to how useful they are, observing very poorly with the far more important visual obs meaning the ears are picking up things that the eye should have caugh

My eyes only look forwards. My ears can pick up stuff that's behind me. When something's infront of me I use my eyes, of course. When I hear something encroaching on me I tend to turn my head and look.

I bet you a shiny scottish pound you can't.

I'll take that.

Seriously - when a car approaches me from behind I can tell if it's going to come close. Not always necessarily - it has to be making enough noise to be heard of course, so on the open road where cars are noisier I usually get more warning.

Seems weird that you are telling me my own senses and experiences are wrong when you've never seen me ride or even met me! I'm just telling you how I stay alive when road riding.. maybe you do it differently I dunno.

In that situation what did your ears tell you that your eyes didn't, what was happening before she moved alongside you that warned you?

Lifting off, braking, downshifting, all of which happened behind me and pretty fast. This alerted me, and along with the knowledge that I was alongside a junction prepared caused me to glance right and clock what was happening quickly enough to be prepared to take evasive action. Contact was made, but I had balance and was not knocked off. If I didn't have the use of my ears, I don't think I'd have clocked her early enough to be sufficiently prepared.

Posted 1 year ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

I'm all for it, but it's practically impossible in most UK cities I think. on most of the roads I used on my commute there simply was no room.

They manage in the Netherlands on narrow roads. its done by removing some of the car / pedestrian space. Many roads only just wide enough for a car in each direction had cycle lanes thus becoming a single track road with passing places or road with 20 mph limits and no markings where pedestrians and bikes have priority. Or if the speed limit was above 20 mph then segregated cycle lanes.

Of course there is room and it can be done - but it requires cars to have less of the road space.

If you go to the netherlands you will be amazed how wewell car / cycle traffic is managed.

Posted 1 year ago #
Northwind - Member

"My peripheral vision goes 9 to 3. I have tested it. 4pm is out of sight."

Then perhaps that's why you're more dependant on hearing, your vision is suboptimal. Going OT for a second but it might be worth getting this checked out if you haven't already, it can can be an early warning sign of some serious eye diseases. It can be perfectly normal for the individual and never progresses though- my brother's got a fairly serious loss of peripheral vision but it's never got worse since it was picked up and it's well within the legal limits for driving so he's been OK so far. How's youtr night vision?

There's a trick you can use, my brother uses this for cycling, if you tilt your head slightly down you may recover some of the lost coverage and all you'll lose is the top left and right of your field of vision, ie sky and buildings. Might be worth giving it a crack. You have better low peripheral vision generally so tilting the head raises the area where the most effective peripheral vision is.

Posted 1 year ago #
sweepy - Member

Straw man that to be fair- being allowed doesn't mean it's just as good. Deaf people are allowed to go to the opera but I bet they don't enjoy it much

they'll probably enjoy it more than me

Posted 1 year ago #
mansonsoul - Member

I'm all for it, but it's practically impossible in most UK cities I think. on most of the roads I used on my commute there simply was no room.

There's loads of room in that street for cycle paths you see how much room those cars are taking up on the sides of the pavement?that's some lovely real estate for cycle paths. In Holland they've been building housing estates with 1 car space for every 10 houses. That makes it an absolute bugger to find a space, and encourages people to use the fantastic bike network. You think there's no space because you're stuck with the current auto centric mindset.

Posted 1 year ago #
alpin - Member

i must say, i'm really looking forward to cycling through holland in a week or so....

coffee shops and bike lanes.... bliss.

Posted 1 year ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

Alpin - I'm just back from a fortnight doing that - great fun

Posted 1 year ago #
7hz - Member

It seems to me that the headphones were not the root cause of this sad death, but were maybe symptomatic of the causes.

My reading of the situation is she was on her way to work along a route she had done hundreds of times before, and on the fateful day there was a large lorry across her route that she failed to see.

I venture that she was in 'airhead' mode. Now we can all do this, so 'there by the grace of god go I' and all that. It is being distracted, not being 'in the moment'. It happens to everybody to a greater or lesser degree. We switch into autopilot, whilst our thoughts are somewhere else entirely. It doesn't just happen to people on bikes, it happens all the time.

So, she is whizzing her way to work (must have been a good pace, maybe 25mph?) along a route she knows like the back of her hand, and there is 40 tonnes of metal in a place she wasn't expecting it. Maybe she was looking at the ground, or at a handsome bloke, or a bird in the sky - who knows, but she wasn't looking where she was going.

The headphones are not the root cause, but they most likely helped distract her mind and remove her from the moment.

I think adults should be able to do what they want regarding headphones and bikes, but I do believe it is bad practice, as headphones do severely isolate you from your immediate surroundings. Car stereos are somewhat different as the speakers are remote from your ears, and it is still possible to hear what is going on to a greater or lesser extent. Earphones are usually listed to much louder (too loud) and also cut off hearing other things. Combining that with being on a very exposed means of transport (bike) is always going to decrease our situational awareness to some greater or lesser degree, and expose you to greater probability of harm.

Posted 1 year ago #
molgrips - Member

Of course there is room and it can be done - but it requires cars to have less of the road space.

Not going to happen here is it? Be realistic.

Then perhaps that's why you're more dependant on hearing, your vision is suboptimal

I don't think it is. I did a test with a group of people and everyone's was basically the same. There's really no way I can see that you'd get a good image from behind you when your head's facing forwards, thinking about the optics.

I'm not DEPENDENT on my hearing - I use it to figure out what's happening behind me. My eyes don't look backwards, and neither do yours, unless you are a horse or chicken or something.

you see how much room those cars are taking up on the sides of the pavement

Then people wouldn't be able to park. Property prices would then plummet since fewer people would want to live there, and it'd become a slum. Great.

You think there's no space because you're stuck with the current auto centric mindset.

I'M not! The nation is! I'm all for bikes - the fact that this is a bike forum is a bit of a giveaway, isn't it? The problem is that you would be effectively making car ownership impractical for a lot of people, which could have serious implications. Sure, we could then invest bajillions in public transport and stop people driving, but how is that practical in our country?

I don't know about the Netherlands, but I do know that in Finland, which goes along with the Northern European model of transportation, people's disposable income is often much lower than here, and cars are very expensive because they are taxed hugely (almost 100% in fact) so a huge majority of young people can't afford them. So they live in small apartments in or near the city centre, there by ensuring that public transport is well subscribed. Their apartment blocks don't have car parks as a rule, which is another reason car ownership is low amongst the young.

Impossible to achieve here I fear. A great ideal, but impossible. I didn't have a car until I was about 24, and the reason I got it was so that I could get out to the countryside and go biking and climbing. Is it fair to make that really difficult for me? Not all car ownership is lazy people clogging up city streets.

Posted 1 year ago #
stilltortoise - Member

Wear head phones or don't. Your choice. One day the powers-that-be may remove that choice. In the meantime I won't be wearing headphones whilst riding on the road. Even walking down a street with my headphones on, I do feel considerably less aware and more vulnerable, but they are the "in ear" type that almost eliminate external noise.

Posted 1 year ago #