# Mate got hit by car, mrs not keen on me cycling anymore...



## ishaqmir (13 Jan 2020)

Hi everyone

I’m relatively new to road cycling, been cycling for about 6 months and absolutely love it, regardless of the weather, as long as I have the right clothing for it.

Now recently I got my mate into cycling who hasn‘t cycled for over a year and he started to really enjoy riding with me. Last Sunday was only his 3rd ride with me and he tagged along with me from Solihull to Coventry (I had work that day). I couldn’t believe my eyes when I crossed the roundabout safely but looked back to see that the same driver who had given me way had not seen my mate behind me and ran over his back wheel. Anyways, there was me and another 2 cyclists that saw everything, and the taxi driver who ran him over also came out and admitted he didnt see the cyclist. My mate ended up with a fractured wrist and has had to take a break from driving and work for 4-6 weeks. He is going through the drivers insurance company etc.

I was absolutely shocked on Sunday and felt very upset. Didnt feel like cycling anymore. Also, when I got home I had to tell the Mrs everything as she would have found out anyway. She is now saying she doesnt want me to cycle anymore...

What would everyone’s advice be in this situation so that I can quickly and safely get back onto the road again... also, any advice I could give to my friend so that I can encourage him to cycle with me again once he‘s fully recovered?


----------



## classic33 (13 Jan 2020)

Find quieter roads, to build your confidence back up and/or change the times(If possible) that you're on the roads.


----------



## Slick (13 Jan 2020)

Don't want to sound harsh to you or your mate, but you wouldn't stop driving if your mate had a bump in the car.

No matter how you cut it, it's still a very safe activity and you know the old saying about lightening striking twice.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (13 Jan 2020)

Is your wife going to stop driving as a result?


----------



## Phaeton (13 Jan 2020)

Would your wife ask you to stop walking if he had got knocked down whilst just crossing the road?


----------



## All uphill (13 Jan 2020)

That's horrible for your friend and for you.

The best advice I can offer is to take a little time to let the shock pass and then take the advice above and restart gently.

Best wishes


----------



## dave r (13 Jan 2020)

ishaqmir said:


> Hi everyone
> 
> I’m relatively new to road cycling, been cycling for about 6 months and absolutely love it, regardless of the weather, as long as I have the right clothing for it.
> 
> ...



Which roundabout was it? What area of Coventry are you heading for?


----------



## ishaqmir (13 Jan 2020)

dave r said:


> Which roundabout was it? What area of Coventry are you heading for?



we were still in Solihull at the big Catherine de Barnes roundabout which comes after Hampton Lane, just had to ride straight over, 2nd exit to Hampton in Arden. I always ride it on a Sunday to work, never had any problems, hardly any traffic on a Sunday morning...


----------



## dave r (13 Jan 2020)

ishaqmir said:


> we were still in Solihull at the big Catherine de Barnes roundabout which comes after Hampton Lane, just had to ride straight over, 2nd exit to Hampton in Arden. I always ride it on a Sunday to work, never had any problems, hardly any traffic on a Sunday morning...



I know where you are, I haven't been that way for a long time.


----------



## Sharky (13 Jan 2020)

Slick said:


> Don't want to sound harsh to you or your mate, but you wouldn't stop driving if your mate had a bump in the car.
> 
> No matter how you cut it, it's still a very safe activity and you know the old saying about lightening striking twice.


Reminds me of what my old physics teacher said. If lightening never strikes twice, then lightening conductors would not be very effective after the first strike.


----------



## Ridgeway (13 Jan 2020)

Get a mountain bike and enjoy the trails for a few months, maybe a year and then see if your appetite for the road returns, probably by then your wife may have relaxed some what.


----------



## derrick (13 Jan 2020)

Just get on with it. No good worrying about what might happen.


----------



## dave r (13 Jan 2020)

ishaqmir said:


> we were still in Solihull at the big Catherine de Barnes roundabout which comes after Hampton Lane, just had to ride straight over, 2nd exit to Hampton in Arden. I always ride it on a Sunday to work, never had any problems, hardly any traffic on a Sunday morning...



I've been refreshing my memory on google maps, there ain't many options round there and that is a quiet route between Cov and Solihull.


----------



## ishaqmir (13 Jan 2020)

dave r said:


> I've been refreshing my memory on google maps, there ain't many options round there and that is a quiet route between Cov and Solihull.



exactly, just a really stupid driver!


----------



## vickster (14 Jan 2020)

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/accident-advice.226114/
Point your friend in the direction of this link. If he is injured and is going to lose income, he may want to consider claiming against the driver and using a solicitor is the best way to do it. Companies like Leigh Day, Slater & Gordon and Bott &Co have specialist teams if he's not already sorted.

Consider getting some legal cover and 3rd party indemnity insurance if you don't have it already.

As above, you really just have to get back on the horse as soon as possible in a way that works for you


----------



## sleuthey (14 Jan 2020)

My wife was the opposite. She encouraged me to get back on the road fearing the longer I left it the more scared I would get. To answer your questions in the same order:

Just do it. Tell your wife if you don't then you will make your environmental contribution by joining extinction rebellion.

Find a quieter route and I would personally wear a helmet.

Don't, leave it up to him, if it happens again you will feel part responsible.


----------



## Fiona R (14 Jan 2020)

ishaqmir said:


> Hi everyone
> 
> I’m relatively new to road cycling, been cycling for about 6 months and absolutely love it, regardless of the weather, as long as I have the right clothing for it.
> 
> ...


My husband came home last night and said colleague was off work again who has had lots of back ops, he was doing ok but was rammed in a car accident on his way home on Friday night, bad whiplash, poor guy is back to square one I should imagine. Accidents can happen any time. Slipping and falling on stairs, burning yourself, chopping fingers cooking. Most dangerous place of all is bed, that’s where most people die.


----------



## Dogtrousers (14 Jan 2020)

Perhaps rein it back in for a bit. Choose quieter routes. Send regular messages home.

When I decided to give up cycle commuting into London and to revert to the train my wife admitted to me that she absolutely hated me doing it and was mightily relieved.

Last injury in our household was my wife sprained her ankle taking the bins out. Which reminds me, it's bin day tomorrow. Maybe I should ... nah.


----------



## tom73 (14 Jan 2020)

Have you explained what cycling means to you ?
Was she fully supportive before you started cycling? 
l'd let the dust settle guess it’s a understandable reaction. 
Even though Mrs 73 cycles she still worriers about me when i'm out. Though mostly in case she need's to contact me. 
So we have 2 "rules" if you like she can find my location Via my Apple Watch and / or my bike gps and 2 I always take my phone. 

As for your mate 1st nice work to get him into cycling I've been trying with my mate but no go. A shame really we'd have a great time for sure. 
Find a gentle route with little traffic and take things slowly as other have said. You could see if British Cycling have any rides in your area they are mostly laidback and let you ride in group with no need to join a club. Plus the routes are checked and have someone leading them. 
It maybe a way to help ease things over with the mrs until things settle down too.


----------



## mjr (14 Jan 2020)

Cranky Knee Girl said:


> Most dangerous place of all is bed, that’s where most people die.


This. There are far bigger dangers than the motorists you can see which will probably pass much closer to you if you stop cycling: heart attacks, cancer, stroke, depression and many more. Do whatever you need to get moving again and to explain to yourself and your family why it's better than being inactive. The risk of being hit by a car is obvious, noticeable and often overestimated - the opposite of being hit by an inactivity-related illness.

Some people say you could always go to the gym instead or swim or whatever. Yes, that's correct, you could. But stats suggest most people don't find time for that and even fewer stick at it. If you can, well done, but I'd rather be cycling! It's the logical choice!


----------



## Phaeton (14 Jan 2020)

Not victim blaming & we shouldn't have to do it, but make sure you wear bright clothing, even ride with your lights on in the day, although being hit from the side in this instance may not have helped, but had your mate had a flashing front light the dozy driver may have been jolted into attention.


----------



## mjr (14 Jan 2020)

sleuthey said:


> [...] and I would personally wear a helmet.


The mate broke his wrist and those things aren't intended for multivehicle collisions so can we please leave them out of it and in https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/the-cyclechat-helmet-debate-thread.187059/ where they belong!


----------



## mjr (14 Jan 2020)

Phaeton said:


> Not victim blaming & we shouldn't have to do it, but make sure you wear bright clothing, even ride with your lights on in the day, although being hit from the side in this instance may not have helped, but had your mate had a flashing front light the dozy driver may have been jolted into attention.


Seems unlikely. The driver probably didn't look properly and breaking up a human outline with a bike light or hi-viz dazzle camo is unlikely to aid correct recognition by such a driver. And starting a post "not victim-blaming" doesn't make it so.


----------



## Phaeton (14 Jan 2020)

mjr said:


> And starting a post "not victim-blaming" doesn't make it so.


What that I am or that we do need to take measures that we shouldn't


----------



## BrumJim (14 Jan 2020)

mjr said:


> This. There are far bigger dangers than the motorists you can see which will probably pass much closer to you if you stop cycling: heart attacks, cancer, stroke, depression and many more. Do whatever you need to get moving again and to explain to yourself and your family why it's better than being inactive. The risk of being hit by a car is obvious, noticeable and often overestimated - the opposite of being hit by an inactivity-related illness.



Definitely this one. As humans we are much better at seeing the immediate danger than the long term one. I don't know how to explain to someone that you would much rather take the risks on the road than put your health in danger. Although my wife understands the immediate danger of me not cycling, which, through the endorphins cold-turkey is a severe case of grumpiness.


----------



## derrick (14 Jan 2020)

Phaeton said:


> Not victim blaming & we shouldn't have to do it,* but make sure you wear bright clothing, even ride with your lights on in the day,* although being hit from the side in this instance may not have helped, but had your mate had a flashing front light the dozy driver may have been jolted into attention.


That is the biggest load of bullshit, My wife was lit up like a christmas tree when she got hit by a car, the driver was on the phone, if they aint looking it does not matter what you wear.


----------



## confusedcyclist (14 Jan 2020)

ishaqmir said:


> What would everyone’s advice be in this situation so that I can quickly and safely get back onto the road again... also, any advice I could give to my friend so that I can encourage him to cycle with me again once he‘s fully recovered?



Sadly, when you put yourself out there on our roads, there's only so much you can do to protect yourself. No amount of careful riding is going to protect you from idiots behind the wheel who do the unexpected. There are a lot of them. Some will actively bully vulnerable road users, other's make honest mistakes, where are all human after all. Sadly though, most incidents could be avoided and only occur because motorists become complacent and take unnecessary risks, e.g. closes passes. They have less skin in the game than a cyclist, and won't be hurt in a collision with one, so they tend to be less mindful than cyclists. Safety equipment like airbags and belts and steel cages actually discourage safer driving, because they compensate for failing to anticipating certain risks which would be unacceptable to two wheel counterparts.

Still, when you look at the risk of being killed or seriously injured, statistically speaking, you are far better off cycling than leading a sedentary lifestyle. Still, that's really no consolation to the unlucky few or families of those killed or seriously injured. The more time you spend in the saddle, the greater the risk of injury. Despite cycling being less safe relative to some other modes of transport, at an absolute level, it is, nevertheless, a safe way of travelling and serious accidents are rare. In 2013 there was roughly 1 KSI casualty per 1 million miles cycled and 1 KSI casualty per roughly 100,000 hours of cycling. 

However, when you remove the idiots from the picture, i.e. cycling at night, whilst drunk, on the pavement or the wrong way down the street, the picture improves somewhat. I have personally been hit by two cars (never with injury) and had many more scary near misses, more than I care to count, very rarely would my road position have helped me. Having said that, I've had many near misses in the car, but it hasn't stopped me getting behind the wheel, why should it stop me on a bicycle?


----------



## roubaixtuesday (14 Jan 2020)

confusedcyclist said:


> The more time you spend in the saddle, the greater the risk of injury.



But you lessen your risk of lifestyle illnesses by much more.


----------



## Phaeton (14 Jan 2020)

derrick said:


> That is the biggest load of bullshit, My wife was lit up like a christmas tree when she got hit by a car, the driver was on the phone, if they aint looking it does not matter what you wear.


Each to their own view, but if you are wearing bright clothes & have a flashing front light despite your indignation there is more chance they will see you. Sadly some will not no matter what you do.


----------



## mjr (14 Jan 2020)

Phaeton said:


> Each to their own view, but if you are wearing bright clothes & have a flashing front light despite your indignation there is more chance they will see you. Sadly some will not no matter what you do.


There's almost no evidence for the first bit in the real world (dazzle camo is still camo), repeating such myths discourages cycling and the last bit is a much bigger problem. Please don't exploit this collision to push them.


----------



## Phaeton (14 Jan 2020)

Lol


----------



## sleuthey (14 Jan 2020)

mjr said:


> The mate broke his wrist and those things aren't intended for multivehicle collisions


I'm not quite sure why you are stating helmet shortfalls in this thread when there is a specific thread for it here:

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/the-cyclechat-helmet-debate-thread.187059/

The OPs post is about his concerned wife and some wifes feel happier if their spouse wears one, others don't care. Mine does thus I'd personally wear one, as stated above.

I have made no recommendation for the OP to wear one and offered no comment on the benefit to his safety.


----------



## MontyVeda (14 Jan 2020)

My mum doesn't like me riding my bike up to my sister's (a 28 mile round trip on mostly nice rural roads), and insists on driving me... the fact that I'm statistically more at risk in a car than on my bike just doesn't sink in. People worry and worrying doesn't follow logic.

some hastily googled stats...



> *Casualties by road user type*
> In 2017, the highest number of fatalities were *car users*, both drivers and passengers, who accounted for 44% of road deaths (669) in the UK. [11]
> 
> There were 470 *pedestrian* deaths in the UK in 2017, a 5% increase on 2016. 26% of all road deaths were pedestrians [12].
> ...



Not sure why they state the number of cyclist casualties but not casualties of other road user types.


----------



## icowden (14 Jan 2020)

mjr said:


> There's almost no evidence for the first bit in the real world (dazzle camo is still camo), repeating such myths discourages cycling and the last bit is a much bigger problem. Please don't exploit this collision to push them.



Going back to the question that the OP asked rather than other questions. The OP's other half might be reassured by the OP deciding to wear a reflective and / or helmet. Another anxiety easing measure might be to use Strava and the beacon feature so that the OPs partner can see where the OP is on his ride.

It could also be worth using something like cyclestreets to look at the number of incidents (unless your route is fraught with peril!) that occur on the route to illustrate that actually, this was a real one off...


----------



## mjr (14 Jan 2020)

icowden said:


> Going back to the question that the OP asked rather than other questions. The OP's other half might be reassured by the OP deciding to wear a reflective and / or helmet.


Then someone should suggest how to explain the reality to the OP's wife rather than encourage the OP to possibly increase cycling risks in order to fit in with mistaken views. There are enough people with odd beliefs about cycling out there to be unhelpful (calling for bad laws, refusing to convict incompetent motorists when on juries and so on) without cyclists letting our families be among them.



> Another anxiety easing measure might be to use Strava and the beacon feature so that the OPs partner can see where the OP is on his ride.


Yes. Any remote-requestable tracker will do that. I think they're good ideas generally but not the snoopy commercial ones. Even a simple "find my phone" app will often work for this.



> It could also be worth using something like cyclestreets to look at the number of incidents (unless your route is fraught with peril!) that occur on the route to illustrate that actually, this was a real one off...


Another great idea. https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net


----------



## mjr (14 Jan 2020)

sleuthey said:


> I have made no recommendation for the OP to wear one and offered no comment on the benefit to his safety.


I feel posting "I would do X" in the context is an implied recommendation but I'm glad we agree discussing fashion belongs elsewhere!


----------



## Oxford Dave (14 Jan 2020)

I had a similar accident 4 years ago, a car driver who wasn't looking ran into the side of my rear wheel. I wasn't on a bicycle, though, but on a large and noisy Harley Davidson, so how she managed to 'not see' me is a mystery. Unless, of course, she happened not be looking at the time...
I stepped back to two wheels yesterday when I bought a bicycle. I haven't been able to ride a motorcycle since the accident, after which I spent a month in hospital and a further 6-8 months learning how to walk again and getting my right hand to work to some extent. But despite that, the memory of the event fades, and riding becomes possible again. Just give it time.


----------



## derrick (14 Jan 2020)

Phaeton said:


> Each to their own view, but if you are wearing bright clothes & have a flashing front light despite your indignation there is more chance they will see you. Sadly some will not no matter what you do.


So if they are looking they will see you.


----------



## Phaeton (14 Jan 2020)

derrick said:


> So if they are looking they will see you.


No guarantee even then, there is a difference in seeing you & reacting to that fact.


----------



## classic33 (14 Jan 2020)

Isn't the biggest issue one of how ishaqmir could get himself back into cycling, his confidence having taken a knock. Followed by how he reassures his wife cycling is still safe?

The people he's asked for help in answering these questions, trying to prove their views are the only ones worth considering aren't answering or helping. We all react differently to such incidents, and there is a knock on effect to family that may not cycle. Reassuring them may be the hardest part of this. However if in trying to help them, family, in this involves the simple step of making themselves more visible in their partners eyes, why is it dismissed out of hand?

If such simple measures work for his family, they may just help his own confidence return. He'll have one less to worry about whilst cycling, enabling him to enjoy the cycling.


----------



## MichaelW2 (14 Jan 2020)

I have been hit by a car exiting a side road because I was obscured by the drivers A column. They are so thick on modern cars that they are a danger to smaller road users. You have to look the driver in the eye. Only once has a driver looked me in the eye and accelerated towards me.


----------



## icowden (14 Jan 2020)

Another idea to get your confidence back up is to look for cycle routes near you that are car free or car minimal. Towpaths are often good for this as are Royal parks, etc. 

A cycling club might be another way as traffic is more cautious (usually) around larger groups of cyclists.


----------



## ishaqmir (14 Jan 2020)

MichaelW2 said:


> I have been hit by a car exiting a side road because I was obscured by the drivers A column. They are so thick on modern cars that they are a danger to smaller road users. You have to look the driver in the eye. Only once has a driver looked me in the eye and accelerated towards me.



bang on, at this big roundabout I got into it first and had a bright flashing day light on my bike and another on my helmet, I looked that taxi driver in the eye and then did my hand signal, the flashing lights and signal got his attention and he slowed and waited for me to pass. But my mate was just a few metres behind and apparently was in his A pillar and therefore got hit, regardless, the taxi driver was at fault 100%.


I want to thank EVERYONE on here for all the replies, has really helped me get my mind back together...


----------



## kingrollo (14 Jan 2020)

I often have a similar dilemma - my approach is 

1.I really enjoy cycling 

2.Have I done everything I can to get the risk down to the minimum ? - others my scorn at the effectiveness or otherwise of the below:-


I use flashing lights all the time 
The vast majority of the rides I do are recorded on camera 
I have a personal injury policy - that if I am injured or worse in a cycling accident my family get a benefit of £35k (thats benefit not a litigation claim) 
I try to consider when and where to cycle.
In addition after a car hit me a couple of years back - I sat down with family and asked if I should quit, the reaction was:-

"Of course not - you love it"


----------



## BrumJim (14 Jan 2020)

ishaqmir said:


> we were still in Solihull at the big Catherine de Barnes roundabout which comes after Hampton Lane, just had to ride straight over, 2nd exit to Hampton in Arden. I always ride it on a Sunday to work, never had any problems, hardly any traffic on a Sunday morning...



It's one of those deceptive roundabouts. It looks rather rural, but is sufficiently close to civilisation in general, and Birmingham Airport in particular, to be rather busy and used by those with minds elsewhere. When I really want to scare myself, I go over the Bickenhill roundabout above the A45 just before the M42, and also the M42 J9 roundabout.

Whilst HiVi and good lights are important, I have heard the phrase "lit up like a Christmas Tree" enough when associated with an accident to know that there is nothing you can do to bring yourself to the attention of some drivers (or all drivers at some point). I half-jokingly comment, at times, that the safest thing to do is to ride around at night with no lights on. Not all the time, just once. It changes your attitude from "they must be able to see me" to "there is a good chance that they can't see me", and therefore you adjust your riding and attitude accordingly. Now I naturally move towards the centre line anytime I see a car approach from a side road.

This incident looks like a variation to this one, where the second cyclist assumes that because they saw the first, they will see the second too. An easy mistake to make. The last one I made (ignoring the didn't see one) was a car doing a U-turn in the road. They moved, stopped, moved then stopped again. Assumed that they had seen me. They hadn't.


----------



## mjr (14 Jan 2020)

classic33 said:


> The people he's asked for help in answering these questions, trying to prove their views are the only ones worth considering aren't answering or helping.


I think few are trying to prove their views are the only ones worth considering. I think more are trying to prove that certain other views are flawed, which is not quite the same. After all, this seems to be doing similar:



> We all react differently to such incidents, and there is a knock on effect to family that may not cycle. Reassuring them may be the hardest part of this. However if in trying to help them, family, in this involves the simple step of making themselves more visible in their partners eyes, why is it dismissed out of hand?


Because it's one of those simple, obvious and wrong answers. Doing whatever superstitious nonsense people demand (even if they're family - and I've had this sort of discussion with some of my own family, of course) won't help anyone in the long term. Once a rider complies with one baseless "common sense" demand, there may well be pressure to comply with another... possibly continuing forever. How many hoops should someone have to jump through before getting on a bike, before you'd say it was too much? And if some of us are right and so-called hi-vis is more often dazzle camo and it puts the rider at more risk, shouldn't we try to dissuade all involved before they get hurt?

Let's take another widespread-safety-myth analogy: if a relative wanted you to install electrical socket covers before they visit with their young child, would you comply for a quiet life or try to explain that they're unnecessary with UK socket designs and actually more dangerous than nothing? And if you complied, how would you feel if the child then uses a bent cover to expose a live pin and shock herself?

And as @Dogtrousers may suspect, I don't try to cite a load of stats and I'm less abrupt with my family than on this forum. As @MontyVeda alluded to, worry isn't always logical, so the arguments need to be more emotional, even if they're underpinned by evidence, but what works for you probably isn't what worked for me so I leave other people to choose arguments that seem natural to them.


----------



## tom73 (14 Jan 2020)

kingrollo said:


> I often have a similar dilemma - my approach is
> 
> 1.I really enjoy cycling
> 
> ...



Totally as with anything you can only minimise things in your control. 
Even on the rides that feel like the wild west you still end up with a smile on your face life don't get much better than on two wheels. 
I too know what Mrs 73 would say if I ever did ask about quitting


----------



## classic33 (14 Jan 2020)

mjr said:


> I think few are trying to prove their views are the only ones worth considering. I think more are trying to prove that certain other views are flawed, which is not quite the same. After all, this seems to be doing similar:
> 
> 
> Because it's one of those simple, obvious and wrong answers. Doing whatever superstitious nonsense people demand (even if they're family - and I've had this sort of discussion with some of my own family, of course) won't help anyone in the long term. Once a rider complies with one baseless "common sense" demand, there may well be pressure to comply with another... possibly continuing forever. How many hoops should someone have to jump through before getting on a bike, before you'd say it was too much? And if some of us are right and so-called hi-vis is more often dazzle camo and it puts the rider at more risk, shouldn't we try to dissuade all involved before they get hurt?
> ...


You are basing your responses on your reactions, and your inbuilt prejudices. I've said we all react differently.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (14 Jan 2020)

Best of luck @ishaqmir .

My own experience after being hit was that I was very nervous for the next few rides, but OK once back into it. 

I found my cycling habits changed permanently, specifically in my case moving into the middle of the carriageway when passing a motorist waiting at a left hand side junction, and no longer trusting that I had made eye contact. Perhaps you may find similar with your approach to roundabouts.


----------



## fossyant (14 Jan 2020)

I don't cycle on roads anymore - been hit too many times whilst riding to work I've packed it in. Missing part of my spine, being left in permanent pain, and very nearly having to spend the next 40 years in a wheel chair put an end to it. 

I MTB now, if I crash, and I do, it's my fault  - or the tree/rock/root/mud's fault..... Not someone in 1500kg plus tin box running me down who doesn't care less.

The stress it put on my wife and kids whilst I was in hospital nearly 2 months wasn't worth it. 

I was a hardened road cyclist, quite used to a few knocks, but badly fractured spine (2 vertebrae, 4 ribs, extensive bruising etc etc). PS the bike was fine. I must say I never want to be in that level of pain again - I was quite happy to die to put me out of my misery (plus my o2 stats were low 70's - intensive care jobbie). Not something to be repeated.

Having a very serious accident changes your views somewhat.


----------



## Andy in Germany (14 Jan 2020)

Slick said:


> Don't want to sound harsh to you or your mate, but you wouldn't stop driving if your mate had a bump in the car.



I must admit, I stopped driving partly because of this: I never hit anyone but every time I drove I was terrified that it would happen. It got worse and worse until I started getting full on anxiety attacks.


----------



## kingrollo (14 Jan 2020)

fossyant said:


> I don't cycle on roads anymore - been hit too many times whilst riding to work I've packed it in. Missing part of my spine, being left in permanent pain, and very nearly having to spend the next 40 years in a wheel chair put an end to it.
> 
> I MTB now, if I crash, and I do, it's my fault  - or the tree/rock/root/mud's fault..... Not someone in 1500kg plus tin box running me down who doesn't care less.
> 
> ...



Bad shoot - thats the risk we all take.


----------



## confusedcyclist (14 Jan 2020)

roubaixtuesday said:


> But you lessen your risk of lifestyle illnesses by much more.


Yes, I said that.


----------



## confusedcyclist (14 Jan 2020)

mjr said:


> Yes. Any remote-requestable tracker will do that. I think they're good ideas generally but not the snoopy commercial ones. Even a simple "find my phone" app will often work for this.


Not so useful if you work in A&E.


----------



## confusedcyclist (14 Jan 2020)

MichaelW2 said:


> I have been hit by a car exiting a side road because I was obscured by the drivers A column. They are so thick on modern cars that they are a danger to smaller road users. You have to look the driver in the eye. Only once has a driver looked me in the eye and accelerated towards me.


Looking drivers in the eye is another myth unfortunately. Drivers look, but they don't always see/anticipate.
The only sensible way to mitigate it is keeping cyclists completely separated from motor traffic with inexpensive infrastructure (all things relative). In the mean time we are forced to ride with extreme caution and expect everyone hasn't seen you, but you'll be disappointed to learn that to execute that it means being in control and ready to stop on a moments notice at all times. Definitely don't engage with strava segments or fast descents on busy roads and junctions.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (14 Jan 2020)

confusedcyclist said:


> The more time you spend in the saddle, the greater the risk of injury.



Just so this isn’t interpreted incorrectly.

It doesn’t mean the risk is any different if a rider has spent a lot of time riding in their life. In fact the more experience you have the likelihood of a lower risk due to the actions you to take to avoid stupid drivers or situations you recognise. What it means is that over your lifetime you are exposed to the risks more often. But the risk is the same every time you go out for a ride.

If I have 100,000 hours of saddle time I’m no more likely to be hit on my next ride than someone with just 100 hours saddle time.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (14 Jan 2020)

MichaelW2 said:


> I have been hit by a car exiting a side road because I was obscured by the drivers A column. They are so thick on modern cars that they are a danger to smaller road users. You have to look the driver in the eye. Only once has a driver looked me in the eye and accelerated towards me.



Primary and Secondary positioning is about where a driver is looking / expecting to see something when pulling out of a junction. Also about controlling the bit of road space you are in. Primary is essentially cycling where a car driver would be positioned on road. Useful to be in that position when approaching junctions. Beware of cycling up alongside cars stuck in traffic. Bike lanes as in white paint are in the worst position on a road for being noticed. In the door zone and not where most drivers are looking as that’d involving turning their head which is impossible due to lack of exercise and flabby necks.

See https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/c...ze-Bikeability--Part-4--On-Road-Positioning-0


----------



## Slick (14 Jan 2020)

fossyant said:


> I don't cycle on roads anymore - been hit too many times whilst riding to work I've packed it in. Missing part of my spine, being left in permanent pain, and very nearly having to spend the next 40 years in a wheel chair put an end to it.
> 
> I MTB now, if I crash, and I do, it's my fault  - or the tree/rock/root/mud's fault..... Not someone in 1500kg plus tin box running me down who doesn't care less.
> 
> ...


That must have been tough.

Your spot on about what can change your viewpoint, which is why we all come up with different solutions because we have all had very different experiences.

I don't doubt for a second that I wouldn't ride on the road or anywhere else again if I went through what you went through.


----------



## Slick (14 Jan 2020)

Andy in Germany said:


> I must admit, I stopped driving partly because of this: I never hit anyone but every time I drove I was terrified that it would happen. It got worse and worse until I started getting full on anxiety attacks.


Did you ever get to deal with it?

Mrs Slick is the exact same but she has never been involved in any incident but the fear of such is enough to stop her driving any distance. I would love to be able to do something about it.


----------



## Andy in Germany (14 Jan 2020)

Slick said:


> Did you ever get to deal with it?
> 
> Mrs Slick is the exact same but she has never been involved in any incident but the fear of such is enough to stop her driving any distance. I would love to be able to do something about it.



The one possible approach would be Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, but honestly, I'm not interested. I learned to drive late and most unwillingly, because I was persuaded that in rural Bavaria I "needed to be able to drive"*. I never got used to being in a box so low down with blind spots, and not being able to hear anything. And the awareness that this thing can kill so very easily. 

I was fine working in a city farm and driving the tractor because it was high, slow, and has relatively few blind spots.

*_This was absolute twaddle, as it happens. There were cycle ways to most places and almost no traffic._


----------



## Pat "5mph" (14 Jan 2020)

Slick said:


> Mrs Slick is the exact same but she has never been involved in any incident but the fear of such is enough to stop her driving any distance. I would love to be able to do something about it.


@Andy in Germany @Slick I'm the same.
Reluctantly got a driver's license years ago, but never really drove, because I hate it.
I'm not exactly feared of crashing, it's just that I feel I'm not a safe driver.
Driving stresses me, so I don't do it, never had a problem living car-less.


----------



## Slick (14 Jan 2020)

Pat "5mph" said:


> @Andy in Germany @Slick I'm the same.
> Reluctantly got a driver's license years ago, but never really drove, because I hate it.
> I'm not exactly feared of crashing, it's just that I feel I'm not a safe driver.
> Driving stresses me, so I don't do it, never had a problem living car-less.


In truth, neither has Mrs Slick, it's probably more me that is trying to encourage her to increase her level of independence if nothing else.

I probably shouldn't push it though, especially when she has such a handsome chauffeur.


----------



## tom73 (14 Jan 2020)

oh you Smooth talker you


----------



## roubaixtuesday (14 Jan 2020)

Slick said:


> I probably shouldn't push it though, especially when she has such a handsome chauffeur.



Slick by name...


----------



## Slick (14 Jan 2020)

tom73 said:


> oh you Smooth talker you


Charm the birds clean out the trees.


----------



## Slick (14 Jan 2020)

roubaixtuesday said:


> Slick by name...


Is that an aptronym?


----------



## icowden (15 Jan 2020)

mjr said:


> Because it's one of those simple, obvious and wrong answers. Doing whatever superstitious nonsense people demand (even if they're family - and I've had this sort of discussion with some of my own family, of course) won't help anyone in the long term. Once a rider complies with one baseless "common sense" demand, there may well be pressure to comply with another... possibly continuing forever. How many hoops should someone have to jump through before getting on a bike, before you'd say it was too much? And if some of us are right and so-called hi-vis is more often dazzle camo and it puts the rider at more risk, shouldn't we try to dissuade all involved before they get hurt?



@mjr By your own admission there is almost no evidence that wearing safety equipment is superstitious nonsense. Repeating such myths may discourage cyclists from taking steps that they feel improve their personal safety, which may reassure their loved ones, and which may or may not prevent injury. Please don't exploit this collision to push your own agenda.

Let's agree that all safety equipment is Schrodinger's safety equipment until such time that a proponent of either side of the argument can provide a scientific randomised double blind trial that supports the use of the aforementioned safety equipment. 

In fact lets agree that the only person who can decide whether or not equipment such as reflectors or helmets is a good idea or not, is the person making the decision, and keep the thread on topic


----------



## classic33 (15 Jan 2020)

Slick said:


> Is that an aptronym?


No drugs, please!


----------



## mjr (15 Jan 2020)

icowden said:


> @mjr By your own admission there is almost no evidence that wearing safety equipment is superstitious nonsense. Repeating such myths may discourage cyclists from taking steps that they feel improve their personal safety, which may reassure their loved ones, and which may or may not prevent injury. Please don't exploit this collision to push your own agenda.


1. Saying "X doesn't work" when there is no evidence that it works is not itself a myth.
2. Calling certain fashion items "safety equipment" is itself begging the question and should be challenged in any rational society.
3. Discouraging people from wasting time on placebos is itself a good thing.
4. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so thank you.



icowden said:


> Let's agree that all safety equipment is Schrodinger's safety equipment until such time that a proponent of either side of the argument can provide a scientific randomised double blind trial that supports the use of the aforementioned safety equipment.
> 
> In fact lets agree that the only person who can decide whether or not equipment such as reflectors or helmets is a good idea or not, is the person making the decision, and keep the thread on topic


Double-blind trials of most of this shoot is not possible any more. Epidemiology is good enough.

I'm very happy to let riders make their own decisions as long as it hurts no-one else - or at least it almost hurts no-one else (maybe excusing secondary effects like reducing cycling that are vague and hard to prove). Note my first post here did not mention any of the snake oil victim-blaming products and I only mentioned those after others suggested them. When a post on a thread like this gives controversial bad advice, such as wearing plastic dazzle camouflage clothes to make oneself "visible", surely other views should be presented too?

BTW: I still would like to know how to be invisible because there are some cycleway obstructions that I'd like to remove and that would be easier if I was invisible.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (15 Jan 2020)

icowden said:


> @mjr
> Let's agree that all safety equipment is Schrodinger's safety equipment until such time that a proponent of either side of the argument can provide a scientific randomised double blind trial that supports the use of the aforementioned safety equipment.



Let's not call it safety equipment till it has been proven as such.


----------



## Phaeton (15 Jan 2020)

View: https://gfycat.com/courteousunluckyflamingo


----------



## united4ever (22 Jan 2020)

Brings back memories for me this, new to cycling and driver didn't see me at a roundabout....cue a lot of contemplation from me and family questioning why I take the risk. In the end I returned but vowed to keep off roads as much as possible and really analysed ways I could minimise risk and changed some things like routes, having lights on and flashing in daytime, I will only choose bright cycling clothes....thought about a camera but didn't bother in the end. Really enjoy zipping about town on the roads but just cannot trust drivers anymore so try to minimise road journeys and stick to shared cycle paths if possible.


----------



## Phaeton (22 Jan 2020)

Out on the bike today & pulled over for a woman on horseback so she could pass on a narrow bridleway, we got talking & she also commented on the lack of empathy for hoorse riders on the road now, she won't go on one unless she has to.


----------



## Cycling_Samurai (26 Feb 2021)

Best of luck to you mate. Terrible thing to happen. I had a bad incident when I was young and didn't pick up cycling until last year. My brothers and my father all surf. I had one experience that nearly put my eye out and haven't surfed since. My father has been hospitalized and nearly killed 3 times but he still surfs. Point is you choose what's best for you. I also ride motorcycle and have gone down several times but I keep riding. You learn from your mistakes and the mistakes of others.


----------



## Andy in Germany (26 Feb 2021)

Andy in Germany said:


> The one possible approach would be Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, but honestly, I'm not interested. I learned to drive late and most unwillingly, because I was persuaded that in rural Bavaria I "needed to be able to drive"*. I never got used to being in a box so low down with blind spots, and not being able to hear anything. And the awareness that this thing can kill so very easily.
> 
> I was fine working in a city farm and driving the tractor because it was high, slow, and has relatively few blind spots.
> 
> *_This was absolute twaddle, as it happens. There were cycle ways to most places and almost no traffic._



Ironic that this came up again today: my (hopefully) new employer has said I'll have to drive occasionally, because I'll have to take clients to job interviews and then visit them to make sure they're doing okay.

It's a rural area so no city driving, and they said I can have a company car and plenty of time to practice. also the rest of the job is what I'd really like to do, so it looks like I'll be trying again.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (26 Feb 2021)




----------



## SkipdiverJohn (28 Feb 2021)

confusedcyclist said:


> The only sensible way to mitigate it is keeping cyclists completely separated from motor traffic with inexpensive infrastructure (all things relative). In the mean time we are forced to ride with extreme caution and expect everyone hasn't seen you



Separation doesn't eliminate the risk of crashes, it just gives a false sense of security and encourages inattentiveness. Anyone riding a bike should be exercising extreme caution all the time there is anyone/anything in the vicinity that you could have a coming together with. Doesn't matter if it's a motor vehicle, a pedestrian, a dog, another cyclist or something like an overhanging branch or a bit of bush sticking out into the path you are on. If you come into contact with any of them, they can have you off the bike and dump you straight on the ground.


----------



## Drago (28 Feb 2021)

Have a cycling mishap and everyone crawls out the woodwork to discourage you from riding.

Someone gets decapitated in a car accident and everyone drives their own cars to the funeral without giving it a second thought.


----------



## Cycling_Samurai (28 Feb 2021)

Ming the Merciless said:


> View attachment 575942


----------



## Cycling_Samurai (28 Feb 2021)

Drago said:


> Have a cycling mishap and everyone crawls out the woodwork to discourage you from riding.
> 
> Someone gets decapitated in a car accident and everyone drives their own cars to the funeral without giving it a second thought.


Tell me about it. sheesh.


----------



## kingrollo (1 Mar 2021)

Has to be your call . I got knocked off a few years ago. Had a similar dilemma - sat down with wife and kids and asked what they thought "dad - but you love it"

Why don't take out cycling personal accident insurance and get an on board camera, some daylight flashing lights. - that way you have limited the risks and provision is in place should the worst happen.


----------



## simongt (1 Mar 2021)

Was rear ended, broken hip, three months off work, no cycling etc.. Nothing was going to stop me getting back on a bike again. Fortunately, the GLW is also a cyclist, so no overtures of fear from her - ! The only difference it's made to me is that I now avoid that particular stretch of road where I was hit. 
What I do think made a big difference in my case is that due to the concussion - yes, I was wearing a bash hat, I still have no recollection of the fall off my bike, I've nothing to 're-live' as it were.


----------



## Johnno260 (1 Mar 2021)

Time can play a big factor, I prep all my stuff the night before, set the alarm for 5am fuel up, and head out and I see very little traffic, this time of year you get fantastic sun rises as a bonus.

Also if the wife is stressing like mine was she got me my strava prem for the tracking, and she knew I would like the other bonus items, she also got me a radar rear light last Chritmas which I love as a solo rider and can't recommend enough.


----------



## mjr (1 Mar 2021)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Separation doesn't eliminate the risk of crashes, it just gives a false sense of security and encourages inattentiveness. Anyone riding a bike should be exercising extreme caution all the time there is anyone/anything in the vicinity that you could have a coming together with.


It must be very stressful riding everywhere with "extreme caution all the time". Doesn't it shorten your life compared to the blissed-out riders rolling along the motor-free cycleways? And moreover, you're already probably mentally exhausted before you reach a junction where you really need to pay attention, whereas a cycleway rider still feels fresh because they've not had to live with the "fear from the rear" for miles.

The main drawback with most British cycleways is recognising the junctions and the best ways to use them, because government here seems awful at marking them clearly or giving riders a cycle-friendly approach to the junction even though it's a farking cycleway! 


> Doesn't matter if it's a motor vehicle, a pedestrian, a dog, another cyclist or something like an overhanging branch or a bit of bush sticking out into the path you are on. If you come into contact with any of them, they can have you off the bike and dump you straight on the ground.


It is, however, much rarer for a pedestrian, dog, cyclist or plant to hit you so hard that you die, or to then continue to mash you into the ground, or drag you along the road like a rag doll, so it does rather matter what you come into contact with!

You can still get unlucky and lose out, but it's all about the probabilities and given the choice between having a kerb between me and the motorists or not, I'll usually pick having it.


----------



## Johnno260 (1 Mar 2021)

Main issue here (UK) is 90% of the cycling infrastructure I have seen just sucks, it's added at a later date and it's implemented in a 1/2 assed fashion.

My holidays in the Netherlands and France were such a wake up call, I could cycle all day there it's bliss.


----------



## Andy in Germany (1 Mar 2021)

mjr said:


> The main drawback with most British cycleways is recognising the junctions and the best ways to use them, because government here seems awful at marking them clearly or giving riders a cycle-friendly approach to the junction even though it's a farking cycleway!



I'd forgottan about that: these days I take it for granted I have right of way crossing side roads when on a cycleway


----------



## Johnno260 (1 Mar 2021)

Andy in Germany said:


> I'd forgottan about that: these days I take it for granted I have right of way crossing side roads when on a cycleway



I have seen people cross the road on a 20mph limit while they were crossing some nitwit comes roaring up the road hits the brakes and screams at them to gtfo the road, ignoring the fact that a ped already crossing has priority.

But what's the point in telling them their error you get called every name under the sun as the moron is obviously correct.


----------



## Cycling_Samurai (1 Mar 2021)

Johnno260 said:


> Time can play a big factor, I prep all my stuff the night before, set the alarm for 5am fuel up, and head out and I see very little traffic, this time of year you get fantastic sun rises as a bonus.
> 
> Also if the wife is stressing like mine was she got me my strava prem for the tracking, and she knew I would like the other bonus items, she also got me a radar rear light last Chritmas which I love as a solo rider and can't recommend enough.


I'm not sure how a radar light works any better than a regular LED light. I ride mostly in bike lanes and bike paths. There's nothing that will stop an inattentive driver from rear ending you except that driver or your not being there. My point is it seems like a lot of tech for little return. It probably gives a false sense of mind. I use LED lights on my bike for early morning rides with less traffic. There are many miles outside the city where i share the road with traffic. A lot of the time there is no bike lane or path just the edge of the road. Vast majority of traffic are courteous. Having mirror on my helmet is far more useful than a Garmin display. I'm not in constant fear of being hit.


----------



## Johnno260 (1 Mar 2021)

Cycling_Samurai said:


> I'm not sure how a radar light works any better than a regular LED light. I ride mostly in bike lanes and bike paths. There's nothing that will stop an inattentive driver from rear ending you except that driver or your not being there. My point is it seems like a lot of tech for little return. It probably gives a false sense of mind. I use LED lights on my bike for early morning rides with less traffic. There are many miles outside the city where i share the road with traffic. A lot of the time there is no bike lane or path just the edge of the road. Vast majority of traffic are courteous. Having mirror on my helmet is far more useful than a Garmin display. I'm not in constant fear of being hit.


I use roads, but the way it works is the headunit beeps if the radar picks something up, if they are going fast the screen flashes red, at this point you know you have a potential douche bag incoming, also a dot appears on the screen showing distance to you.

It doesn't replace a shoulder check, but it helps, I was stationary at temp lights and it flashed red, I checked my shoulder and Mr Audiot wasn't slowing so I got onto the curd as muppet McDipstick hit the cones.

It's not foolproof but it helps, and it's especially good with more EV's on the road.


----------



## iluvmybike (1 Mar 2021)

If we try to mitigate all risks or dangers - we would never go out - or even get out of bed. I am a lifelong cyclist and my hubby also cycles and yes I do 'worry' about him when he is out on his own - but he always carries a mobile and his gps has a tracker so I can see where he is - and vice-versa if I am out. Cycling is still a very safe activity compared to driving a car so you have to put it in perspective - government figures just released from last year show that car occupants accounted for 42% of fatalities (736 people) , pedestrians 27% (470) , motorcyclists 19% (336) and pedal cyclists 6% (100 people). Consider them alongside these stats from RoSPA:


The home is the most common location for an accident to happen
 

Every year across the UK, there are approximately 6,000 deaths as a result of home accidents
 

Children under the age of five years and people in later life (those over the age of 65, and particularly those over 75) are most likely to have an accident at home
 

Falls are the most common accidents and can cause serious injury at any time of life, but the risk increases with age
 

More women than men over the age of 65 die as a result of an accident in the home; however, among children more boys than girls have accidents at home
 

More accidents happen in the lounge/living room than anywhere else in the home
It is a question of perspective


----------



## mjr (1 Mar 2021)

Johnno260 said:


> I have seen people cross the road on a 20mph limit while they were crossing some nitwit comes roaring up the road hits the brakes and screams at them to gtfo the road, ignoring the fact that a ped already crossing has priority.
> 
> But what's the point in telling them their error you get called every name under the sun as the moron is obviously correct.


This is rumoured to be made even clearer in the next (recently-consulted-on) Highway Code edition and given some teeth and an ad campaign... but fark knows when that will be. There seems to be no hurry as there's only three times as many cyclists and walkers as in 2019 and it's only people's health...



Cycling_Samurai said:


> I'm not sure how a radar light works any better than a regular LED light.


As I understand it, they flash a little faster/bright when a car is approaching and beep or display to let the rider know. Presumably if it shows the car coming straight for you, then you can ride off into the ditch or hedge?



> [...] Having mirror on my helmet is far more useful than a Garmin display. I'm not in constant fear of being hit.


OK, but if you are hit or fall, then you've a mirror ready-positioned to stab your face?


----------



## Cycling_Samurai (1 Mar 2021)

Johnno260 said:


> Main issue here (UK) is 90% of the cycling infrastructure I have seen just sucks, it's added at a later date and it's implemented in a 1/2 assed fashion.
> 
> My holidays in the Netherlands and France were such a wake up call, I could cycle all day there it's bliss.


Most cycling lanes and paths here are after thoughts. I seriously hate the inconsistencies in the implementation.


----------



## Cycling_Samurai (1 Mar 2021)

mjr said:


> As I understand it, they flash a little faster/bright when a car is approaching and beep or display to let the rider know. Presumably if it shows the car coming straight for you, then you can ride off into the ditch or hedge?
> 
> 
> OK, but if you are hit or fall, then you've a mirror ready-positioned to stab your face?


Getting brighter is useful but will drain the battery quicker. I have an LED that acts like a brake lamp via motion sensors and will last 16 hours.

The mirror is positioned on the helmet up and out of my face. It is more likely to bend up over the helmet or out to the side than do an odd angle bend straight onto my face. If I were hit by a vehicle with such force as to cause that mirror to bend around and stab my face, I would have much more injury to be concerned about than the prospect of injury from the mirror.


----------



## Johnno260 (1 Mar 2021)

mjr said:


> As I understand it, they flash a little faster/bright when a car is approaching and beep or display to let the rider know. Presumably if it shows the car coming straight for you, then you can ride off into the ditch or hedge?



Mine I get an audio warning, and a visual on on the head unit with screen flashes for ok speed and red for muppet inc, you also get a visual clue on the screen for the distance.

Like you said the light flashes faster for the car, also mine adjusts to the conditions and I was told glows bright if I hit the brakes.


----------



## Cycling_Samurai (1 Mar 2021)

Johnno260 said:


> Mine I get an audio warning, and a visual on on the head unit with screen flashes for ok speed and red for muppet inc, you also get a visual clue on the screen for the distance.
> 
> Like you said the light flashes faster for the car, also mine adjusts to the conditions and I was told glows bright if I hit the brakes.


Hey I'm don't mean to discourage you. You made a good purchase and I hope it serves you well. I like my security options. That Garmin would require that I take off my seatpost bag and would be a nuisance as I travel with a lot of traffic except if on early morning rides. My seatpost bag is for holding my mobile and has a reflector attached. It also is where my LED attaches.

My mirror keeps me from having to do an over the shoulder check once positioned correctly. Definitely allows me to keep an eye on traffic behind me without taking eyes off of what's in front of me. Forgot to mention that my helmet has a face shield. Which is good for blocking UV but also rain. And perhaps the mirror from poking me in the face if such an accident were to occur.


----------



## Johnno260 (1 Mar 2021)

Cycling_Samurai said:


> Hey I'm don't mean to discourage you. You made a good purchase and I hope it serves you well. I like my security options. That Garmin would require that I take off my seatpost bag and would be a nuisance as I travel with a lot of traffic except if on early morning rides. My seatpost bag is for holding my mobile and has a reflector attached. It also is where my LED attaches.
> 
> My mirror keeps me from having to do an over the shoulder check once positioned correctly. Definitely allows me to keep an eye on traffic behind me without taking eyes off of what's in front of me. Forgot to mention that my helmet has a face shield. Which is good for blocking UV but also rain. And perhaps the mirror from poking me in the face if such an accident were to occur.



Not at all QR release mount is available.

if I move it up it still works unhindered.

heavy traffic it would drive you nuts, the days I commute it’s all rural except when I hit Tunbridge Wells.


----------



## kingrollo (1 Mar 2021)

Both times I've been knocked off - I was riding my cheap hack bike.

The moral of the story is clear - buy some more expensive bikes and you should be ok.


----------



## Drago (1 Mar 2021)

iluvmybike said:


> More accidents happen in the lounge/living room than anywhere else in the home


This is why I no longer ride my bicycle in the living room.


----------



## Cycling_Samurai (1 Mar 2021)

Drago said:


> This is why I no longer ride my bicycle in the living room.


I was thinking of doing a 20 mile trip in the living room but now that it's pointed out as being more dangerous I'll just go on my normal route for safety. 😉


----------



## united4ever (1 Mar 2021)

Hate roundabouts as a cyclist. Even if you are on the roundabout and can see the car approaching the roundabout entrance there is always that doubt that they may not stop. But hesitating yourself and giving way when you have right of way is obviously more dangerous.

To OP I would say try to avoid big or particularly sketchy junctions/roundabouts or dismount and cross as a pedestrian maybe at first and then either continue like that or ease back into navigating them when you feel ready but plan routes that avoid these junctions if you know the area. Just steps like that can minimise risk.


----------



## simongt (3 Mar 2021)

Johnno260 said:


> 90% of the cycling infrastructure I have seen just sucks,


And to think that many years ago, when the Govt. of the time was proposing the construction of separate cycleways, the CTC kicked off against it because they objected to cyclists being separated from motor traffic - !


----------



## matticus (3 Mar 2021)

simongt said:


> And to think that many years ago, when the Govt. of the time was proposing the construction of separate cycleways, the CTC kicked off against it because they objected to cyclists being separated from motor traffic - !


That was largely because:



Johnno260 said:


> Main issue here (UK) is 90% of the cycling infrastructure I have seen just sucks, it's added at a later date and it's implemented in a 1/2 assed fashion.


CUK (was CTC) are now completely behind infrastrcutre, but they don't insist on separation.

Painted white lanes do nothing to make me safer on a road.


----------



## Johnno260 (3 Mar 2021)

matticus said:


> That was largely because:
> 
> 
> CUK (was CTC) are now completely behind infrastrcutre, but they don't insist on separation.
> ...



I think painted lines on a road actually cause more issue, as some road users see it as space taken from them.

I had many an argument with people I work with, I'm regarded in a pretty poor light being a roadie, I don't pay tax (this one always cracks me up), I don't have insurance, the roads were built for cars go ride in a park.

When I got cut up while I was on a roundabout near my workplace I was told it was my fault for using a bike, not the moron who didn't give way to someone with right of way.

Many peoples attitudes need to change, before proper change can happen in my opinion.


----------



## Cycling_Samurai (3 Mar 2021)

Johnno260 said:


> I think painted lines on a road actually cause more issue, as some road users see it as space taken from them.
> 
> I had many an argument with people I work with, I'm regarded in a pretty poor light being a roadie, I don't pay tax (this one always cracks me up), I don't have insurance, the roads were built for cars go ride in a park.
> 
> ...


Morons the whole lot.

I don't agree with the "painted lines" bit. Boundaries are a part of society and written in the rule of law. Without lines talk of bike lanes is codswallop.


----------



## HobbesOnTour (3 Mar 2021)

Johnno260 said:


> Many peoples attitudes need to change, before proper change can happen in my opinion.


I agree


Cycling_Samurai said:


> Morons the whole lot.


----------



## mjr (4 Mar 2021)

Cycling_Samurai said:


> I don't agree with the "painted lines" bit. Boundaries are a part of society and written in the rule of law. Without lines talk of bike lanes is codswallop.


I think the argument is that kerbs or posts are needed, for various reasons including that they are a bigger deterrent to motorists and a bigger deterrent to the sort of councils that paint gutter lanes.


----------



## confusedcyclist (4 Mar 2021)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Separation doesn't eliminate the risk of crashes, it just gives a false sense of security and encourages inattentiveness. Anyone riding a bike should be exercising extreme caution all the time there is anyone/anything in the vicinity that you could have a coming together with. Doesn't matter if it's a motor vehicle, a pedestrian, a dog, another cyclist or something like an overhanging branch or a bit of bush sticking out into the path you are on. If you come into contact with any of them, they can have you off the bike and dump you straight on the ground.



The point of segregation isn't to eliminate absolutely all accidents. We can't eliminate extreme accidents such as HGV drivers having a heart attack at the wheel, shunting cars that subsequently serve or roll into you, incinerating you whilst the fuel tanks explode. Rather, the point of separation is to eliminate the more mundane everyday dangers that contribute to 98% of our population not riding bikes for transport, such as basic and avoidable conflicts like unsafe overtakes, motorists pulling in/out of junctions without considering cyclists in the roadway. If inattentive motorist don't have to evade cyclists sharing the roads because that conflict simply doesn't exist, then the insidious & risky behaviours of motorists becomes largely moot. No one is suggesting we shouldn't try, but if we come to the realisation we can't stop 100% of our motorists taking risks or being distracted by asking nicely, or threatening them with fines and enforcement, then we need infrastructure that minimises that risk. Places that adopt well designed segregated cycling and walking infra don't have increased modal shares for nothing.

Your concern about infrastructure encouraging inattentiveness might be misplaced. Humans are subconscious risk calculators. It's what we do, instinctively and without thinking. Admittedly, some people are better at this than others, sadly inattentiveness is just another part of being an imperfect and fallible human being. Even if humans quantitatively reduce their internalised risk assessments when riding on segregated infrastructure, it's more likely than not going to be the result of successfully mitigating their risk of harm, so why should that be a reason not to adopt safer infrastructure?

Force me to share a path with an inattentive cyclists or pedestrian any day over sharing the road with inattentive motorists wielding >2 tonne steel machines, the risks of conflict that arises between the two are not and never have been comparable.


----------



## classic33 (4 Mar 2021)

mjr said:


> I think the argument is that kerbs or posts are needed, for various reasons including that they are a bigger deterrent to motorists and a bigger deterrent to the sort of councils that paint gutter lanes.


Posts just give you something extra to avoid, narrowing the lane.

Segregated cycle lanes can be seen as just another hoop to have to jump through in order to alay someone else's fears for your safety.


----------



## Johnno260 (4 Mar 2021)

Some of the most pointless local to me is in T Wells, it's a share ped/cycle path, you have to stop for every drive way, and people just walk all over making in dangerous.

You then get screamed at by motorists for using the road when it's actually safer, and the traffic on that road is usually moving at a crawl anyway, I have had people in a car move closer to the curb to block or pinch me.


----------



## mjr (4 Mar 2021)

classic33 said:


> Posts just give you something extra to avoid, narrowing the lane.


If that matters, then the lane is too narrow anyway.



> Segregated cycle lanes can be seen as just another hoop to have to jump through in order to alay someone else's fears for your safety.


If it involves jumping through hoops or any other kind of obstacle, then it's a crap design and should be fixed. There should be no need to compel, encourage or harass people into using them because they should be obviously better than riding among heavy vehicles.



Johnno260 said:


> Some of the most pointless local to me is in T Wells, it's a share ped/cycle path, you have to stop for every drive way, and people just walk all over making in dangerous.


Now, I'm sure it's crap, but stop for every drive way, really? I don't believe the Transport Minister would sign off on so many stop lines (and they do have to) and it's surprising if even a pretty crap local government authorised and built a cycleway where every driveway junction was that blind.



> You then get screamed at by motorists for using the road when it's actually safer, and the traffic on that road is usually moving at a crawl anyway, I have had people in a car move closer to the curb to block or pinch me.


Motorists do all that shoot anyway. They're upset to be moving at a crawl instead of the lie of carefree fast-flowing travel sold by car adverts. I've been shouted at to get on the cycle path where there isn't one. I've even had drivers shout at me to get on the road when I've been using a kerbed cycleway, possibly because they found the kerb between us too much of a deterrent to driving at me... so many are just angry. I wouldn't be surprised if the ragers didn't even know which side of the road the cycleway was.


----------



## Drago (4 Mar 2021)

We don't need white lines. We don't need kerbs or bollards. What we need is for all road users to treat each other with respect, and for anyone who does not do so to be ruthlessly and permanently removed from behind the wheel.


----------



## confusedcyclist (4 Mar 2021)

Yes, but in the real world where we don't live in a tyrannical CCTV surveillance state, or one with unlimited resources for road policing a great many are getting away with murder. We don't live in a small scale community where everyone knows everyone, I guess I don't need to remind you some don't care much for fellow countrymen. We might rely on self control in a small community where there would be real repercussions within the community for mistreating your kin on our roads. (Ideally with hangings and quarterings, or if we are feeling more civilised, exiled from the tribe with the likely consequence of starvation or being preyed upon by larger mammals). In our larger more anonymous society, even with number plates, we can't realistically expect everyone to follow all the rules all the time, so we need to improve on elemetns of all of the above, and a sensible approach to infrastructure can be part of that tool kit to keep us safe and encourage more people out onto bikes. If we expect people to mix with motors driven by idiots, then we can realistically expect an intolerable number of deaths and injury and very low modal shares, as we see today. I don't doubt the numbers would be far worse if 98% of us hadn't been frightened off our bikes on our roads and into cars, buses or trains. The idiots won't disappear no matter how hard we wish them to, invariably many will still get behind the wheel even with revoked licenses (I would personally reserve the ritual hangings for them folk.)


----------



## matticus (4 Mar 2021)

confusedcyclist said:


> ... and a sensible approach to infrastructure can be part of that tool kit to keep us safe and encourage more people out onto bikes


Agreed. But the devil is in the detail; it would be remiss to ignore either 
changes to culture (either through education, or enforcement), or
the more subtle physical changes e.g. LTNs aren't separated infrastructure, but can make a huge improvement for bu99er-all spend
(and junction improvements, which I can't put into a few short words :P )


----------



## HMS_Dave (4 Mar 2021)

Australian police are armed but about 2 police officers are killed a year. Way more cyclists are killed each year by other road users so in my mind, arm the cyclist and swing the balance!


----------



## confusedcyclist (4 Mar 2021)

matticus said:


> Agreed. But the devil is in the detail; it would be remiss to ignore either
> changes to culture (either through education, or enforcement), or
> the more subtle physical changes e.g. LTNs aren't separated infrastructure, but can make a huge improvement for bu99er-all spend
> (and junction improvements, which I can't put into a few short words :P )



Indeed. We desperately need a decentralised, bottom up, systems thinking approach to organising transport, food and work, rather than that worn out 20th century, centralised, motor-centric, command and control design. That would be one hell of a culture change. LTNs are definitely part of the picture.


----------



## Johnno260 (4 Mar 2021)

mjr said:


> Now, I'm sure it's crap, but stop for every drive way, really? I don't believe the Transport Minister would sign off on so many stop lines (and they do have to) and it's surprising if even a pretty crap local government authorised and built a cycleway where every driveway junction was that blind



You have several side roads that join and a private road, there are also 3 maybe 4 driveways to residential home and some other private roads/businesses but each one has a drop curb so it’s constant start stop it’s horrible poor design.


----------



## Drago (4 Mar 2021)

HMS_Dave said:


> Australian police are armed but about 2 police officers are killed a year. Way more cyclists are killed each year by other road users so in my mind, arm the cyclist and swing the balance!


You got my vote. Dillon Aero M134 for me please.


----------



## classic33 (4 Mar 2021)

mjr said:


> If that matters, then the lane is too narrow anyway.
> 
> If it involves jumping through hoops or any other kind of obstacle, then it's a crap design and should be fixed. There should be no need to compel, encourage or harass people into using them because they should be obviously better than riding among heavy vehicles.


Another hoop(seperate facilities required), your own definition, along with possible helmet and Hi-Vis use to be jumped through in order to alay someone else's fears for your safety in carrying on cycling after an accident.

I just hope @ishaqmir, the OP, has returned to cycling/been able to continue cycling since he posted this, 13th January 2020. Over a year ago now.


----------



## Cycling_Samurai (4 Mar 2021)

Johnno260 said:


> Some of the most pointless local to me is in T Wells, it's a share ped/cycle path, you have to stop for every drive way, and people just walk all over making in dangerous.
> 
> You then get screamed at by motorists for using the road when it's actually safer, and the traffic on that road is usually moving at a crawl anyway, I have had people in a car move closer to the curb to block or pinch me.


Exactly. Pedestrian traffic and bike do not mix. I've witnessed many a car pinch the side even when the signs say share the road.


----------



## al78 (21 Apr 2021)

Sharky said:


> Reminds me of what my old physics teacher said. If lightening never strikes twice, then lightening conductors would not be very effective after the first strike.



https://www.reconnectwithnature.org...-buster-lightning-can-strike-same-place-twice


----------



## steve292 (15 May 2021)

Drago said:


> We don't need white lines. We don't need kerbs or bollards. What we need is for all road users to treat each other with respect, and for anyone who does not do so to be ruthlessly and permanently removed from behind the wheel.


This. All day long. That's all we need to do. No bullshit about hardship, just if you hit someone or drive at them like a tit, big fine license gone.


----------



## steve292 (15 May 2021)

Drago said:


> You got my vote. Dillon Aero M134 for me please.


Hell of a saddle bag needed for the ammo


----------



## mjr (17 May 2021)

steve292 said:


> This. All day long. That's all we need to do. No bullshit about hardship, just if you hit someone or drive at them like a tit, big fine license gone.


That's great but how can you do it? There is no chance of getting democratic politicians to make the change while the population is thought to be something like 67% motorist, 14% cyclist, with overlap that means not even all the cyclists will support such measures.


----------



## battered (17 May 2021)

mjr said:


> That's great but how can you do it? There is no chance of getting democratic politicians to make the change while the population is thought to be something like 67% motorist, 14% cyclist, with overlap that means not even all the cyclists will support such measures.


You have to do it by education. There's no point in reintroducing crucifixion for all offenders without an education programme too. It has happened for speed limits, but this culture change has taken 20 years. Extra policing, fines and points, speed awareness revenue raising, sorry, reeducation, etc. In the 90s I used to travel on the motorway at an indicated 90, all day. I wasn't the fastest out there, just standard Lane 3 fodder. These days it's middle 70s, tops, and I'm not sitting there watching 3 series zip by like the Red Arrows any more. On one journey last year I had 2 cars pass me at significantly over the limit; I saw both of them pulled over by unmarked cars a few miles later. The roads are policed to death for speed, they just have still to do the same for poor driving. I had someone run into the back of my car a while ago, in a queue travelling at walking pace. The woman responsible got out of her car and said "I wasn't speeding". No, I know. Nobody was. You weren't paying attention though. The education has worked for speeding, it has still to happen for responsible driving.


----------



## steve292 (17 May 2021)

mjr said:


> That's great but how can you do it? There is no chance of getting democratic politicians to make the change while the population is thought to be something like 67% motorist, 14% cyclist, with overlap that means not even all the cyclists will support such measures.


I don't know is the short answer. Most of what we need is already in law, so perhaps start by enforcing the current laws properly and go from there? What would you do?


----------



## mjr (17 May 2021)

steve292 said:


> I don't know is the short answer. Most of what we need is already in law, so perhaps start by enforcing the current laws properly and go from there? What would you do?


We cannot enforce the current laws completely (which is what I assume you mean by "properly") because the scofflaws claiming to speak for the motorist majority will flame any decision-makers attempting to make that happen until they back down, or worse. Just look at what happens to pretty basic measures like camera enforcement of motor speed limits, red lights, yellow boxes or parking.

I would increase the cycling numbers by whatever effective means we can get through: if that means flagship cycleways, kerbed and post-protected spaces, as well as Active Neighbourhoods (former low-traffic neighbourhoods) and other more widely-accepted measures, so be it. And effective means not just "encouragement" aka whining at people to ride among feral motorists. Once we get to the points where our numbers are similar to motorists, plus most motorists know lots of people who cycle often, then we can more easily press elected politicians for fairer funding and policing and drown out the scofflaw motorists.


----------



## mjr (17 May 2021)

battered said:


> The roads are policed to death for speed, they just have still to do the same for poor driving.


Maybe that's the case where you are, or on motorways. I wouldn't know: Norfolk has no motorways (or at least not officially).

Speeding remains widespread here. The average speed on the 40mph outside my house is reportedly 38.5mph. That's average: it jams up at least twice a day and there are definitely people doing far far more than 40 off-peak. There is no sign of bad driving dying out here any time soon and I don't think education has worked.

We had a speed camera installed in the village earlier this year. I think it lasted less than two weeks before whining drivers succeeded in getting it removed. It hasn't returned yet. And even then, it was sited on a slightly-bent staggered crossroads rather than the gently-downhill straight where speeds are higher, so it would really only catch the dumbest of bad drivers. You probably shouldn't even be driving 35mph through that junction unless you're really really sure the turnings are clear.

The main saving grace is that since about 15 years ago, we have an almost-adequate kerbed cycleway all the way to town, connecting the various country lanes off the main road, so at least people walking and cycling don't have to be in amongst that shoot.


----------



## battered (17 May 2021)

steve292 said:


> I don't know is the short answer. Most of what we need is already in law, so perhaps start by enforcing the current laws properly and go from there? What would you do?


Enforcement is only part of the solution. Ask any policeman about this. What has to happen is that the activity has to be considered unacceptable behaviour, just as drink driving has become. In my youth and teens it was "everyone has a drink, don't take the mick, if you get caught you're unlucky". By my 20s the education had shifted the response to the point where Mick from work who had been done for drink driving wasn't unlucky, he was an idiot who deserved everything he got. What we have now is a total focus on speed and nothing on sharing the road. The "me" generation all have cars, they all think they have a right to use the road. They pay for it, after all. How many times do you have to hear "cyclists don't pay road tax" to understand what they mean? Cyclists don't count. They should be on the pavement, this isn't a cycle path mate. No, I know, it's a road...*mate*. This is an education issue, not enforcement. There is no current "share the road" education, how long is it since you saw any "Think Bike" type education on the TV? However drink driving has reduced since the 80s and certainly the 70s. Is this by enforcement? Only partly. The real success is in making it unacceptable, so that people who "I'm just going home, only had 3 or 4 pints, I'll take it steady and there's nobody about" are not greeted with a shrug but with "WTF do you think you're doing? You'd better stay away from me, and if I see you leaving the pub p***ed I'll be giving your number to the police".


----------



## GoodLifeSpud (17 May 2021)

ishaqmir said:


> Hi everyone
> 
> I’m relatively new to road cycling, been cycling for about 6 months and absolutely love it, regardless of the weather, as long as I have the right clothing for it.
> 
> ...



Reading through this thread I wondered whether you've made it back out onto the roads? Did you manage to put your other half's mind at rest?


----------



## Solocle (17 May 2021)

battered said:


> You have to do it by education. There's no point in reintroducing crucifixion for all offenders without an education programme too. It has happened for speed limits, but this culture change has taken 20 years. Extra policing, fines and points, speed awareness revenue raising, sorry, reeducation, etc. In the 90s I used to travel on the motorway at an indicated 90, all day. I wasn't the fastest out there, just standard Lane 3 fodder. These days it's middle 70s, tops, and I'm not sitting there watching 3 series zip by like the Red Arrows any more. On one journey last year I had 2 cars pass me at significantly over the limit; I saw both of them pulled over by unmarked cars a few miles later. The roads are policed to death for speed, they just have still to do the same for poor driving. I had someone run into the back of my car a while ago, in a queue travelling at walking pace. The woman responsible got out of her car and said "I wasn't speeding". No, I know. Nobody was. You weren't paying attention though. The education has worked for speeding, it has still to happen for responsible driving.


To be honest I can't help but think that there's _too much_ focus on speeding. It doesn't feel like doing 90 mph on an empty motorway should be anywhere near as bad as doing 50 mph in a 30 limit, let alone close passing a cyclist, yet all of the above get you 3 points if dealt with via fixed penalty. And the latter is the least likely to be prosecuted in the first place.

That's not to say that the level of penalty for speeding is wrong, it's one of the few road offences that seems reasonably well calibrated imo. It's also one of the easiest things to automate, although I'd quite like to see tailgating cameras deployed...

Oh, and I say that as somebody who did once hit 53 mph in a 30 limit... it was a *steep *hill.


----------



## Drago (17 May 2021)

If it goes wrong you'll find running into someone on a motorway at 90 hurts hust as much as it would on a courty road or resofential side street. Physics doesn't discriminate.


----------



## Solocle (17 May 2021)

Drago said:


> If it goes wrong you'll find running into someone on a motorway at 90 hurts hust as much as it would on a courty road or resofential side street. Physics doesn't discriminate.


Well, of course the _severity _of a crash at 90 mph is higher than at 70 mph, but risk profile is a function of both severity and likelyhood. You could just as well argue for motorways to have a 50 mph speed limit, or 30 mph, or... yes, I know, reductio ad absurdum.

But talking of the absurd, and risk profiles, time trialling on a 70 mph dual carriageway.





The severity of a crash is very high - but at quiet times, the likelyhood of a collision is low. If you wanted zero risk, you'd never leave the house... except that most accidents happen in the home!

Now for the absurd part, the above is an *all purpose road *with the same speed limit as a motorway ffs! Yes, I know, the speed limit for HGVs is theoretically different by 10 mph, but we all know that Joe Trucker is sat pressed against the 52 mph limiter having a "pleasant" time with his laptop on both kinds of roads.

Frankly, I'd much rather be passed at 120 mph by someone who gives a full lane change, than at 70 mph "I wasn't speeding guv" trying to occupy the same bit of road as me. In fact, if driving standards were perfect, would not speed limits be completely unnecessary, as everyone would drive an appropriate speed for the conditions?

I'd rather see the morons kept off the road, than the "oh, morons keep crashing off this corner, so we'd better put in a 50 mph speed limit to slow them down". Which works nicely, until there's a cyclist around the bend. I'd personally prefer that they hit the tree on that previous bend...


----------



## matticus (17 May 2021)

Solocle said:


> The severity of a crash is very high - but at quiet times, the likelyhood of a collision is low. If you wanted zero risk, you'd never leave the house... except that most accidents happen in the home!


Yes.

And motorways (which I guess have the highest mean/median speeds of our network) are the safest roads we have.

I'd rather have strict enforcement on the slower, more hazard-strewn roads (which are also the ones with more vulnerable road users on them). Please Santa.


----------



## matticus (17 May 2021)

matticus said:


> rather have strict enforcement on the slower, more hazard-strewn roads (which are also the ones with more vulnerable road users on them). Please Santa.


I swear this tweet appeared immediately after I posted that!


View: https://twitter.com/NPRoadSafety/status/1394192183528509446?s=20


----------



## al78 (22 Jul 2021)

mjr said:


> Once we get to the points where our numbers are similar to motorists ...



The sun will have exhausted its hydrogen fuel and will begin to expand into a red giant and start helium burning.


----------



## al78 (22 Jul 2021)

Solocle said:


> Well, of course the _severity _of a crash at 90 mph is higher than at 70 mph, but risk profile is a function of both severity and likelyhood. You could just as well argue for motorways to have a 50 mph speed limit, or 30 mph, or... yes, I know, reductio ad absurdum.
> 
> But talking of the absurd, and risk profiles, time trialling on a 70 mph dual carriageway.
> View attachment 589274
> ...



I don't think that is as dangerous as it appears. I used to occasionally cycle from Dorking to Horsham at night along the A24 which is dual carriageway for the first few miles, and the quietness of the road, the good sightlines and a whole lane to my right meant motorists had no problem avoiding me. I found the A24 section between Capel and Horsham far more nerve wracking. 50 mph speed limit but a narrow road with lots of blind corners and summits, requires far more concentration from motorists to avoid slamming into the back of me.


----------



## Punkawallah (23 Jul 2021)

My take is that at some point you are going to be in an accident, so no sense worrying about it. Just ride as far as you can into the crash :-)

As far as you and the wife are concerned, all I can suggest is you talk it through. (Gods, can’t believe I’m saying this). You obviously want to ride, or you wouldn’t be here :-) When The Nice Lady sent me flying from the bike, I agreed to wear a fluorescent jersey or similar while riding. Might be an idea to discuss?

Good luck!


----------



## Once a Wheeler (23 Jul 2021)

As well-known statistician David Spiegelhalter said on the radio the other day: if everyone is vaccinated then everyone who dies of covid-19 will have been vaccinated. It does not mean that vaccination causes covid-19 deaths. It just means that the small number of covid-19 deaths which do occur will be amongst vaccinated people.
Cycling is generally very safe. Accidents can occur, so some cyclists will have accidents from time to time. A broken wrist is a major inconvenience but if stopping cycling stops you exercising, the resulting cardio-vascular problems risk being far, far greater. If your wife is up to GCSE maths, this might help. We live in the deed and die in the void. Keep doing. All the best.


----------



## Landsurfer (23 Jul 2021)

Divorce her. Go off with her cuter younger friend .... you know you want to ..


----------



## CXRAndy (24 Jul 2021)

Cycling on major roads requires confidence, alertness. There is a increased risk due to the number of vehicles. Reduce the risk by riding on quieter lanes and or times of day (avoid peak traffic) until you have built your confidence and riding skills to help deal with busier roads.

Also be aware of early spring and winter sun levels just over the horizon. These can pose extra difficulty for both rider and drivers. Choose later morning, mid day riding for this scenario


----------



## Sharky (25 Jul 2021)

Cycling is dangerous, but so is every day life.
I've had more than a few spills, some ending up in hospital, but spread over 60 years (now 71) I guess not that many.
Following my last spill, I had to undergo some CT scans & investigations and some irregular cells were detected in my bladder. Since then they have been removed and I have regular check ups. But my wife says I was lucky to fall off and fracture my pelvis, otherwise the cancer cells in my bladder would have been undetected until too late.

Generally still feel fit, but compared with some of my old school mates and friends, some of who are no longer with us, I am convinced that despite all the risks, there is a net benefit in cycling.


----------



## Milzy (25 Jul 2021)

Ridgeway said:


> Get a mountain bike and enjoy the trails for a few months, maybe a year and then see if your appetite for the road returns, probably by then your wife may have relaxed some what.


I’ve seen some awful accidents out on the trails, guys been winched up into air ambulances. 
I’ve got a Flare-R light which pulses out a strong red sequence of light effects. I’ve noticed drivers always are more careful around me with that on.


----------



## Landsurfer (26 Jul 2021)

Cycling is not dangerous.


----------



## Solocle (26 Jul 2021)

I had quite the near miss on a single carriageway yesterday.


----------



## Lozz360 (27 Jul 2021)

That was close! Well done for the quick reaction.


----------



## MontyVeda (27 Jul 2021)

Landsurfer said:


> Cycling is not dangerous.


 of course it isn't... but some people will not be convinced otherwise. We have a very very long helmet thread to demonstrate this fact.


----------



## Landsurfer (27 Jul 2021)

MontyVeda said:


> of course it isn't... but some people will not be convinced otherwise. We have a very very long helmet thread to demonstrate this fact.



I Think;
There are many that like to portray cycling as dangerous as it gives them a sense of "daring do” ... Putting on their "Lycra of Speed", their “Mitts of Grip” and last, and most importantly ... "The Helmet of Invincibility” .. before riding out onto the dangerous road to do battle with the evil traffic.
Possibly some of our mountain bike colleagues are more inclined to take this route than most.

(David wears lycra and mitts. Helmets are optional. Other types of "daring do” are available. Matinees Wednesdays, sing Rule Britannia and God Save the Queen )


----------



## Oldhippy (27 Jul 2021)

Cycling as transport is definitely not dangerous as Landsurfer says. When you drive do you don a racing suit? When you fly a flight suit? Swimming at the pool, a scuba suit? No. Why do people dress for riding a bike?


----------



## vickster (27 Jul 2021)

Oldhippy said:


> Cycling as transport is definitely not dangerous as Landsurfer says. When you drive do you don a racing suit? When you fly a flight suit? Swimming at the pool, a scuba suit? No. Why do people dress for riding a bike?


Personally I find cycling clothing more comfortable when cycling for exercise. I don’t wear jeans in the gym for the same reason, or in the swimming pool for that matter. 
Not everyone is the same as you or cycles for the same reasons, as an *old* hippy, haven’t you realised that by now?


----------



## Lozz360 (27 Jul 2021)

Oldhippy said:


> Cycling as transport is definitely not dangerous as Landsurfer says. When you drive do you don a racing suit? When you fly a flight suit? Swimming at the pool, a scuba suit? No. Why do people dress for riding a bike?


Because, if cycling is your sport then you might dress accordingly as you would for many other sports. However, I don’t understand how the question is relevant to a debate on the perception of whether cycling is dangerous?


----------



## matticus (27 Jul 2021)

Solocle said:


> I had quite the near miss on a single carriageway yesterday.



And people ask why motorcyclists need helmets if cyclists don't!!!


----------



## neil_merseyside (27 Jul 2021)

matticus said:


> And people ask why motorcyclists need helmets if cyclists don't!!!


Speed?


----------



## matticus (27 Jul 2021)

neil_merseyside said:


> Speed?


Just watch the video


----------



## neil_merseyside (27 Jul 2021)

I did, the motorbike ran wide because he had a handful of throttle. If the motorbiker had been travelling at the same speed as the bike he could have stayed on the correct side of the road. The motorbiker needed that nice rigid shelled wrap around motorbike helmet for the hedge header. I mean the cyclist foam lid wouln't offer much protection going into spiky branches and the sticky out flange on a cycle helmet could mean you couldn't then get back out either.


----------



## Sharky (27 Jul 2021)

Solocle said:


> But talking of the absurd, and risk profiles, time trialling on a 70 mph dual carriageway.


I've ridden many a time trial on dual carriage way roads. But to mitigate risk, most Sunday morning time trials start at 6am, sometimes earlier and roads are very quiet. The absurd ones are when they use the same courses for Saturday afternoon events.


----------



## matticus (27 Jul 2021)

Duals are pretty safe for the most part (and stats support this). A 50mph single C-way A-road can be much worse.

Don't forget that traffic counts and RAs are done for Time-Trials; usually the critics have a lot less facts about a road than those actually running the race.


----------



## tom1209 (28 Aug 2021)

Very sorry to hear! It’s so rare and I used to be like that - thinking cycling in London for example was just asking to be killed, but the more I lived here the more comfortable I became


----------

