If you cycle in the middle of the lane the car directly behind you can see you yes, but when it swerves to avoid you the car behind then has you appear from knowhere.

I didn’t think the traffic looked like it was moving that fast. I encounter a lot of seriously fast traffic on semi-rural roads and that looked timid in comparison. But….half the drivers in that video looked blind. I don’t get why they had to wait until they only had a few feet to spare before pulling out.

And for that reason I think I’d take the walkway too. But massive respect to anyone who takes on these roads. As pointed out above, whenever you step down, you’re pretty much saying, ‘you’re right guys, cycling’s a waste of time. We just get in your way and endanger ourselves. I’ll start taking the bus from now on…’

That cyclist driver should never have been be allowed on that road again

FTFY – you seem to have got confused about who is at fault here.

The motorist should indicate and move out past the cyclist, a following vehicle should be driving at a safe distance to be able to do likewise.

That cyclist should never have been on that road

just down the road from me the sheffield council are putting a shared use cycle track on a less than 1.5m wide pavement presumably because cars need the two lanes adjacent to maintain speed and can’t be trusted to observe other road users

in the video the footbridge is busy and narrow – a lot narrower than the 4 lanes given to vehicles

so a cyclist is obeying the law cycling on a road gets knocked down by a tailgating* driver who then tries to leave the scene of his crime

and the cyclist gets slagged off on here?

i think some people must be in a sulk because the easter bunny didnt leave them an choccy eggs?- either that or they are upset because that cyclist dont pay no road tax!

*imho tailgating is only carried out by fuktards

Kimbers – its typical on here. Nothing must get in the way of the great god car.

LOL.

Hardly anyone’s slagged off the cyclist, enough to turn the forum into a petrol-head hot-bed. 🙄

I’d say the views expressed are quite balanced.

Why blindly support cyclists anyway? We are all ROAD USERS.

1) you are more visible in the centre of the lane – you are in the central part of the drivers vision not the periphery

That is simply not true as kaesae has pointed out.

The car driver is at fault but I have to agree with some other posters that cycling on stretches of road like that is always going to be very hazardous because of muppets behind the wheel. The best defensive riding ie. self-preservation would be to avoid those circumstances altogether.

That is not excusing poor driving but you have to be realistic and being in the right but dead doesn’t do anyone any good.

Woody – it is true tho. Its one of the main reasons for using the primary position. People only take notice of what is in the centre of their vision – you would still be hidden by the car just behind you if you were in the gutter and there still would be no room to pass safely.

However – I probably would not cycle over that bridge on the road – a very dangerous road design for cyclists.

wow, hit by a car and 1 minute later the police are there. That’s better than here too!

People only take notice of what is in the centre of their vision

Exactly! And by cycling in the middle of the lane you are precisely in the centre of vision and hidden by the car directly behind you. By cycling towards the right of the lane in this case (and I’m not advocating cycling in the gutter but an appropriate distance from the kerb/wall) the drivers 2 cars + behind have a better chance of seeing you in what is still the centre of their vision as you will be at least 30-50 yards ahead unless the car drivers are all tail-gating each other.

tj he is riding where you suggest and he got hit by a car…this would seem to negate your argument that

People only take notice of what is in the centre of their vision

– you would still be hidden by the car just behind you if you were in the gutter and there still would be no room to pass safely.

there is also more room than if you are in the middle of the lane where YOU WILL GET HIT IF THEY DONT SEE YOU they cannot swerve out of your way. Not saying I would like to be buzzed but I prefer it to being run over.

no one is saying the driver is not at fault nor are they saying the car is king all anyone seems to be doing is debating which riding technique is most likely to leave you not being hit. Disagreeing with your view is not praising the car , calling the cyclst or anything else you wish to tar those who disagree with you as.

Woody if you ride to the side you will still be obscured by a car in the same way and when you are not obscured you will be out of the central vision. Draw it out and have a look at the angles.

Junkyard – plenty of folk on this thread are blaming the cyclist.

Now you are being silly TJ. Have a read of some of the posts above and use your common sense regarding road positioning and safety, taking in all factors rather than being preoccupied with a spurious argument about ‘field of vision’.

No woody – you are not understanding the issues. I do use my common sense and my understanding to know that using the primary position is the safest.

Its not a spurious argument – its absolutely central to remaining safe. You ride where you can both see and be seen most. Thats out in the road not cowering in the gutter.

By cycling towards the right of the lane in this case (and I’m not advocating cycling in the gutter but an appropriate distance from the kerb/wall) the drivers 2 cars + behind have a better chance of seeing you in what is still the centre of their vision as you will be at least 30-50 yards ahead unless the car drivers are all tail-gating each other.

Teh cyclist would still be obscured by teh car in the same way and they would not be in the central vision which is very narrow. If yo cannot understand this try drawing it out on a it of paper. You might be suprised.

I find this so frustrating on a cyclist forum the people do not understand the basic principles of defensive riding and want cyclists to cower in the gutter- what chance do we have of persuading the general public.

The general public ARE cyclists, that’s why we have problems.

Watch all the video, then comment.

If you don’t and then get pwned don’t try and argue your way out… morons

You get hit by cars no matter where you ride in the road, shit will happen.
Sadly us cyclists don’t know what’s going on behind us when we ride on roads like that, so we have to put our trust in the motorist 😐
You could argue that in this case if the cyclist was hugging the kerb the motorist might have passed without incident.

Actually it reminds me of runners in country lanes. The ones that run on the left. They can’t see cars coming up and rely on them being seen.

I find this so frustrating on a cyclist forum the people … want cyclists to cower in the gutter

Where has anyone said that? Most people commenting on road position have specifically said they dont advocate riding in the gutter.

Put the soap box away, and realise that one-size-fits-all does not always work.

That cyclist should never have been on that road, they should make the pedestrian walk way open to cyclists, far better to have a collision between a pedestrian and cyclist than a cyclist and a speeding car, I say this simply because of the speed that the cars are moving at on that road and how busy it is, when reality meets fantasy and delusionment, it doesn’t give a **** about the law!

Kaesae…its an urban bridge with a 35mph speed limit. The streets either side are in the middle of town. It wasn’t even that busy…most roads around here would have had a big queue behind the cyclist. Did you see how busy and narrow the walkway was? In your eyes, cyclists are in cloud cuckoo land for cycling on any road with two lanes…

People only take notice of what is in the centre of their vision

Since when, TJ?

I know that I don’t, but I assume from your assertion about ‘people’ that you do.

Maybe you should take some training to help with understanding how to scan and plan while using the road.

Arguably the car following the car would have seen the cyclist sooner if the cyclist had been further to the right.

I would have either used the pavement or have spent much of the time on that road section concentrating on what is approaching from behind and have ridden further towards the right. But the pavement would have been my preferred choice.

If he was riding two abreast it never would have happened. He should have ridden two abreast AND at 2 mph, because it is his right as a cyclist. The driver would have accepted his right as a cyclist and would have kept a safe distance, because the law says so. You’re all missing the point.

Naranjada

Its been tested many times.

The cyclist would not have been any more visible to the car following the car if they had been further to the right. You might need to draw this on apiece of paper if you cannot visualise this.

Once again a cyclist doing the correct thing is being blamed for the failings of car drivers and you want them to ride in a more dangerous way

That’s why he should have ridden two abreast.

No woody – you are not understanding the issues.

I actually do understand the issues. That is not the same as not agreeing with you.

I find this so frustrating on a cyclist forum the people do not understand the basic principles of defensive riding and want cyclists to cower in the gutter

Where has anyone advocated ‘cowering in the gutter’ ?

Anyway, pointless arguing with you TJ. I’ll continue riding in the manner which I regard as safest for me and you can stick to your principals, even if it means you may end up as a bonnet mascot (see vid if you need your memory refreshed) 🙄

The cyclist would not have been any more visible to the car following the car if they had been further to the right. You might need to draw this on apiece of paper if you cannot visualise this.

Actually I’ve just watched it again and the car driver’s view was unimpeded so nothing to do with his ‘very narrow’ forward vision or the cyclist’s road position.

The car driver wasn’t paying attention and was driving badly. He’d overtaken a car, was undertaking the bus and bam! hit the cyclist. In this scenario he’d have possibly seen the cyclist sooner or even have missed the cyclist altogether if the cyclist had been further right.

TJ I’m not wanting cyclists to ride in a more dangerous way, that is a ridiculous point to try and make and just argumentative.

And don’t be so condescending.

In this scenario he’d have possibly seen the cyclist sooner or even have missed the cyclist altogether if the cyclist had been further right.

Naranjada – you don’t want to make statements like that! I mean it’s common sense, realistic, uses basic principals of ‘line of sight’ and anticipation of natural reactions. Simply not on 😉

Woody, it’s all gone quiet over there 😉

woody / Naranjada

I suggest you draw it out on a bit of paper as you seem unable to visualise it. being further to the right does not increase the riders visibility it decreases it.

I do use my common sense and my understanding to know that using the primary position is the safest.

Is this the position that just meant a car ran into him – is that one that is the safest? Does the getting hit bit does not make you questions it’s utility in this scenario

Its not a spurious argument – its absolutely central to remaining safe. You ride where you can both see and be seen most. Thats out in the road not cowering in the gutter.

Why do you always have to use such colourful language to caricature and misrepresent those who disagree with you? Has anyone said we should all cower in the gutter? It makes it difficult to debate with you when you do this.

People only take notice of what is in the centre of their vision

Well you are not a vision specialist are you. We literally pay no notice to anything else? Perhaps i could test this by throwing something soft at you from an angle off to one side and we can see if you react to it or if it just hits you as you don’t take any notice of it ? Why would we have peripheral vision if we don’t take any notice of it. Think about it. If you want an actual biological explanation re shape recognition, movement, rods and cones for example I am happy to wax lyrical to help you get it but you are just wrong.

The cyclist would not have been any more visible to the car following the car if they had been further to the right. You might need to draw this on apiece of paper if you cannot visualise this.

TJ it can clearly be drawn so any set of scenarios occur and I for one cannot be arsed doing the drawings to prove this point. Most of would agree it is easier to see round a car than through it but each situation will vary.

Once again a cyclist doing the correct thing is being blamed for the failings of car drivers and you want them to ride in a more dangerous way

More dangerous – they just got hit TJ how are we making this accident more likely to occur?
The cyclist is not to blame however as they have been run over by a car it is hardly unreasonable to look at other riding strategies that may have enabled this to be avoided……your middle lane strategy certainly wont [ as it did not] prevent that accident. Those of us who don’t like getting run over by cars are looking at other possible solutions than avoid getting hit. Your insistence on the safest position results in them being hit
We are not lording it up about how wonderful the car is whilst riding in the gutter we are discussing how to avoid getting hit

It is like filtering sometimes i do it down the outside sometimes the inside it just depends which is safest at that time. I do the same for my position in the road sometimes middle of the road is best sometimes the road is wide enough to be nearer the kerb to allow cars room to pass it just depends. No rule will be universal except in TJ land where , even when hit, it will still remain the safest.

re your draw it out and central vision thing. i know you will insist but I am not commenting further its is wrong re only attending to central stuff and the rest just depends. It would be more likely that you will be occluded in the middle than at the side as you cannot see through a car as easily as you can see round it or else that cyclist would not have been hit and every pedestrian at a zebra crossing would get run over.

how come I notice pedestrians not in my central vision approaching zebra crossings? Do I alone have special powers to notice these things

People only take notice of what is in the centre of their vision

Rods and cones; rods and cones TJ – and I thought you were in the medical business! Must try harder! Fast jet pilot training has been wrong all these years – they should have come to you for advice!

For the record I’m not sure road position had much to do with what happened here and the video edit makes the role of the bus in this difficult to assertain.

Junkyard – riding further to the right would not have prevented it either – thats the point.

If you cannot visualise why in this instance riding further to the right would not make him more visible then I suggest you draw it out on a piece of paper.

As for the vision thing – of course its not 100% but knowing how the mechanics of vision work and how the brain filters visual cues then yes it is true that the more central the object in your visual field the more likely you are to see it and react to it.

A lot of data on this if you want it.

but knowing how the mechanics of vision work and how the brain filters visual cues then yes it is true that the more central the object in your visual field the more likely you are to see it and react to it.

You clearly don’t!

Is this the position that just meant a car ran into him – is that one that is the safest? Does the getting hit bit does not make you questions it’s utility in this scenario

Because the cyclist was hit in this instance, it doesn’t tell us that primary position isn’t the safest option for this road. It merely tells us that the cyclist was unfortunate.

As explained above. It was a 35mph limit. It was reasonably quiet. If it were not for the driver’s dangerous actions, it would never ave happened.

But of course, we’ve got to accept that there’ll always be one or two dangerous drivers about.

So let’s assume the cyclist was tucked into the wall. The lane isn’t that wide when you have a look at it, but it would’ve left just about enough room for a car to pass. The driver sees the cyclist, attempts to squeeze through and smashes him head first against the wall…

And looking at the road design….and the signs….I’m making a guess, that this is something that as happened before and is the very reason for the signs.

Would that be safer?

I think we all agree it would be safer to walk. But what if this guy has a 20 mile commute? You can’t just get off and walk every 5 minutes where it looks a bit sketchy. It’ll take you all day. So what you would really be saying, is the humble bicycle isn’t a viable means of transport, and if tat’s what you use it for you should probably sell it and get a car instead. Which is a pretty mad and surprising opinion on a cycle forum.

Balanced. I heard someone say? I don’t see what is balanced about saying cyclists should not be on the road. If it was the M25 you’d have a point. But that there, is not.

Convert – I do and have read research on this.

go on then – impress us!

And not some research article on cycling awareness – something proper, medical and meaty.

As I said above – my flight training must have got it badly wrong as we were instructed to physically orbit our heads partly to improve field of vision but mainly to bring our periferal vision into play in front of us where it’s better detection of motion was rather important at 500kts!

Convert – the central vision is far higher resolution that the central and is crucial for object recognition. Peripheral is good for detection of relative motion.

In the case of the cyclist you need to be recognised as quickly as possible so you want to be in the central vision.

the central vision is far higher resolution that the central and is crucial for object recognition

task one in object avoidance – detect the object – peripheral vision is best at this. “high resolution” (not a good choice of words but I’ll let that pass) is not necessary for this task and indeed can slow the mental processing – hence why peripheral is best.

task two in object avoidance – identify object and assess threat level – “higher resolution” central vision is good for this.

Bringing tasks one and two together is something we are rather good at – we naturally turn to focus on an object after detection to identify and clarify. But your initial statement was off the mark and misinformed.

hit by a car and 1 minute later the police are there

Cyclist damaged a car didn’t he. It’s a serious crime.

TJ the correct term you are looking for is the fovea and anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of this subject would have used this term by now. they would have perhaps exlained about rods and cones and how they are located in the eye- they may even have mentioned the blinfd spot at the optical nerve or how we respind automatically to movement and are drawn to it to put the moving thing in our central vision. perhaps they would have said how attention and expectation also impact on vision.
Re “cental vision”

Drivers scan the road in the same way a rider scans the trial so they can notice multiple hazards/objects and respond. We dont just stare ahead or we would run over pedestrians at pelican crossing and fail to notice those traffic lights they always put in the gutter where we are not looking and cannot see 🙄

My foveal vision is the best but it is not a fixed point when driving like it is when i am sat at a computer screen or reading a book [ even then it is on the actual word being read rather than the whole page]. i do look around when driving and can only assume you do as well rather than drive with a thousand yard start type approach to driving.

We are way OTT and I am not having a vision debate with a nurse i have done this at Uni.