Saw this posted on G+ and thought I’d share. Shows how visible cyclists are, provided you are paying attention.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8pX52v_yNA&feature=share[/video]

more than a couple of those even the non sun light ones i couldnt see the cyclist for 4/5 seconds after the count – and thats as a cyclist whos looking for a cyclist . to many clothes that blend in with the road and surroundings IMO. That said it doesnt seem to make a difference to most – i got knocked off and i was lit up like a flashing cristmas tree in flashing / constant lights and high viz
he does have a hatred of 4x4s – even when some of the cars he points out are 4x4s – he must be on singletrack !

Good video though , should be part of driver training , should be zero tollerance to didnt see the cyclist – people would perhaps be more diligent.

My local roads, recognised every one of those.
Recognised some of the standard of driving too. 🙁

Had this today, I was the car on the opposite side though and had to brake hard enough for the abs to kick in.

Not seeing is the most common reason quoted for accidents. Personally as well as the cu next Tuesdays who use it as an excuse, I am sure some drivers purposely look away or into the distance when faced with a cyclist, its almost like there trying to convince themselves they didn’t see you.

Answers not education or awareness etc its just to start prosecuting people properly with proper punishments for shit drivers, wont happen whilst there’s an economy that relays on putting half wits in cars, trucks, buses.

Your life is valuable but not as valuable as a mobile workforce.

Right – couple of things – I was seeing the cyclist at the same time as the count started, if not before. My eye sight is not the best. I have crap eye sight in one eye – think the top level of the chart at the opticians. If I can see it then you should all be seeing it too.

The driver was clipping solid white lines and was passing too close to the cyclists he was overtaking. And there were also sitting too close before the overtake.

Those cyclists would however be more visible and less liable to be overtaken closely if they would just stop riding in the **** verge.

Missing the point somewhat. It’s a rationally argued video.
Anti-cycling sentiment is emotional, persecution, entitled, vindictive, childish, sometimes psychopathic, predjudice, ill-informed.
We all know the points made in the video are fair and reasonable but if you believe that cyclists are some kind of second-class citizen who shouldn’t ‘be in your way’ you’ll still carry on driving like a dick.
And sadly it seems even if you kill a cyclist, our judiciary will let you carry on driving like a dick.
tbh, outside of commuting, which is London, so the traffic is usually slower than me, I only want to ride with my club these days – the group size gives me a lot more protection and visibility…

double post

Yep – I thought it was somewhat less than perfect driving too, but maybe it’s more “realistic” that way 🙂

Those cyclists would however be more visible and less liable to be overtaken closely if they would just stop riding in the **** verge.

Aye – and then any overtakers would be forced to do it properly!

more than a couple of those even the non sun light ones i couldnt see the cyclist for 4/5 seconds after the count

Maybe you need your eyes testing – a couple I’d spotted before he started the count. Also as he points out, when driving he generally saw them earlier than you can spot them in the clip. I think I can safely say that I’ve never had a cyclist “appear out of nowhere” when I’ve been driving – but then it seems a lot of drivers also fail to notice other cars slowing down in front of them and so have to slam on the anchors at the last minute.

The driver was clipping solid white lines and was passing too close to the cyclists he was overtaking. And there were also sitting too close before the overtake.

I tend to agree however you have the letter of the law and the real world. The cyclist certainly could be a little farther out and then what does the motorist do? Sit on his wheel or overtake safely crossing the white line momentarily. I am pretty sure we would rather have motorists pass us safely than a train of motorists behind us getting frustrated, then as soon as there was no white line passing to closely and taking unnecessary risks as they felt “held up” to some extent.

It would be interesting to get the view of a few of the police on here.

I thought it a generally good example of the real world apart from one particular point where he was sat on the cyclists wheel.

I am sure some drivers purposely look away or into the distance when faced with a cyclist

I’m glad it’s not just me then – seem to get this at roundabouts when people cheekily pull out rather than waiting a few seconds…

“I didn’t see you” shouldn’t be an excuse it should be seen as an admission of driving without due care and attention.

“I didnt see you” is always met with “you didnt see me because you didnt look” when someone doesnt bother their arse to look properly.

The driver was clipping solid white lines

I tend to agree however you have the letter of the law and the real world. The cyclist certainly could be a little farther out and then what does the motorist do? Sit on his wheel or overtake safely crossing the white line momentarily. I am pretty sure we would rather have motorists pass us safely than a train of motorists behind us getting frustrated, then as soon as there was no white line passing to closely and taking unnecessary risks as they felt “held up” to some extent.

And?
Perfectly legal to cross a solid white line in certain circumstances –

Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26

They have changed entry in the highway code in the last couple of years then. You learn something every day.

I’d hazard a guess that the cyclists were doing more than 10mph though. 😉

The driver was clipping solid white lines and was passing too close to the cyclists he was overtaking. And there were also sitting too close before the overtake.

And that is why you should watch it on Youtube so you can read the “About” part from the video ~

Published on 18 Dec 2012

Apparently cyclists are hard to see and react to on A-roads. Some people will say that they shouldn’t be on A-roads because the traffic is too fast, and they don’t have enough time to adjust and safely pass the cyclist. Other excuses includes very low sunlight, which must make it difficult to see….

*This video is about cycling in the daylight
*The camera is WIDE-ANGLED and on the left of the car so its not always obvious how much room I gave the cyclists – in ALL cases it was more than 3ft!
* Comments are set to Approved – get lost trolls

Pretty sure the 10mph thing has been there for years. I cycle to work along a narrow road with lots of double whites, and thankfully that rule is universally ignored, including by the local plod, as there’s plenty of stretches with more than enough visibility to pass. You still get the occassional idiotic overtake, but that’s got nothing to do with the lines.

What that quote has reminded me is that I’m only supposed to filter past the queuing traffic when it’s stationary, not just when it’s moving at less than 10mph. Oh well.

On my commute I regularly encounter the “I must overtake the cyclist” behaviour, usually between Ilkeston and Nottingham. Often I then go past them stuck in queues as the video shows

“I didn’t see you” shouldn’t be an excuse it should be seen as an admission of driving without due care and attention.

+1.

I also agree with the comments about double white lines – plenty of places where it is perfectly safe for a car to overtake me by crossing them and I’d really rather they did so than sat behind me, or worse still attempt to overtake without crossing the lines. The trouble is the people who decide where to paint the double whites appear to be unaware of the HC and unwilling to let drivers use their brains – they should only be painted where it is unsafe to overtake a cyclist doing 12mph, not also where it is unsafe to overtake another car doing 40mph (though to be honest I can think of double whites where it is still safe to do the latter). That or the law needs changing so that it is legal to cross double whites to overtake a cyclist doing 20mph.

Don’t forget, this is a camera view. Your real eyes will see cyclists long before the camera will.

The thing is some people fail to see articulated lorries in the ‘slow’ lane of dual carriageways (somebody recently ran into the back of a parked one on the A90…). So, I doubt they would see a bike… Scary stuff.

*The camera is WIDE-ANGLED and on the left of the car so its not always obvious how much room I gave the cyclists – in ALL cases it was more than 3ft!

3ft is too small a gap. Over the other side of the road would be far more appropriate – you know like what folk do with horses.

more than a couple of those even the non sun light ones i couldnt see the cyclist for 4/5 seconds after the count

He does point out that your eyes are far better at processing high dynamic ranges than any camera (let alone a cheep £20 one off ebay). Which is why even images from lage sensor SLR’s look nothing like what you saw through the viewfinder, shadows come out much darker and highlights get washed out. And your eye/brain can focus it’s attention on the road while driving, not on the scenary you’d see if presented with in a film/photograph. Which is why (IMO) the hazzard perception test is a waste of time and money, it’s a test you learn to pass, and has nothign to do with how you deal with the same issues on the road.

I’ve started using a decent rear flashing light all the time when i’m on the road just to help a little.

Also we’ll always see a cyclist before your average driver does because we are looking out for them more.

The driving tests need to include more about other users of the road, cyclists, horses etc.

The problem with solid white lines on roads is that they are now often used as a means of ‘traffic calming’ rather than with any consideration for the Highway Code

They have changed entry in the highway code in the last couple of years then. You learn something every day.

Been there for at least 10 years, my driving instructor used to talk about it, and didn’t suggest it was new then.

Biggest problem I find is people send the cash for front lights, or head lamps, but always run the dullest rear light.

Get a decent rear light and have it turned on all the time.

Aye, certainly on my commute I now always have two flashing rear lights and one flashing front. Not sure how effective the rear lights are but I’ve not had a bellend pull out in front of me at a junction since I stared doing it.

3ft is too small a gap.

True, but I’d be happy to get that from every driver.

It is the legal minimum distance in quite a few American states: http://www.3feetplease.com/advocacy

Don’t forget, this is a camera view. Your real eyes will see cyclists long before the camera will.

Also fair to say that not everyone will be viewing the video in the same resolution/format so comments about folk needing their eyes tested may be unwarranted.