There are lots of instances where it is simply hard to see things, especially on UK roads which are often poorly sighted. We all need to work together to make sure we can see each other
Hard to see -> go slower.
for example, don’t wear camo when cycling in the countryside.
You know that fashion-led cycling camo doesn't actually disguise you in the scenery, don't you? And, I'm guessing here, if you put a camo-clad squaddie on a bike, with gun on their back, he/she'd get a lot more respect from drivers than I do.
😀
and drivers won’t look very closely. You can say they should, and you’d be right, but they don’t.
People can shout at clouds (or use random ALL CAPS in road.cc comment section) hoping for some magic cycling utopia
Or they can take actions to protect themselves and others
I think I know which one will be better for your personal health.
Or they can take
actionsplacebos to protect themselves
FTFY 😉
Really, the only effective action is avoidance. You can respond to what’s in front of you but you have negligible influence over what’s approaching from behind. I avoid main roads these days. Most people simply avoid ever riding a bicycle at all.
Really, the only effective action is avoidance. You can respond to what’s in front of you but you have negligible influence over what’s approaching from behind. I avoid main roads these days. Most people simply avoid ever riding a bicycle at all.
I didn't mean that the helmet is the only action they can take.
Personally, I'd happily have no helmet for a local commute etc.
Route choice, road positioning, maintaining basic awareness and looking behind you* can go a long way - but are obviously not 100% effective, or always practical.
The number of times I've seen an "urban bike rider" whip up their right arm faster than an SS Major followed immediately by a wobbly right turn across traffic without ever once looking behind them either during the manouver or at any time prior; is quite astonishing.
Pretty soon all cars will drive themselves and AI will make it impossible to harm a human or even a cyclist and there will be pills to keep us from putting on flab so why would anyone ride a bike anyway?
"Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads."
I didn’t mean that the helmet is the only action they can take.
Personally, I’d happily have no helmet for a local commute etc.Route choice, road positioning, maintaining basic awareness and looking behind you* can go a long way – but are obviously not 100% effective, or always practical.
Yes, fair points. In fact… 🙂
Hard to see -> go slower.
Going slow is nice, but for commuting, which is where most of us see the most traffic, it's just not a very good idea ime. Ideal world we'd all bimble in wearing normal clothes, but riding like this feels very exposed compared to going at a decent clip.
Ideal world we’d all bimble in wearing normal clothes, but riding like this feels very exposed compared to going at a decent clip.
I'm going to agree, but also emphasise the word feels.
Riding "slowly" feels scary, I think you get a feeling of control from pushing moderately hard on the pedals and feeling the resistance. soft pedalling or coasting with other bikes or cars around me I feel significantly less in control.
Unfortunately I find this an issue if on a group XC ride that incorporates some road. As a heavy bloke (ie with high power but average power to weight, so on flattish roads I wont be trying particularly hard) an undisciplined group of mountain bikers on a road feels very scary to me.
Hard to see -> go slower.
Going slow is nice, but for commuting
I think that 'go slower' bit was aimed at drivers, not cyclists.
Well, anyone who’s going too fast to be able to deal with anything that’s beyond what they can see—but yes, the general gist was “if it’s hard to see, slow down accordingly, don’t ask other people to put on fancy dress”.
Fog lights are the quintessential example of the twisted attitude to roads. Instead of going a bit slower, everyone relies on someone else having a super bright light. People drive just looking for the light, and anyone and anything without one, or without a super bright one, or a super bright one that happens to have conked out, is screwed. But it means people don’t have to slow down, so it’s cool.
The number of times I’ve seen an “urban bike rider” whip up their right arm faster than an SS Major followed immediately by a wobbly right turn across traffic without ever once looking behind them either during the manouver or at any time prior; is quite astonishing.
How many of them resulted in crashes?
So to conclude, I/we need to wear baggies; a cap; a fake long hair extension to make us males look female and have a baby sized doll attached to our back or our road bike. 😆
Hard to see -> go slower.
Yes, but that applies to both. You can't go tearing around like a New York courier in dim light wearing black and expect everyone else to make allowances for your impatience and fashion sense, for example. This applies to motorists and cyclists too - ok so cars are a variety of colours but driving too fast is just as antisocial and reckless as cycling too fast.
Yes, but that applies to both.
Indeed—I think I clarified that four posts above this one 😉
Logically you can extend it to not sprinting round Hampton Court maze on foot, as well, or when you ride a shopping trolley down a deserted isle you stop and push it slowly round the corner at the end instead of ploughing into whoever’s walking round the corner. Or whatever 🙂
driving too fast is just as antisocial and reckless as cycling too fast.
A variety of statistics and the equation for kinetic energy would undermine the simplicity of that statement somewhat (it’s a bit like saying “firing a gun into a crowd is just as antisocial and reckless as hurling frozen pizzas into a crowd”), but if we can agree on “harming other people through failing to control a vehicle is bad, and the more harm you cause the more bad it is”, then let’s roll with that.
I have to negotiate J29 of the M4 on many local rides. fortunately the bit I need to do is downhill so I can get some speed up on the roundabout, but I make sure I am looking over my shoulder all the time.
Is that why you don't notice that J29 doesn't have a roundabout and is all Motorway so you shouldn't be riding on it?!
Balls, I meant J30! Always get them mixed up.
A variety of statistics and the equation for kinetic energy would undermine the simplicity of that statement somewhat
Well you seem to agree with my sentiment so I dunno why you added this bit - but, just because we are on bikes and have less mass does not excuse us morally from acting in a way that pisses people off unnecessarily.
I used to rip through traffic as fast as possible, but I don't any more because I realise a) it was putting me at risk all on my own, without drivers having to be bad b) was occasionally putting other cyclists and pedestrians at risk and c) it was pissing everyone else off.
Well you seem to agree with my sentiment so I dunno why you added this bit
I agree with the principle that being a dick is bad; I don’t agree with the notion that dickery in a car and the same dickery on a bicycle (or on foot) are equally bad, because physics.
driving too fast is just as antisocial and reckless as cycling too fast.
Which is odd given the relative death rates arising from the two
I don’t agree with the notion that dickery in a car and the same dickery on a bicycle (or on foot) are equally bad,
Well given how obvious it is that the consequences of the two are not the same, I'd have thought you'd have been able to figure out that I'm not saying they're equal.
But as we know, humans aren't rational; often people will look for excuses to do whatever they want to do and your line of reasoning is something that people can use to justify poor cycling behaviour and consequently blame others.
An example from the world of motoring - you must give way to people on roundabouts before joining one. Fairly simple, isn't it? Well, yes and no. If you are driving really fast up to and onto a roundabout, you are essentially inviting people to pull out in front of you because your speed messes up everyone's perceptions of how things are going to flow. But, you'd probably bitterly complain about how someone pulled out in front of you and be completely unaware or unwilling to contemplate that your own actions contributed because you will interpret the rule as being in your favour.
Likewise, if you rip about too fast on a bike, you are creating a situation in which people will pull out in front of you by putting yourself in a situation that others are not expecting and you will be in some cases stitching drivers up and making them be the cause of accidents. Example: Once on the south circular in London I was tearing down the outside of a massive queue of traffic on a long single carriageway road, a long way from lights or junctions and with nothing coming the other way. I had plenty of space, until someone decided to do a U turn. Should they have looked? Perhaps, but I was putting myself in a position where they may not have seen me by going so fast in a place they did not expect me to be. I'm not even sure if they could have seen me if they did look. I did most of the work contributing to that near-miss.
Now, it would have been me that came off worse there, but it's not really morally right to place all the blame on the driver in that instance, and expect them to look out for me being a dickhead, simply because they're the ones with the bigger vehicle.
I’d have thought you’d have been able to figure out that I’m not saying they’re equal
Sorry. I was going from “driving too fast is just as antisocial and reckless as cycling too fast” which does rather read as if it’s equating the two, but fair dos. Not disagreeing with the rest of what you say.
Sorry. I was going from “driving too fast is just as antisocial and reckless as cycling too fast” which does rather read as if it’s equating the two, but fair dos
I guess 'reckless' could mean dangerous, but I didn't mean it quite like that. But there is an emotive aspect to this as well as a practical one. Sentiment is a vital part of public behaviour generally, and as we know certain motorists hate cyclists partly because some cyclists really do act like dicks.
certain motorists hate cyclists partly because some cyclists really do act like dicks
No, they hate them because they see them as different. Otherwise they’d hate drivers, because a similar proportion of drivers also act like dicks. No doubt some are even the same dicks in both cases 🙂
Have you ever had a conversation where someone starts having a go at you by projecting other people’s bad driving onto you as if you’re somehow responsible for it? (Because if your experience is anything like mine, the equivalent thing happens as soon as some people discover you ride bikes.) The only time that is ever going to happen is if you’ve somehow ended up chatting to one of the twenty-three people in the country who cycle but never drive. Otherwise, they can’t project drivers’ behaviour onto you as a driver, because they’re a driver, and that would project it onto themselves. They hate the driver in the Audi who cut them up this morning, but they can’t generalise to all drivers because they’re a driver: the best they can do is “Audi drivers”. Unless of course they drive an Audi themselves, in which case they’ll reach for women drivers, old farts, any group as long as that grouping serves to isolate themselves from what they perceive as dickery. But if someone in a bike cut them up, there are precisely zero barriers to full-scale generalisation.
It’s all about othering, it’s not at all about who’s being a dick. Most people are dicks from time to time. But when someone observes that dickery, then as long as the perceived dick is different to the observer in even the slightest way, they can merrily build a framework of generalised resentment out of it.
I guess ‘reckless’ could mean dangerous
Not really - they have two different meanings both in the dictionary and in law. reckless has a tight legal meaning
No, they hate them because they see them as different. Otherwise they’d hate drivers, because a similar proportion of drivers also act like dicks. No doubt some are even the same dicks in both cases
You need both things. In every context people have a locus of us and them. When people drive, it's easy to put cyclists in the 'them' category so they get a less charitable interpretation of their actions.
Have you ever had a conversation where someone starts having a go at you by projecting other people’s bad driving onto you as if you’re somehow responsible for it?
Well I now drive (occasionally) a fancy German car, and have in the past driven a dorky looking hybrid, so yes. People will 'other' each other for all sorts of reasons, being on a bike is just one.
Once on the south circular in London I was tearing down the outside of a massive queue of traffic on a long single carriageway road, a long way from lights or junctions and with nothing coming the other way. I had plenty of space, until someone decided to do a U turn. Should they have looked? Perhaps, but I was putting myself in a position where they may not have seen me by going so fast in a place they did not expect me to be.
What if you'd been on a motorbike, which are still exceedingly popular in London? What if you'd been one of those impatient drivers who needs to turn right a little further up the queue so 'overtakes' the queue? What if you'd been a police car or ambulance?
Why put all this effort into excusing poor driving?
What if you’d been on a motorbike, which are still exceedingly popular in London?
Should a motorbike overtake a huge queue of traffic at high speed on the other side of the road?
If I'd been in a police car it would have been completely different.
Why put all this effort into excusing poor driving?
It's not that much effort. I'm trying to point out that it's not just us v them. You cannot say that any car hitting any cyclist is always at fault. I don't think I have the moral right to expect drivers to work around me doing whatever I want and being stupid and reckless, as I was at the time.
You cannot say that any car hitting any cyclist is always at fault.
Indeed. The car is never at fault 🙂
stupid and reckless, as I was at the time
I think you’re in the early stages of Stockholm there. I mean, there’s no clean dividing line for “stupid and reckless”, but assuming you weren’t glancing people’s wing mirrors, it’s just overtaking. As hinted at above, you probably weren’t going faster than what would be a moderate speed for a motorbike. Would a motorcyclist doing 20-30mph past a queue, with good visibility of a clear road ahead, be “stupid and reckless”?
They hate the driver in the Audi who cut them up this morning, but they can’t generalise to all drivers because they’re a driver: the best they can do is “Audi drivers”. Unless of course they drive an Audi themselves, in which case they’ll reach for women drivers, old farts, any group as long as that grouping serves to isolate themselves from what they perceive as dickery. But if someone in a bike cut them up, there are precisely zero barriers to full-scale generalisation.
I think this stems from us being a minority by numbers - so grouping us as cyclists makes sense to them.
You would think that even the pighead-ist, throthing gammon in a barbarian pickup is able to visually and mentally distinguish between someone in a hoody wheelying an old mtb the wrong way down the high street; and a chain gang of roadies on a back road.
But the overall effect is the same, someone impeding their vehicular progress in a way they personally think is unacceptable.
And just like the eskimo have 50 or so distinct and useful words for snow, while we as cyclists ourselves can easily and anally distinguish between the myriad subcategories; everyone else just thinks and says bike/cyclist. They can see the difference, but not define it.
So every moan, story and anecdote they share is about "cyclists", whether they skidded past them on Snowdon or rode without lights at night on Oxford street and everyone that hears that story is up to misinterpret it as they personally see fit.
What if you’d been on a motorbike, which are still exceedingly popular in London?
Should a motorbike overtake a huge queue of traffic at high speed on the other side of the road?
Motorbikes and cyclists are allowed to overtake stationary traffic. I'm unsure why you've introduced the high speed bit. Motorbikes are ever-present in London - you'd be an idiot to do a u-turn without checking around you. Not saying that it isn't done...
You cannot say that any car hitting any cyclist is always at fault. I don’t think I have the moral right to expect drivers to work around me doing whatever I want and being stupid and reckless, as I was at the time.
I was recently driving over Townhill in Swansea and a bunch of local scruffs were riding along both sides of the road, wheelying, generally getting in the way and deliberately obstructing the traffic. It sounds like you'd condone my driving into them because it was their fault for not obeying the rules? Obviously, I don't believe that's what you're suggesting, but you are perilously close to that.
You would think that even the pighead-ist, throthing gammon in a barbarian pickup is able to visually and mentally distinguish between someone in a hoody wheelying an old mtb the wrong way down the high street; and a chain gang of roadies on a back road.
I’m sure they can, but they’re both outgroups and they’re both scooped up by the mythical “they don’t pay road tax (sic)” bucket, so there’s no need to make any effort to differentiate them.
Whereas bike-riding folks you and I know that one is behaving selfishly and genuinely deserving of disdain, while the other is just a kid mucking about and doing tricks.
There are too many drivers, texting, using their phone, reading, sitting in big armchairs with one hand on the steering wheel surrounded by home comforts - music, snacks, drinks to hand, sometimes even a small dog on their laps. I know this as being a stoker on a tandem it's incredible what I see when being passed by drivers. It wouldn't matter if we cycling people were decked out as a Christmas tree or naked, they wouldn't see us and we're just an inconvenience in their way, the drivers just don't read the road and don't look a head.
Drivers will pass wide when it comes to horses using the roads, as they see the horse as a big creature that could damage their car if they get too close, this doesn't happen with a cycling person, a horse rider will never be accused of not being taxed to use the road. Most horse riders using the roads are in hi viz and helmet, but amazingly they get seen.
If one ever asks a non cyclist who would like to cycle on the road but won't, the answer is always because drivers scare them (this is especially true of women). It's such a stupid situation to be in. Regardless of what we wear, how we wear it (many weekend cycling families pass by with the child or wife's helmet hanging to the back of their head, or completely at a 'jaunty angle' to the side, with a big gap under the strap). We all know that there has to be better road awareness especially of vulnerable road users. It's not rocket science.
Pretty soon all cars will drive themselves and AI will make it impossible to harm a human or even a cyclist and there will be pills to keep us from putting on flab so why would anyone ride a bike anyway?
Unfortunately this is only possible if the driving environment is adapted for the barely sentient rot box. Why do you think Milton Keynes is first up with this? Pedestrians are segregated from the carriageways, there is nothing on the roadway to confuse the silicon chips.