[Closed] Bus driver stops cyclist hit and run driver.

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

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

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.

[i]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![/i]

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 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

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.

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.

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 [b]only[/b] take notice of what is in the centre of their vision

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.

[i]hit by a car and 1 minute later the police are there[/i]

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.

Junkyard - I do know that stuff.

Again its simple point. You need to be recognised as a cyclist as soon as possible. Being in the central vision helps this. so riding out in the road helps drivers to recognise yo as a cyclist earlier thus giving them more time to avoid you.

You are also more likely not get be missed amongst roadsie clutter. ( in the general case)

Research and bollocks in place of common sense, the cars behind cannot see the cyclist only the primary car at the front of the line, cyclist in middle of road = knowhere for car to go but up cyclists ass = BAD IDEA!

SAVVE!

This is the real world people and you have to therefore be realistic, spouting bollocks and believing in it, will not stop a car from hitting you!

If the argument is that driving in the middle of the road is safer, then explain what happend in that video, becasue more than one car had to avoid that cyclist anyone that did could have been a collision.

Bad situation all round but in those circumstances riding in the middle of the road was a bad idea and the outcome speaks for it's self in relation to that fact.

central vision is not a fixed point when driving or , as i repeat again without answer, a driver would not notice pedestrians at zebra crossing , traffic lights etc.
It only helps if they can see through the car blocking their view of you if you are occluded you are occluded.
your safest position depends
No I wont draw it 😉

If the argument is that driving in the middle of the road is safer, then explain what happend in that video, becasue more than one car had to avoid that cyclist anyone that did could have been a collision.

But potentially, it could have been worse if the cyclist was tucked in by the wall.

All the video suggests is that cycling in itself is not safe.

Cyclist got rear-ended, I don't see how it could have been worse if he was closer to the kerb, but I'm not an expert in collisions like this.

Interestingly the by-law quoted above mentions overtaking with 4' clearance...which I think the cyclist himself made impossible at times due to his road positioning.

 Draw it out and have a look at the angles.

 If yo cannot understand this try drawing it out on a it of paper. You might be suprised.

You might need to draw this on apiece of paper if you cannot visualise this.

I suggest you draw it out on a bit of paper as you seem unable to visualise it

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.

.
TJ has now reached the stage known as

[b]"Repeat the same thing until people get bored give up.

Then claim Victory"[/b]

.
Resistance is futile.

Cyclist got rear-ended, I don't see how it could have been worse if he was closer to the kerb, but I'm not an expert in collisions like this.

There is no curb. There's a wall. Sandwiching yourself between two very solid objects is not a very good idea. Just like you wouldn't squeeze between two buses.

Interestingly the by-law quoted above mentions overtaking with 4' clearance...which I think the cyclist himself made impossible at times due to his road positioning.

He was riding in the position advised to him by the signs! And a position that would be advised by most cycling organisations.

Neal - perhaps the people who think the rider would be more visible riding to the side would realise this was wrong if they actually drew it out and looked at the angles involved.

The whole field of vision thing is ridiculous as well. I suppose the cyclist should have stopped before crossing the bridge. Got out a sketch pad and drew every possible scenario, analysing what position he would be best seen in before continuing?

butcher - Member
There is no curb. There's a wall. Sandwiching yourself between two very solid objects is not a very good idea. Just like you wouldn't squeeze between two buses.

He was riding in the position advised to him by the signs

Where did I say "Sandwiching yourself between two very solid objects"?

I saw him go well beyond the centre position.