# How would define a safe cyclist?



## summerdays (4 Jun 2016)

This has thought has been initiated by a survey currently on the forum, but it made me wonder how would you define a safe cyclist?

I don't think it s defined by whether you have accidents or what you wear, more by how you cycle, being aware of potential hazards. However I'm intrigued by how you would define a safe cyclist, and whether you consider yourself to be one.

I'm guessing that the poll will show that in general we consider ourselves above average? Perhaps in wrong.


----------



## Markymark (4 Jun 2016)

Most think they're above average in everything they do whereas in reality it's only really me who is.


----------



## Lonestar (4 Jun 2016)

A safer cyclist would be a cyclist who doesn't jump red lights for fun.

I can't vote.I think I'm ok but a lot of cyclists I see seem to rarely look behind or just seem so unaware.

I think that if you think you are above average you are probably wrong.


----------



## Phil Fouracre (4 Jun 2016)

Self fulfilling prophecy! Didn't you know, most drivers think that they are 'above average' :-(


----------



## smutchin (4 Jun 2016)

Lonestar said:


> A safer cyclist would be a cyclist who doesn't jump red lights for fun.



There are two aspects to red light jumping.

One is the legality - it's unambiguously illegal to jump red lights, though both cyclists and motorists do it all the time.

The other is the safety angle - ostensibly the reason that it's illegal, though it's far from true that it's always unsafe to jump red lights (pedestrian crossing on a deserted street in the middle of the night, for example).

There's a lot more to safety than following the letter of the law - it's perfectly possible to be an entirely law-abiding cyclist yet still be a danger to yourself and/or others.

Therefore you are categorically wrong.

To my mind, safe cycling is largely about awareness of and consideration to other road users. Awareness of other road users means knowing how you could be a danger to them and how they could be a danger to you, plus understanding that other road users don't always behave predictably and adjusting your riding accordingly. Consideration means sharing the road space, not treating it like your private race track, and not behaving in a way that gratuitously inconveniences other road users.

I won't be voting in the poll.


----------



## Lonestar (4 Jun 2016)

Err yes.I get that.That would just be an example but on the CS 2 CS 3 and East - West routes it's very common that they put themselves or pedestrians/motorists at risk from doing this because they can't be patient.About as bad as the motorist who MGIF.Cyclists do the MGIF in front all the time when sometimes it's pointless.



Phil Fouracre said:


> Self fulfilling prophecy! Didn't you know, most drivers think that they are 'above average' :-(



My point exactly.I try my best out there but I don't think I'm perfect and sometimes I make mistakes or have poor road positioning...predict wrong,whatever.


----------



## boydj (4 Jun 2016)

What is a 'safe' cyclist? One who takes no risks, one who obeys the highway code? Even very careful cyclists can have an off - a patch of unseen diesel, an unavoidable pothole, a careless driver. 

The only truly 'safe' cyclist is one who never goes out.


----------



## smutchin (4 Jun 2016)

Lonestar said:


> Err yes.I get that.



Your comment suggests otherwise.


----------



## winjim (4 Jun 2016)

Phil Fouracre said:


> Self fulfilling prophecy! Didn't you know, most drivers think that they are 'above average' :-(


Dunning-Kruger effect, innit.

Paradoxically I think it's recognising my crapness at driving that makes me better. I'm a pretty safe cyclist I reckon. A lot of roadcraft is mitigating the effects of other people's mistakes so I try to be observant and think about what could go wrong in any given situation. And I own the road when I need to.


----------



## smutchin (4 Jun 2016)

boydj said:


> The only truly 'safe' cyclist is one who never goes out.



To be a safe cyclist, first you must be a cyclist.

By your logic, I'm a safe helicopter pilot.


----------



## Lonestar (4 Jun 2016)

smutchin said:


> Your comment suggests otherwise.



Yeah well you must have misunderstood my point.Or perhaps I put it across wrong.Or I only gave one example.


----------



## Crackle (4 Jun 2016)

I'd be very surprised if the top demographic is not, above average.


----------



## Lonestar (4 Jun 2016)

Crackle said:


> I'd be very surprised if the top demographic is not, above average.



It is so far.I'm impressed.I'd go for average then.Hope I'm not over estimating myself.


----------



## smutchin (4 Jun 2016)

Lonestar said:


> I only gave one example.



Exactly.

So, what do you consider to be the most important factor in cycling safety? And why did you mention red light jumping if you think it's something else? How do you expect people to 'understand your point' if you say the opposite of what you believe?


----------



## Lonestar (4 Jun 2016)

smutchin said:


> Exactly.
> 
> So, what do you consider to be the most important factor in cycling safety? And why did you mention red light jumping if you think it's something else? How do you expect people to 'understand your point' if you say the opposite of what you believe?



Well what do you consider? Awareness I'd say.Not going up the inside of vehicles at silly times.Lights.Not riding the wrong way up the CS 2.Not close overtaking at speed on the CS 2 or CS 3.No cat 6 racing at inappropriate times.Leave that to the boy racers.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (4 Jun 2016)

I consider myself a safe cyclist in that my actions on a bike have never caused harm to others.

However I have been harmed whilst cycling, through others actions so I can be considered to be unsafe while cycling.


----------



## Globalti (4 Jun 2016)

Cycling is an unstable pursuit and in the six years I've been road cycling (after 12 years of motorcycling and 21 years of mountain biking) my cycling buddy has had two bad crashes, my son two, another buddy one really bad one and three other neighbours one tumble each, one of them this morning, while I haven't had any. So I guess that makes me a safe cyclist.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (4 Jun 2016)

I'm always cautious, probably too much so. That doesn't mean I wouldn't skip a red light at 3am, it means I am well aware of the randomness of other cyclists, dogs and pedestrians and act accordingly, stopping if necessary.
Most cyclists I know do stuff I never do, like riding through bike crossings on red with just a fleeting glance that no traffic is coming. Also, I never trust non indicating drivers not to turn, I don't pull out till there's no cars.
Steep downhills and tight bends I don't do either: basically, I'm very safe for myself, not so safe with other cyclist or in traffic because they get irritated by my slowness


----------



## Lonestar (4 Jun 2016)

shouldbeinbed said:


> I consider myself a safe cyclist in that my actions on a bike have never caused harm to others.
> 
> However I have been harmed whilst cycling, through others actions so I can be considered to be unsafe while cycling.



I don't think so when it's not your fault?


----------



## shouldbeinbed (4 Jun 2016)

Lonestar said:


> I don't think so when it's not your fault?


I feel the same, I was aiming at the notion that safe cyclist is not a binary position nor entirely under my control, unlike e.g. is the electric on or off before I poke a screwdriver into a plug socket.


----------



## I am Spartacus (4 Jun 2016)

18 months commuting in urban environment without too much hassle... so yes I;m safe..... no helmet or silly riding gear either..
even managed to stay upright whilst racing as well for two seasons.


----------



## jefmcg (4 Jun 2016)

Pat "5mph" said:


> I'm always cautious, probably too much so.



Yes, that's me too. And I am proof that "cautious" ≠ "safe".

I've been in two rear enders at a roundabout that were not my fault. But in both cases the driver mistook my body language and thought I was moving. Neither driver blamed me, and I don't blame myself, however I have modified my behaviour to make it clear when I am or am not moving.
As a kid, my brother and I (grammar!) used to play a game that involved jumping off a 60cm fence. He never noticed that I didn't jump, I climbed down. One day, in his excitement he grabbed my hand and jumped. Because I've never jumped off before, I put out my hand to break my fall. Hence the bum elbow that still haunts me today, and you can read about on other places in CC.


----------



## glenn forger (4 Jun 2016)

Lonestar said:


> A safer cyclist would be a cyclist who doesn't jump red lights for fun.



A cyclist jumping a red light is not even in the Top 20 causes of injuries, but don't let the facts get in the way of your rampant prejudice. In fact a cyclist is more at risk from drivers jumping reds than doing it themselves.


----------



## Lonestar (4 Jun 2016)

glenn forger said:


> A cyclist jumping a red light is not even in the Top 20 causes of injuries, but don't let the facts get in the way of your rampant prejudice. In fact a cyclist is more at risk from drivers jumping reds than doing it themselves.



That doesn't make it right.I would guess many must jump on here as it's defended very heavily plus with the amount I see on the roads would back this up.Whether it causes injury or not.


----------



## glenn forger (4 Jun 2016)

Lonestar said:


> Not going up the inside of vehicles at silly times.Lights.Not riding the wrong way up the CS 2.Not close overtaking at speed on the CS 2 or CS 3.No cat 6 racing at inappropriate times.



None of that is a significant factor in cyclist casualties either. You are obsessed with trivia, desperate to allocate blame where none exists. It's relentless and tedious. None of what you say has much to do with safe cycling.


----------



## Lonestar (4 Jun 2016)

glenn forger said:


> None of that is a significant factor in cyclist casualties either. You are obsessed with trivia, desperate to allocate blame where none exists. It's relentless and tedious. None of what you say has much to do with safe cycling.



I think it does.


----------



## jefmcg (4 Jun 2016)

User14044mountain said:


> A confident cyclist is a safe cyclist..


A cyclist whose confidence matches their ability is a safe cyclist.

Over confidence is probably a bigger danger than over cautious so at least my collisions were at low speed. Note: I am very confident in my road positioning, hence the rear enders. 

Of course, I think it is easy to recognise in oneself over cautiousness. Riders who are over confident probably think they are just confident.


----------



## glenn forger (4 Jun 2016)

Lonestar said:


> I think it does.



What proportion of cycling KSIs are you attributing to risky/illegal cycling?


----------



## Lonestar (4 Jun 2016)

glenn forger said:


> What proportion of cycling KSIs are you attributing to risky/illegal cycling?



Eh? Are we going to argue all night because we don't agree with each other?


----------



## glenn forger (4 Jun 2016)

You cited a number of factors that make cycling unsafe. You then insisted they were valid responses. I'm asking you to quantify them by showing me they are a significant factor in actual injuries. You can't.


----------



## Smokin Joe (4 Jun 2016)

Lonestar said:


> Eh? Are we going to argue all night because we don't agree with each other?


If it's with Glen, yes you will.

I'm willing to bet he's a lovely bloke, but he does bang on...


----------



## Brandane (4 Jun 2016)

A safe cyclist is one who doesn't have accidents, or cause other people to have them.
I think that covers it!


----------



## Lonestar (4 Jun 2016)

glenn forger said:


> You cited a number of factors that make cycling unsafe. You then insisted they were valid responses. I'm asking you to quantify them by showing me they are a significant factor in actual injuries. You can't.



I'm looking at unsafe cycling not how many injuries....does it score more points if a certain road user causes more injuries then?

I've seen them avoid quite a few with some of the peoples we have out there.


----------



## Lonestar (4 Jun 2016)

Brandane said:


> A safe cyclist is one who doesn't have accidents, or cause other people to have them.
> I think that covers it!



A safe cyclist may have accidents but doesn't cause them?


----------



## Brandane (4 Jun 2016)

Lonestar said:


> A safe cyclist may have accidents but doesn't cause them?


Ehh?? No! A safe cyclist doesn't have accidents. Neither does a safe cyclist cause other people to have accidents.


----------



## Lonestar (4 Jun 2016)

Brandane said:


> Ehh?? No! A safe cyclist doesn't have accidents. Neither does a safe cyclist cause other people to have accidents.



A safe cyclist may have an accident because someone else was being unsafe is my point.How about falling off does that count?


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (4 Jun 2016)

*Mod note:*

I'm keeping an eye on this thread. If it turns into an argument I may come in to do some pruning.


----------



## Brandane (4 Jun 2016)

Lonestar said:


> A safe cyclist may have an accident because someone else was being unsafe is my point.How about falling off does that count?


A safe cyclist doesn't fall off, and should be able to anticipate others being unsafe.


----------



## Lonestar (4 Jun 2016)

Brandane said:


> A safe cyclist doesn't fall off, and should be able to anticipate others being unsafe.



You've never fallen off then?

Well I'm unsafe for two reasons.I fell off more than once and a pedestrian worried me tonight when he was crossing the road in front of me and then changed his mind and decided to walk the other way just as I was passing.Managed to avoid him but didn't see that coming.


----------



## Brandane (4 Jun 2016)

Brandane said:


> A safe cyclist doesn't fall off, and should be able to anticipate others being unsafe.


To clarify - if I go out on my bike and get mown down by a reckless driver through no fault of my own; I wasn't very "safe", was I? I may have been cautious, but that doesn't make you safe.


----------



## Brandane (4 Jun 2016)

Lonestar said:


> You've never fallen off then?


Lots of times. I'm not claiming to be safe. I even go through red lights when I know there is no risk to myself or others.


----------



## Lonestar (4 Jun 2016)

Brandane said:


> Lots of times. I'm not claiming to be safe.



I don't agree with the fact that you have fallen off makes you an unsafe cyclist.That means 90+ percent of cyclists must be unsafe with your reasoning.Last spill I had was because my foot slipped on the pavement at a traffic light but I'm afraid it happens.

I get it,the wording meaning is being used differently between you and I.



Brandane said:


> Lots of times. I'm not claiming to be safe. I even go through red lights when I know there is no risk to myself or others.



Yes.I see a lot of that on the CS's and elsewhere.Doesn't look very safe.


----------



## EnPassant (4 Jun 2016)

Um, the thread is titled "how would you define a safe cyclist?", I don't really know that I can answer whether or not I am safe or average etc. until the parameters are defined? So to some degree the poll doesn't quite match the title?
For me, "never having had an accident" wouldn't be one of the definitions, well at least not stated that way, you can be in an accident through no fault on your part at all, once, as a pedestrian I was made all too aware of this. 
That said, surely anyone who takes the time and interest to read and post here is surely already ahead of the curve?...though I did answer "average" as I have much to learn, even though my name isn't Luke.


----------



## classic33 (4 Jun 2016)

Brandane said:


> To clarify - *if I go out on my bike and get mown down by a reckless driver through no fault of my own*; I wasn't very "safe", was I? I may have been cautious, but that doesn't make you safe.


I'd say I was safe, almost upto the time of impact. I'd a chance to still correct for the driving.


----------



## Lonestar (4 Jun 2016)

Rickshaw Phil said:


> *Mod note:*
> 
> I'm keeping an eye on this thread. If it turns into an argument I may come in to do some pruning.



Ok good sir I will watch myself.I'd better pull out I disagree too much and it doesn't look good.Cheers.


----------



## classic33 (4 Jun 2016)

EnPassant said:


> *Um, the thread is titled "how would you define a safe cyclist?"*, I don't really know that I can answer whether or not I am safe or average etc. until the parameters are defined? So to some degree the poll doesn't quite match the title?
> For me, "never having had an accident" wouldn't be one of the definitions, well at least not stated that way, you can be in an accident through no fault on your part at all, once, as a pedestrian I was made all too aware of this.
> That said, surely anyone who takes the time and interest to read and post here is surely already ahead of the curve?...though I did answer "average" as I have much to learn, even though my name isn't Luke.


It's not you know!

*How would define a safe cyclist?*


----------



## simongt (4 Jun 2016)

When it comes down to it, there are far too many variables, some simply to do with individual perception and attitude to give any logical conclusion - ! 

On the basis that my cycling style rarely appears to cause negative reaction from other road users, I think I'm a fairly safe cyclist. But maybe other road users just can't be a***d to react if they don't like my riding style - !


----------



## Brandane (4 Jun 2016)

Maybe the question should have been "How would you define a competent cyclist?"
I'll declare myself in the competent classification, but as for safe; that is too hard to call as it depends on the actions of others as well as me.


----------



## EnPassant (4 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> It's not you know!
> 
> *How would define a safe cyclist?*


I know I'm paraphrasing er paraquoting? :P

Grammar correcting is a glass house, and I've already broken one of my panes elsewhere recently


----------



## classic33 (4 Jun 2016)

Brandane said:


> Maybe the question should have been "How would you define a competent cyclist?"
> I'll declare myself in the competent classification, but as for safe; that is too hard to call as it depends on the actions of others as well as me.


You've not tried answering the questions on the tread in question then?


----------



## Brandane (4 Jun 2016)

EnPassant said:


> paraphrasing er paraquoting?


Paraphrasing* OR *paraquoting!


----------



## growingvegetables (4 Jun 2016)

Some interesting ideas of what makes a safe cyclist. Hmmmm.

Fwiw - for myself, I reckon it's about reading the road, reading other road users (sheep excluded  - they're DUMB), alertness, and anticipation. Seeing a "trap" - and taking action to avoid it. Whether it be position in the lane, not going down the left of an artic, or even shooting through an amber cos I've got a dangerous **** hard on my tail who ain't planning to stop .


----------



## Brandane (4 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> You've not tried answering the questions on the tread in question then?


Which tread thread in question? This one?


----------



## classic33 (4 Jun 2016)

Brandane said:


> Which tread thread in question? This one?


This tread!
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/cycling-safety-survey.202203/


----------



## classic33 (4 Jun 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> Some interesting ideas of what makes a safe cyclist. Hmmmm.
> 
> Fwiw - for myself, I reckon it's about reading the road, reading other road users (sheep excluded  - they're DUMB), alertness, and anticipation. Seeing a "trap" - and taking action to avoid it. Whether it be position in the lane, not going down the left of an artic, or even shooting through an amber cos I've got a dangerous **** hard on my tail who ain't planning to stop .


Mis-read part of that. Let you work out which part.


----------



## Brandane (4 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> This tread!
> https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/cycling-safety-survey.202203/


That's another section which fell victim to my ignore nodes!


----------



## classic33 (4 Jun 2016)

Brandane said:


> That's another section which fell victim to my ignore nodes!


It's what started this one off. Have fun?


----------



## Brandane (4 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> It's what started this one off. Have fun?


Couldn't get past page 1 of the survey because answers are required and I CBA'd with these meaningless, badly thought out surveys. That's why the whole section is on ignore (as are 28 out of a possible 41 sections now, after my latest clean-up ).


----------



## glenn forger (4 Jun 2016)

It's a terrible survey.


----------



## classic33 (4 Jun 2016)

Brandane said:


> Couldn't get past page 1 of the survey because answers are required and I CBA'd with these meaningless, badly thought out surveys. That's why the whole section is on ignore.


It started this one though.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (4 Jun 2016)

Brandane said:


> A safe cyclist is one who doesn't have accidents, or cause other people to have them.
> I think that covers it!


If you happened to be walking along a pavement and a car driver loses control and wipes you out would you qualify as an unsafe pedestrian? Not in my view. And while I agree with the causing other people to have accidents part, I don't think you can attribute cycling accidents automatically to be evidence of unsafe cycling. Sometimes you get bullies, stressed-out psychos, and more often you get distracted or otherwise incompetent drivers.


----------



## jonny jeez (4 Jun 2016)

Confident, not cocky
Assertive, not aggressive
Courteous, not submissive
Aware, not critical

Most of all its a rider that can give off a sense of calmness and control to other road users so that they have no reason to feel anxious themselves.


----------



## Brandane (4 Jun 2016)

glenn forger said:


> So you think the cyclists killed by drunk drivers were unsafe cyclists?


They weren't UNSAFE; but they were not SAFE. There is a subtle difference. Please read previous posts regarding other peoples actions having an effect on ones safety. HTH. (as I won't be getting further involved in yet another pointless discussion with you).


----------



## growingvegetables (5 Jun 2016)

Brandane said:


> They weren't UNSAFE; but they were not SAFE. There is a subtle difference.


No, there isn't.

Imho, you're muddying the water, by confusing two similar questions - "what is a safe cyclist?" (down to the individual and their riding style), and "is a cyclist safe?" (... with all the other nutters on the road?).

Safe cyclist - looks out for his/her safety, and that of others.
Safe cyclist, taken out from behind by a drunk driver = one *unlucky* safe cyclist.


----------



## summerdays (5 Jun 2016)

Sorry this is my dilemma with the survey, in that I expect I don't agree with their definition of safe, and it set my two brain cells thinking trying to decide what elements a safe cyclist might have. I agree with those who think it relates to awareness, communicating with others etc. It doesn't relate to accidents directly, though those who have a lot of accidents "may" not be safe (thinking about my friend's husband who is a bit of a risk taker and seems to have a number of accidents).


----------



## Levo-Lon (5 Jun 2016)

I survived over 30yrs of motorcycling and most of that was riding the fastest creations on the planet..
i road cycle in the same manner..treat all other road users as a potential threat to your health-life ..
So i would say im an observant cyclist. Highway code works well for cyclists...
id say im ok in the safe sense ,but ther's always new lessons to learn...
unpredictable idiots will always be a threat..so if you run Reds and dont look where your going? you can claim that mantle..


----------



## snorri (5 Jun 2016)

A safe cyclist does not cycle in winter, avoiding the risk of slips and slides on icy surfaces.


----------



## gavgav (5 Jun 2016)

One that doesn't ride on the pavement and cross the road without looking to his right


----------



## Brandane (5 Jun 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> No, there isn't.
> 
> Imho, you're muddying the water, by confusing two similar questions - "what is a safe cyclist?" (down to the individual and their riding style), and "is a cyclist safe?" (... with all the other nutters on the road?).
> 
> ...


We'll just need to agree to differ on this matter then! The OP was inviting us to define "safe", which as this thread proves, is open to interpretation.


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (5 Jun 2016)

snorri said:


> A safe cyclist does not cycle in winter, avoiding the risk of slips and slides on icy surfaces.


Or alternatively a safe cyclist prepares for winter conditions and cycles using appropriate gear such as studded tyres.


----------



## MontyVeda (5 Jun 2016)

I consider myself a 'safe' cyclist in so much as my momentum is never more important than my safety. All too often I witness other cyclists being a tad reckless in order to avoid slowing down or stopping.


----------



## MontyVeda (5 Jun 2016)

snorri said:


> A safe cyclist does not cycle in winter, avoiding the risk of slips and slides on icy surfaces.


but the other options, walking or driving also involve icy surfaces... are you so safe that you hibernate?


----------



## snorri (5 Jun 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> but the other options, walking or driving also involve icy surfaces... are you so safe that you hibernate?


No! Hibernating is dangerous for humans.


----------



## snorri (5 Jun 2016)

Rickshaw Phil said:


> Or alternatively a safe cyclist prepares for winter conditions and cycles using appropriate gear such as studded tyres.


I'm often more concerned about other road users jeopardising my safety in icy conditions.


----------



## MontyVeda (5 Jun 2016)

snorri said:


> No! Hibernating is dangerous for humans.


but if the ice worries you so much, how do you get from A to B in winter? Walking in icy conditions is no safer than cycling or driving... in fact the roads are far less treacherous than the pavements.


----------



## 2clepto (5 Jun 2016)

I consider a safe cyclist to hold a 360 degree awareness in the aural and the visual before one attempts a maneuver. this attitude increases with vigor depending on traffic volume, pets/children, rush hour. the eyes and the ears work together.

also, learning brake technique in various strengths and conditions and bikes is a vital skill, as is dodging, bunny hopping, knowing the terrain, and countless other things i cannot think of at the mo.

also discussing with other cyclists riding dramas and such like with a view to using all knowledge to become a safe cyclist is an important addition to awareness.

also being able to drive and read other drivers is very valuable out on the road.

regarding the red light red herring angle, i just consider sitting at red lights to be putting oneself in danger from motorists in many many cases. obviously at major intersections one has to yield as a cyclist and ride or be stationary with the risk very much increased. for this reason if i am stopped at red lights i always look back frequently.

i do stop at alot of reds because i cycle the city alot but imo i set of while still on red if safe to do so because it forces drivers waiting to become aware of me, the skin and bone cyclist, either though my movement or their squeaky clean anger thats forever at the surface.


----------



## snorri (5 Jun 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> but if the ice worries you so much, how do you get from A to B in winter? Walking in icy conditions is no safer than cycling or driving... in fact the roads are far less treacherous than the pavements.


It doesn't worry me much, I'm just conscious of the risks, I was merely putting forward an argument. 
I don't think this thread is going anywhere worthwhile, we all have our own beliefs as to what makes for safer (not safe!) cycling.


----------



## Crackle (5 Jun 2016)

i may downgrade myself to below average after I nipped into a gap in the traffic feeling smug with myself at the quickness of my reactions, only to find another cyclist in the gap who had to brake to avoid me. There's no option for completely shoot cyclist is there?


----------



## rugby bloke (6 Jun 2016)

I'm not sure about being a safe cyclist, to date I have certainly been a lucky cyclists as my periodic errors in judgement have not landed me in serious trouble. When cycling in London I am very defensive, which is not necessarily the same thing as being safe.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (6 Jun 2016)

2clepto said:


> I consider a safe cyclist to hold a 360 degree awareness (pet subject of mine: do you use a mirror or mirrors on your bike to assist in this?) in the aural and the visual before one attempts a maneuver. this attitude increases with vigor depending on traffic volume, pets/children, rush hour. the eyes and the ears work together+lots.
> 
> also, learning brake technique in various strengths and conditions and bikes is a vital skill, as is dodging, bunny hopping, knowing the terrain, and countless other things i cannot think of at the mo.knowing when to pedal and when to back off, holding a bike as it slides, reading the road with your nose as well as your eyes, diesel is a bugger to spot but smells.
> Bunny hopping - hmm, last resort evasion technique IMO, if I've got to a point of bunny hopping something, then my observation and anticipation leading up to the need hasn't been100%
> ...


----------



## cycle_bug (6 Jun 2016)

I would say it's respecting and following rules, as well as remembering even the good motorists might struggle to see or safely pass you.. not that there's an excuse for it.. but the fact remains.

I think I'm pretty safe, I wear a hi-vis jacket which makes me look like a construction worker to try and be seen.. until I can afford a decent jacket that is hi-vis to replace it. I also plan on getting a mirror. I never cycle with earphones despite wishing I could.


----------



## Tin Pot (6 Jun 2016)

summerdays said:


> This has thought has been initiated by a survey currently on the forum, but it made me wonder how would you define a safe cyclist?
> 
> I don't think it s defined by whether you have accidents or what you wear, more by how you cycle, being aware of potential hazards. However I'm intrigued by how you would define a safe cyclist, and whether you consider yourself to be one.
> 
> I'm guessing that the poll will show that in general we consider ourselves above average? Perhaps in wrong.



A "safe" cyclist is one who has no one near them.

A cyclists safety is *entirely* dependant on those around them.


----------



## jefmcg (6 Jun 2016)

cycle_bug said:


> even the good motorists might struggle to see or safely pass you..


Is this a new usage of "good"? 

Good motorists will be observant and will see a cyclist in good light, and at night if the bike is equipped with lights. 

And they will not struggle to pass safely, they will wait until it is safe to pass. 

There are lots of motorists this is not true for. Their level of competence is not "good".


----------



## summerdays (6 Jun 2016)

Tin Pot said:


> A "safe" cyclist is one who has no one near them.
> 
> A cyclists safety is *entirely* dependant on those around them.


Now that I disagree, to say entirely implies that we can't do anything at all to help the situation. Whereas I think using your road position and awareness of other road users may help to predict and be ready to deal with the situations where our safety is compromised by others (all too frequently).


----------



## martint235 (6 Jun 2016)

2clepto said:


> also being able to drive and read other drivers is very valuable out on the road.
> 
> regarding the red light red herring angle, i just consider sitting at red lights to be putting oneself in danger from motorists in many many cases. obviously at major intersections one has to yield as a cyclist and ride or be stationary with the risk very much increased. for this reason if i am stopped at red lights i always look back frequently.
> 
> i do stop at alot of reds because i cycle the city alot but imo i set of while still on red if safe to do so because it forces drivers waiting to become aware of me, the skin and bone cyclist, either though my movement or their squeaky clean anger thats forever at the surface.


I consider myself a good/safe cyclist and have never ever driven a car on a road and fail to see why it's relevant.

Why is stopping at a red light putting yourself at risk? Have you seen many rear ending accidents involving road traffic?

It's really not a red herring. It p***es other cyclists off because it gives the perception that we all do it so I have to put up with people at work asking me why I run red lights all the time just because some cyclists think they are "special"


----------



## Tin Pot (6 Jun 2016)

summerdays said:


> Now that I disagree, to say entirely implies that we can't do anything at all to help the situation. Whereas I think using your road position and awareness of other road users may help to predict and be ready to deal with the situations where our safety is compromised by others (all too frequently).



Like a priest in Darfur confronted by cocaine fuelled rape squads, we can appeal to their humanity.


----------



## derrick (6 Jun 2016)

The poll looks to be not right. Judging by what i have read on here the below average should be the highest one, I can't believe we only have three below on here. 
Just goes to shows polles are a waste of time,


----------



## RedRider (6 Jun 2016)

Being confident and assertive, having empathy for other road users, being predictable and signalling intentions, knowing the limits of your bike and self, experience and equanimity all make for a 'safe' cyclist.
However, if you undertake me as I'm setting off from some lights then all bets are off 'cos I'll chase you down with no regard to anyone's safety and throttle you with a bungee.


----------



## John the Monkey (6 Jun 2016)

martint235 said:


> Why is stopping at a red light putting yourself at risk? Have you seen many rear ending accidents involving road traffic?


Funnily enough, it happened (at very low speed) to me the other day, at the lights by the Manchester Aquatic Centre car park (low speed enough that no damage was done). I suspect that the driver was on his 'phone in the queue of traffic, tbh.

First time in getting on for nine years though. I wait at reds personally, but don't really think the "they give us a bad name" argument holds water for a couple of reasons - one because it's pernicious nonsense that should be debunked every time it raises it's stupid head, and secondly because an awful lot of motorists haven't the first idea of what's legal/safe, judging by the way they behave and the things they scream out of their windows. I'm uneasy about their anti-cyclist groupthink extending to things that they have convinced themselves aren't on (f'instance, I get told that flashing lights are illegal at least twice each winter, usually in a disculpatory rant following a close overtake or some other idiocy).. 

Commuting into Manchester daily for about 9 years, I can count the number of times other cyclists have given me pause on the fingers of one hand, even those who are, presumably, below average. OTOH, I've had single journeys where I'd need every digit to count the tailgating, close overtaking and dangerous inattention of motorists on the same route.


----------



## Spinney (6 Jun 2016)

John the Monkey said:


> ... in a *disculpatory *rant ...



[OT] I learned a new word! 

(and it wasn't a rude one or connected to reproduction or excretion in some form!)

[back to topic...]


----------



## swee'pea99 (6 Jun 2016)

The only safe cyclist is one on a trainer (and even then you can have a heart attack!) But there are certainly things you can do to help yourself avoid 'unsafeness'. Like not overtaking trucks on the inside at lights, which is I believe the leading cause of cyclists actually being killed (putting to one side the cyclist/driver responsibility for such deaths.) Or - which I see all the time - cyclists overtaking stationary/near-stationary queues of traffic at speed, past buses/vans/lorries from behind which a pedestrian could emerge at any moment. If I were offering advice to an urban cyclist wishing to avoid incidents, I think I'd offer just three tips:

Don't undertake or overtake without being absolutely certain that you can see/foresee what others might do, and be safe regardless (so, eg, slow into 'blind' spots).
Avoid confrontations with motorists, whatever the temptation. Many are stupid, many are dangerous, all are in control of very heavy lumps of metal.

And above all, always:

Anticipate, anticipate, anticipate!


----------



## swee'pea99 (6 Jun 2016)

derrick said:


> polles are a waste of time


Bloody good builders tho'...


----------



## classic33 (6 Jun 2016)

swee'pea99 said:


> *The only safe cyclist is one on a trainer* (and even then you can have a heart attack!) But there are certainly things you can do to help yourself avoid 'unsafeness'. Like not overtaking trucks on the inside at lights, which is I believe the leading cause of cyclists actually being killed (putting to one side the cyclist/driver responsibility for such deaths.) Or - which I see all the time - cyclists overtaking stationary/near-stationary queues of traffic at speed, past buses/vans/lorries from behind which a pedestrian could emerge at any moment. If I were offering advice to an urban cyclist wishing to avoid incidents, I think I'd offer just three tips:
> 
> Don't undertake or overtake without being absolutely certain that you can see/foresee what others might do, and be safe regardless (so, eg, slow into 'blind' spots).
> Avoid confrontations with motorists, whatever the temptation. Many are stupid, many are dangerous, all are in control of very heavy lumps of metal.
> ...



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN1cuVRRRzM


----------



## classic33 (6 Jun 2016)

swee'pea99 said:


> The only safe cyclist is one on a trainer (and even then you can have a heart attack!) But there are certainly things you can do to help yourself avoid 'unsafeness'. Like not overtaking trucks on the inside at lights, which is I believe the leading cause of cyclists actually being killed (putting to one side the cyclist/driver responsibility for such deaths.) Or - which I see all the time - cyclists overtaking stationary/near-stationary queues of traffic at speed, past buses/vans/lorries from behind which a pedestrian could emerge at any moment. If I were offering advice to an urban cyclist wishing to avoid incidents, I think I'd offer just three tips:
> 
> Don't undertake or overtake without being absolutely certain that you can see/foresee what others might do, and be safe regardless (so, eg, slow into 'blind' spots).
> *Avoid confrontations with motorists*, whatever the temptation. Many are stupid, many are dangerous, all are in control of very heavy lumps of metal.
> ...


You forgot the same idiots, disguised as pedestrians.
Last unsafe piece of cycling was when two such idiots attempted to turn us over. On four wheels at the time. Result being an infection in one leg that received minor damage(or so I thought) and a bill for £200 plus to put right the damage.

Last one prior to that was in 2005, hit by a drunk driver. No lights, or much else to be on the road legally. Nice close up view of the bonnet of the car. Up until a short time before impact I was safe.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (6 Jun 2016)

2clepto said:


> I consider a safe cyclist to hold a 360 degree awareness in the aural and the visual before one attempts a maneuver. this attitude increases with vigor depending on traffic volume, pets/children, rush hour. the eyes and the ears work together.
> 
> also, learning brake technique in various strengths and conditions and bikes is a vital skill, as is dodging, bunny hopping, knowing the terrain, and countless other things i cannot think of at the mo.
> 
> ...


----------



## Shut Up Legs (6 Jun 2016)

2clepto said:


> also being able to drive and read other drivers is very valuable out on the road.


The latter: yes. The former: no. I don't think you need to be able to drive to be a safe cyclist.


----------



## classic33 (6 Jun 2016)

cycle_bug said:


> I would say it's respecting and following rules, as well as remembering even the good motorists might struggle to see or safely pass you.. not that there's an excuse for it.. but the fact remains.
> 
> I think I'm pretty safe, I wear a hi-vis jacket which makes me look like a construction worker to try and be seen.. until I can afford a decent jacket that is hi-vis to replace it. I also plan on getting a mirror. I never cycle with earphones despite wishing I could.


Hi-Vis isn't always going to get you seen, and then have that person whose "seen you" register the fact. It's becoming a fashion item now, so less heed is paid to it.
You've lights, front and rear to consider helping in getting you seen.


----------



## freewheelwilly (6 Jun 2016)

Lights, LED day and night. Not on the retina burning setting though. Got asked by a cabbie why my lights were on in perfect daylight visibility, My reply? Well you saw them so there's your answer.


----------



## freewheelwilly (6 Jun 2016)

Shut Up Legs said:


> The latter: yes. The former: no. I don't think you need to be able to drive to be a safe cyclist.



But a cyclist should make a good driver


----------



## swee'pea99 (7 Jun 2016)

Re the comments on the weighting in the poll, I can't see any fundamental problem with that. I mean, a few people may be kidding themselves, but surely you'd expect that in a forum of cyclists you'd find a high proportion of people who cycle a lot more than most people who ride bikes, and cycling - and cycling safely - is, like most things, something that other things being equal, you'd probably expect people to get better at the more they do. Practice doesn't necessarily make perfect...but it probably does tend to make better than average.


----------



## martint235 (7 Jun 2016)

John the Monkey said:


> Funnily enough, it happened (at very low speed) to me the other day, at the lights by the Manchester Aquatic Centre car park (low speed enough that no damage was done). I suspect that the driver was on his 'phone in the queue of traffic, tbh.
> 
> First time in getting on for nine years though. I wait at reds personally, but don't really think the "they give us a bad name" argument holds water for a couple of reasons - one because it's pernicious nonsense that should be debunked every time it raises it's stupid head, and secondly because an awful lot of motorists haven't the first idea of what's legal/safe, judging by the way they behave and the things they scream out of their windows. I'm uneasy about their anti-cyclist groupthink extending to things that they have convinced themselves aren't on (f'instance, I get told that flashing lights are illegal at least twice each winter, usually in a disculpatory rant following a close overtake or some other idiocy)..
> 
> Commuting into Manchester daily for about 9 years, I can count the number of times other cyclists have given me pause on the fingers of one hand, even those who are, presumably, below average. OTOH, I've had single journeys where I'd need every digit to count the tailgating, close overtaking and dangerous inattention of motorists on the same route.


It is debunked every time but it still keeps coming back which suggests it's giving us a bad name. It's not just drivers who believe it though,,pedestrians raise the same thing time and again.

Different commutes, different experiences. The number of idiots in cars and on bikes on my commute is roughly similar however the percentages are very different. I commute at right angles to the major routes into London so don't see many cyclists, 3 maybe 4, of which 2 or 3 will do something stupid or illegal.


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Jun 2016)

martint235 said:


> It is debunked every time but it still keeps coming back which suggests it's giving us a bad name.


Maybe ask them about their drink driving then, or why they keep driving trucks into cars on the M6. It's drivers that are doing that, after all, innit?


----------



## martint235 (7 Jun 2016)

John the Monkey said:


> Maybe ask them about their drink driving then, or why they keep driving trucks into cars on the M6. It's drivers that are doing that, after all, innit?


It is indeed but there is a huge difference in perception. Go into your local pub or cafe and ask people if all drivers are drunk drivers then ask if all cyclists jump red lights. The answers I predict are: "Don't be silly. Of course it's an issue but we've more or less stamped it out in the last 20 years or so" and "No but an awful lot of them do don't they?"


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Jun 2016)

martint235 said:


> It is indeed but there is a huge difference in perception. Go into your local pub or cafe and ask people if all drivers are drunk drivers then ask if all cyclists jump red lights. The answers I predict are: "Don't be silly. Of course it's an issue but we've more or less stamped it out in the last 20 years or so" and "No but an awful lot of them do don't they?"


And I've no doubt that they'll not see the inherent contradiction either. I think our points of disagreement are on whether we should, in any way, police the behaviour that they find problematic, accept their cognitively dissonant outlook on matters without disagreement, or accept members of our own community recapitulating it unchallenged.

I'm happy to agree to disagree with you at this point, I think.


----------



## martint235 (7 Jun 2016)

John the Monkey said:


> And I've no doubt that they'll not see the inherent contradiction either. I think our points of disagreement are on whether we should, in any way, police the behaviour that they find problematic, accept their cognitively dissonant outlook on matters without disagreement, or accept members of our own community recapitulating it unchallenged.
> 
> I'm happy to agree to disagree with you at this point, I think.


Yep probably best.

I do enjoy beating RLJers (and other cycling lawbreakers) over the head with their faults though. That's just me.


----------

