Forum menu
And clothing will not change how close cars pass, it never will, it never has, it is just random association. There are times when clothing can make the difference between being seen and not seen, but that's a different proposal.
Cars pass too close because of the drivers, not because of the cyclists.
How many do you plan to sacrifice?
I've no idea what you're talking about.
Interesting study.
I've never really understood the hi viz argument, when I drive I can see cyclists. Even at night I can see cyclists in ninja black gear, no lights and no hi viz - in streets with some street lighting that is. The visibility isnt an issue. Its the speed in which I see them. With lights I see them in lots of time. with only hi viz its usually later and to be truthful if they have no lights and no hi viz I, like most of us, see them late but if its in a street with street lighting I still see them.
I pass all of them with the same gap.
The study shows people take more care when they percieve they might be caught too close. Its no differnt to speeding, people generally think its ok to do 35-40 in a 30 but if they might get caught by a speed camera they only do 30 then cruise back up. Its the same here. the fear of being caught.
EDIT: So who's placing the order for the reflective: polite / camera recording stickers ? 😉
Bums on saddles are the best thing possible for our safety
Maybe 99% of the population is cycling already, we just don't know they because they aren't dressed in high-viz so we never see them.
I for one see loads of invisible cyclists dressed in black without lights.
I know it's not the done thing to do partial, out of context quoting but this made me chuckle
I for one see loads of invisible cyclists
As lots have already said above, what this study alludes to is not about visibility, its about people actively **deciding** not to give enough space, as evidenced by the fact that when they think they'll get in trouble they do give more space.
Ergo, they know it's naughty, but they don't care unless they think they will get into trouble.
That's sad, and reinforces some of the prevailing views about cyclists not being treated/recognised as people but as 'cyclists' when on the road, I wonder how much of it psychologically has to do with not seeing a face because of the approach from behind, there's a fair amount of comment and research about eye contact reducing the chance of collisions at junctions but when being overtaken on a straight you don't get to make that connection.
Just as an example, I bet most of the worst overtakers would give a lot more room if they recognised the cyclist as a family member or friend.
I for one see loads of invisible cyclists dressed in black without lights.
you can't see the invisible, so are they invisible or not??????
My perception, which echoes those above, is that I get more space when on a more upright bike in 'human' clothes than when on a 'proper' bike dressed as a cyclist, but this study seems to show that my perception is wrong.
I agree. The best example I can think of is riding a road bike in Central London, and then riding the same on a Boris Bike. You get loads of room on the Boris Bike as drivers fear that most users aren't cyclists, just people who have hired a bike for 30 minutes.
[i]So in short, it's complicated[/i]
Exactly what I meant. In much fewer words.
I find that drunkenly weaving down the road results in plenty of space. You don't actually have to be drunk to achieve the same benefit, and a deliberate wobble or two seems to really help.
Until a cycling and motorcycling component is included in the driving test drivers just won't get it.
We're viewed as pests. And regardless of what we do, it'll always be thus - until drivers empathise with us. Boris's 'bikers taking a risk', 'earphoning bikers are a scourge' doesn't help, nor does the many newspaper articles referencing 'those cyclists'. Drivers seek to compete with us.
Motorbikes are the same - seen as rough and as a sub culture.
A driver recently knocked my missus off her scooter. The first words out of his face when he approached her were "I hope you're not going to say that was my fault!" He then explained how her bike was "too slow". And this was when she was still lying on tarmac trying to gather her senses having slid down the road. Thankfully a driver behind had stopped, witnessed and gave the guy a dressing down.
Drivers just don't understand the risk, they don't know how threatening it feels - so can't assess the situation accurately IMO. A French style driving test with a minimum number of hours training, plus a cycling and motorcycling element (obv with exclusions for the disabled) would help a bundle and might actually reduce accidents and dangerous situations.
I find that drunkenly weaving down the road results in plenty of space. You don't actually have to be drunk to achieve the same benefit, and a deliberate wobble or two seems to really help.
There's a pinch point on my commute that I generally reach just as the cars from the previous set of lights catches me. A few 'wobbles' does wonders for stopping people trying to squeeze through.
Drivers when faced with a parked car on their side of the road will normally despite oncoming traffic just drive onto the wrong side of the road as the gap is big enough, the same I can fit decision is used when overtaking a cyclist, can't be delayed by anyone.. I find I have to ride really far out to force passing cars into a definite head on collision and make them wait until I judge it's safe for them to overtake, nothing else works. But on fast a-roads your then at risk from drivers not looking where their going so I avoid fast roads where possible no safe way to use em.