# What hope is there for cyclists?



## NigC (30 Apr 2010)

I've not been visiting this forum for very long, but from the number of threads detailing close calls, accidents and sadly deaths, it's clear that the cyclist puts their life at risk every time they go out.

Obviously certain roads are more risky than others, but the fact still remains: a cyclist is a very vulnerable road user.

No matter how careful we are, we are ultimately at the mercy of bigger, heavier and faster vehicles and their drivers. I'm sure not all cyclists are completely blameless, but the fact still remains that cycle vs motor vehicle is a mismatch made in hell.

So what hope do we have for an improved life on the roads? I can only think of one: better education that highlights the vulnerabilities of the cyclist. Going back to my driving lessons, I really can't remember much if anything about giving space for a bike or anything else cyclist-related. It's something I've had to learn on my own.

There's a few things that could be better highlighted for learner drivers:

How to safely overtake a cyclist. They are human beings, liable to make mistakes when under pressure and more susceptible to uneven roads and must be allowed at least 3 feet of clearance (more for larger vehicles).
That cyclists are vulnerable to the door zone (cyclists probably need better education on this too) and may appear to be taking up a lot of road when passing parked cars.
That cyclists will often filter on the left. So use of the nearside mirror and more cycle-awareness is vital when changeing lanes or turning left whilst in traffic.
A cyclist is a moving object - it is not safe to immediately turn left after overtaking them.
A cyclist might not take the same route on a roundabout as a motor vehicle would.
A cyclist has just as much right to be on the road as a motor vehicle and so must be given the same respect. For example: When approaching a narrow gap, a cyclist has right of way if they reach it first.
On some roads, cycle lanes are provided but it may not always be practicle to use them. A cyclist is not obliged to always use a cycle lane.
I'm sure there are other pointers that also need adding.

The problem is how on earth are drivers going to be educated? I don't know!

The only thing I can think of is while a new driver is still learning, they are given better cycle awareness training too. I'm sure most human beings are decent enough people that if educated will be better able to manage a situation where cyclists are using the same road they are.

Now it's over to somebody else who might be able to get the message across to the people that matter...... anybody?


----------



## karan733 (30 Apr 2010)

IIRC the license system in the UK is quite heavily critisised by other nations, who impose time limits before acquiring a full license, rather than get through the test in as few lessons as possible. 

I think some countries have a minimum 12 months on a provisional license before you can convert it to a full license. I think this is a stellar idea, which stops the 'race' to get licensed, which in turn then turns the roads into some sort of piranha pool of me vs you.


----------



## Theseus (30 Apr 2010)

Although there are a number of horror stories on here, you have to remember it is a place for us to vent. I have had for more miles of incident free cycling than I have had close calls.


----------



## summerdays (30 Apr 2010)

Although there are lots of threads about accidents - in reality its not our normal day to day experience of cycling.... and how often do we come on here just to say what a lovely ride we have had. 

Even when I've had a mild incident of being cut up or something the same would happen if I was a pedestrian or a car driver too.

Not saying tha we shouldn't educate other road users - just trying to say that on a forum you are going to get a bias towards the things that go wrong rather than right.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (30 Apr 2010)

Don't pay too much attention to the "I went near a bike and nearly died" threads. My experience - and that of many others - over twenty-odd years of urban and rural commuting, Audaxing, rural cycling and riding on busy A roads is that most days pass trouble free and the odd incident there might be can usually be laughed off within a few hours. The problem is that no one wants to read "I went cycling and had a nice time" threads.

I must say that I think we could do with fewer threads about road incidents. Half this forum seems to be trying to big up cycling as a means of transport and a leisure pursuit while the other half seems determined to portray it as slightly more dangerous than teasing an enraged rottweiler and the sort of thing you'd have to be a cross between Mad Max and Rambo to even contemplate doing. 

I'm sure that's not the intention, but that's how it comes across. Especially if you imagine the effect of "I headbutted a bus then the driver ripped my arm off and made me eat it" threads on someone who's just bought their first bike, is not entirely confident about cycling on the road and who has logged on here for advice.


----------



## 4F (30 Apr 2010)

Bad news makes good news. If we all posted "Nothing happened on my ride in this morning" it would get very boring.

My personal experience of 5000 miles a year for what must be going on nearly 10 years now is that maybe I have had a dozen occasions of really poor driving where I have felt endangered.


----------



## gouldina (30 Apr 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I'm sure that's not the intention, but that's how it comes across. Especially if you imagine the effect of *"I headbutted a bus then the driver ripped my arm off and made me eat it"* threads on someone who's just bought their first bike, is not entirely confident about cycling on the road and who has logged on here for advice.



So it's not just me that's happened to?


----------



## martynjc1977 (30 Apr 2010)

Thinking about the amount of miles i put in on my bike about 3000 per year(about the same amount as i drive thb) to the amount of idiots and close calls i have (1 this year maybe 2 on the bike) it is actually comparable to driving and no less safe, if done properly and not taking silly risks ie undertaking traffic.


----------



## NigC (30 Apr 2010)

I can appreciate that this is used as a place to vent ones anger and that it will appear worse than normal if you take this as the norm.

But I have had many close-calls in the past 18 months that more than outnumber anything I can remember in 18 years of driving. And of course I'm much more prone to bruising and bleeding whilst sitting on 2 wheels rather than encased within 4.

I still think things could easily be improved with a little education at the right time


----------



## Rhythm Thief (30 Apr 2010)

4F said:


> Bad news makes good news. If we all posted "Nothing happened on my ride in this morning" it would get very boring.
> 
> My personal experience of 5000 miles a year for what must be going on nearly 10 years now is that maybe I have had a dozen occasions of really poor driving where I have felt endangered.




I can understand why people post this stuff - after all, everyone needs to let of steam - but it wouldn't hurt to imagine the effect of it on someone who's just bought a Pashley Poppy to pootle to the shops on and has signed up here for advice.


----------



## Browser (30 Apr 2010)

karan733 said:


> IIRC the license system in the UK is quite heavily critisised by other nations, who impose time limits before acquiring a full license, rather than get through the test in as few lessons as possible.
> 
> I think some countries have a minimum 12 months on a provisional license before you can convert it to a full license. I think this is a stellar idea, which stops the 'race' to get licensed, which in turn then turns the roads into some sort of piranha pool of me vs you.



The problem does not just lie with new drivers, but motorists of all ages. Women are becoming just as agressive and thoughtless as men now, older drivers need re-educating (and by older I mean anyone over forty years of age), a whole sea-change of attitude needs to take place.
So I'll see you here (hopefully) in ten years time to see what _has_ changed, probably nowt!


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (30 Apr 2010)

The "hope" is the guy in his 70's who was admiring my bike outside Tesco this morning and talking about getting around by bike, in particular "whatever the traffic - just tell the cars to bugger off!"

Cycling hasn't done him any harm


----------



## 4F (30 Apr 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I can understand why people post this stuff - after all, everyone needs to let of steam - but it wouldn't hurt to imagine the effect of it on someone who's just bought a Pashley Poppy to pootle to the shops on and has signed up here for advice.



Agreed, As it happens I drove in this morning and nearly got side swipped by some dozy bint who moved lanes without looking or indicating. 

You just have to keep your wits about you at all times


----------



## MacLean (30 Apr 2010)

Too many cyclists on here expect perfect driving from those all around them... Never gonna happen no matter how much training you give them... The only hope is riding defensivly to how people drive, not how their suppose to drive according to the highway code.... How many average driving people do you think read the highway code on a regular basis? Ride expecting everyone to be a nutter and do the craziest thing at any moment then you dont get angry when they do it.

Cycling is riskier than driving, but if you want a life without risk then stay at home and take up knitting. Everyones gota go one day, one way or another.


----------



## NigC (30 Apr 2010)

MacLean said:


> Too many cyclists on here expect perfect driving from those all around them... Never gonna happen no matter how much training you give them... The only hope is riding defensivly to how people drive, not how their suppose to drive according to the highway code.... How many average driving people do you think read the highway code on a regular basis? Ride expecting everyone to be a nutter and do the craziest thing at any moment then you dont get angry when they do it.
> 
> Cycling is riskier than driving, but if you want a life without risk then stay at home and take up knitting. Everyones gota go one day, one way or another.



I agree in priciple - the more defensive you ride, the safer you're gonna be. But most of my close-calls have been while I was pootling along happily when suddenly a car/skip lorry (seems to be the most often) gives you almost no space and you wonder how the hell their mirror missed you. The only defense against that is to keep off the roads.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (30 Apr 2010)

NigC said:


> But most of my close-calls have been *while I was pootling along happily when suddenly.....*
> 
> The only defense against that is to keep off the roads.



Not blaming the victim at all but there is something in that statement.

Basically what you are saying is that they happen when your guard is down, so there is a defence against that, by being yourself more alert than the drivers around you are

It's irritating that we can't pootle along happily like Sunday drivers out for the scenery but unfortunately we do have to have one eye for scenery and the other for hazards coming from all directions


----------



## BentMikey (30 Apr 2010)

Nah, cycling isn't dangerous. Most of the annoying incidents are just that, and not life-threatening. Upping the risk somewhat, yes.


----------



## NigC (30 Apr 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Nah, cycling isn't dangerous. Most of the annoying incidents are just that, and not life-threatening. Upping the risk somewhat, yes.



Probably not life-threatening, true. Pain-threatening, yes - I'm allergic to pain, it brings me out in black and blue blotches or makes me secrete red liquid that stains


----------



## MacLean (30 Apr 2010)

NigC said:


> I agree in priciple - the more defensive you ride, the safer you're gonna be. But most of my close-calls have been while I was pootling along happily when suddenly a car/skip lorry (seems to be the most often) gives you almost no space and you wonder how the hell their mirror missed you. The only defense against that is to keep off the roads.




Yeh this is true, it is the one weakness of cycling - being slower than everything else. I have expeirienced plenty of close fast overtakes and my memory tells me they where inches away.... In reality the where probabbly a few feet. 

Boils down to the risk factor, 99.99% of cars will overtake, yes some will be close some with plenty of room. You still gota be pretty unlucky to get hit by overtaking car - and anyone can be a victim of unluckyness no matter how defensive they are. So it boils down to your risk managment - take a look at some statiscs if you can, really study the stats and come to your own decision of weather the reward is greater than the risk. No matter how much we moan we will never have perfect safe roads and people will always get injured/killed on them.


----------



## NigC (30 Apr 2010)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> Not blaming the victim at all but there is something in that statement.
> 
> Basically what you are saying is that they happen when your guard is down, so there is a defence against that, by being yourself more alert than the drivers around you are
> 
> It's irritating that we can't pootle along happily like Sunday drivers out for the scenery but unfortunately we do have to have one eye for scenery and the other for hazards coming from all directions



I didn't mean to make it seem like I'm not on my guard when cycling - I'm very aware of what's around me, but it's the attack from behind that so dificult to predict. 99.9% of motorists pass without any problem, but you don't know what they're going to do until they're next to you.

Sometimes the traffic noise makes it easier to get prapared (i.e. more time to panic ) and other times not.

I suppose a mirror might help give a little advance warning? Or should I be checking over my shoulder a lot more often?

If I sense there's a lorry/bus/van etc. behind me, I tend to get ready to brake. Probably this is not the best idea as a sudden stop could cause me to skid and make things a lot worse - although it saved me a little while back when on a road with a left bend: a post office van decided to cut the corner while I was there - would have probably hit it had I not braked hard.


----------



## magnatom (30 Apr 2010)

Personally, I don't think cycling is risky at all. Look at all of my videos, over the last 4 years or so. There are quite a few. However, whittle them down to serious incidents and there are perhaps one or two. Even then I probably had it covered. Only one incident REALLy shook me and that was my tanker incident (not public due to ongoing investigation).

So one really bad incident in over 4 years of nearly 5 day a week cycling on busy city roads. The only collision I have had was my fault (into the back of a car ). So is it dangerous? No.

The biggest problem is not safety, as such, but attitudes, attitudes towards cyclists. The car is most definitely king, and for a proportion of drivers, they see themselves as perfect, never wrong. 

On my new commute as I come into the city, I cycle on fast dual carriageways. I cycle in quite a prominent position, for good reason, on these roads. I would say on average, it is every second commute, where I get a driver hitting their horn at me, or gesticulating that I should be further over to the left. It is annoying, but I generally let it pass (though not always ). 

So IMO, councils should stop putting down cycle lanes that encourage poor cycling and reinforce the idea that cyclists should cycle in the gutter, and put up road markings/signs that alert drivers of their responsibilities and that often for good reason cyclists may need to be in the centre of the lane. 

My 15p worth.


----------



## snorri (30 Apr 2010)

This thread should be in Campaign, it is not a Commuting specific topic.



NigC said:


> Now it's over to somebody else who might be able to get the message across to the people that matter



Leaving it to someone else is the easy option, if everyone adopts that attitude there will never be any improvements for cyclists, in fact things will get worse as other interests have their voices heard in the corridors of power.
I suggest you join your local cycle campaign group, if there is no such local group, you have an opportunity to start one up.
Join the CTC and get involved in campaigning through their Right to Ride section.
Respond to government consultations on transport and health issues.
Respond to local transport plans issued by your local authority from time to time.
Scour the planning applications from your local authority and lodge objection if cycling interests have been ignored.
Read the statutory notices published in your local newspaper and lodge objection to anything you think may have a negative effect on cycling.
Write to your MP, write to local councillors.


----------



## NigC (30 Apr 2010)

MacLean said:


> Yeh this is true, it is the one weakness of cycling - being slower than everything else. I have expeirienced plenty of close fast overtakes and my memory tells me they where inches away.... In reality the where probabbly a few feet.
> 
> Boils down to the risk factor, 99.99% of cars will overtake, yes some will be close some with plenty of room. You still gota be pretty unlucky to get hit by overtaking car - and anyone can be a victim of unluckyness no matter how defensive they are. So it boils down to your risk managment - take a look at some statiscs if you can, really study the stats and come to your own decision of weather the reward is greater than the risk. No matter how much we moan we will never have perfect safe roads and people will always get injured/killed on them.



I think I'll still continue to cycle for many years to come. I'm actually getting into it a bit more now - it's taken me 18 months to really start to enjoy it a little (still prefer walking though).

It's not so much the chances of being hit while being overtaken, it's the reaction after seeing a vehicle pass you at close range. I think most humans ordinary will find it very difficult to just carry on regardless - much more likely is that they will swerve out of the way....... straight into the kerb and what happens next it's never going to be pretty. That's my main concern when traffic passes me.


----------



## GrasB (30 Apr 2010)

Another thing with close passes is that when you're balanced against the wind or the vehicle passes at speed you get the wash from the car. This destabilises the cyclist & may well make them wobble into the path of the vehicle behind or lose control if they hit a road imperfection etc. For an experienced cyclist it's no more than an irritation but for the less experienced cyclist it can be a real moment.


----------



## NigC (30 Apr 2010)

magnatom said:


> over 4 years of nearly 5 day a week cycling on busy city roads.
> 
> So IMO, councils should stop putting down cycle lanes that encourage poor cycling and reinforce the idea that cyclists should cycle in the gutter, and put up road markings/signs that alert drivers of their responsibilities and that often for good reason cyclists may need to be in the centre of the lane.



I think the first line I've quoted goes a long way to explaining why most incidents can be ignored: You are an immensely experienced cyclist and used to cycling in heavy traffic. So you are far more aware of the dangers faced by cyclists, are much more experienced generally in handling a bike, consequently you are much better equipped to deal with them. I suspect this goes for quite a large number of members here too.

The fact that you still have "moments" highlights how vulnerable even the most experienced cyclist is (regrdless of how well they can deal with them). Someone with less expeience may find it extremely nerve-wracking and that's when things can go wrong.

Poorly designed cycle lanes look like a complete nightmare. Worse is that the average cyclist would not recognise it as such and happily use them completely unaware of the potential risks (me included most likely), thus letting their guard down and making things even worse. I'm sure the people responsible for them being there thought they were doing the right thing, but it would appear these people need much better education too.


----------



## NigC (30 Apr 2010)

snorri said:


> This thread should be in Campaign, it is not a Commuting specific topic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, I think the most "at risk" cyclists are those that commute: They are on the roads at the busiest times of the day and almost always have to be somewhere at a given tme - no matter how mcuh time you have, this always adds a little pressure to a journey. A casual cyclist would never normally be on the roads at this time and would most likely pick a route that was much more peaceful anyway.

As for me? I'm more of a backseat driver when it comes to this sort of thing - hence this thread suggesting somebody else take the reins, sorry  Besides, I know how fruitless most campaigning really is - all it seems to do is irritate people rather than actually achieving anything (OK, now I'm running for the hills after that comment . I'm more than happy to add my opinion if I think it's worthy, but I'll be the first one to leave when the riot shields are brought out.


----------



## MacLean (30 Apr 2010)

NigC said:


> I think the first line I've quoted goes a long way to explaining why most incidents can be ignored: You are an immensely experienced cyclist and used to cycling in heavy traffic. So you are far more aware of the dangers faced by cyclists, are much more experienced generally in handling a bike, consequently you are much better equipped to deal with them. I suspect this goes for quite a large number of members here too.
> 
> The fact that you still have "moments" highlights how vulnerable even the most experienced cyclist is (regrdless of how well they can deal with them). Someone with less expeience may find it extremely nerve-wracking and that's when things can go wrong.
> 
> Poorly designed cycle lanes look like a complete nightmare. Worse is that the average cyclist would not recognise it as such and happily use them completely unaware of the potential risks (me included most likely), thus letting their guard down and making things even worse. I'm sure the people responsible for them being there thought they were doing the right thing, but it would appear these people need much better education too.



When you think about it cyling is just like after passing your driving test...

When you start you are most at danger due to lack of experience. Unfortunitly only way to gain experience is to get out there, pay attention, be carefull and not be unlucky.

Unfortunitly the last one is out of everyones control


----------



## CharlieB (30 Apr 2010)

I recall posting a very similar OP to this one very shortly before I started commuting, as a response to seeing the content of these fora.
I received similar and thus encouraging response to what's been seen above.

Having been on those same roads nearly every morning and evening for the past eight months, I guess I can only add that yes, _any_ road user is in a vulnerable position, but it's been a totally rewarding experience.

A glance at any tabloid newspaper will tell you that it's the negative stuff that gets the headlines.


----------



## beanzontoast (30 Apr 2010)

Sometimes, people post about incidents because they are seeking advice. It's not just posting for the sake of telling what happened.

Anyone browsing the forum can decide for themselves whether they want to read and respond to what some might regard as 'bad' news.


----------



## Trevrev (30 Apr 2010)

NigC said:


> I agree in priciple - the more defensive you ride, the safer you're gonna be. But most of my close-calls have been while I was pootling along happily when suddenly a car/skip lorry (seems to be the most often) gives you almost no space and you wonder how the hell their mirror missed you. The only defense against that is to keep off the roads.



Sounds like you're just unlucky.
I go on the theory , If it hasn't hit you then it's a safe pass.


----------



## Barbelier (30 Apr 2010)

> older drivers need re-educating (and by older I mean anyone over forty years of age)


 ....errrrr why? 

Based on my experience aggressive, selfish and thoughtless driving around cyclists has no correlation with age. If I was going to make gross generalisations, which I don't think are relevant here, I'd say the following categories of driver are more likely to cause danger to a cyclist:

1. Young (inexperienced) aggressive drivers in "fast" cars - the hot hatch or small BMW/Audi brigade
2. Van drivers (lorry drivers on the other hand seem to be far better)
3. Women drivers in larger cars, who seem to lack an awarness of the size of the vehicle or good road positioning
4. The 4X4 "I've got a big, noisy tank so you'd better get out of my way brigade"

My experience of older drivers is overall pretty good - they tend to be more cautious, considerate and experienced.

However, as I said, don't think we can generalise. It's got much more to do with selfishness, aggression and arrogance than age and that's driven by upbringing, life experience and what society allows. Sadly I can only see it becoming worse the more we continue to slid into a materialistic, "want it now", lawless society.

Education fine and will potentially change the behaviour of the small open-minded minority who are willing to learn. For the majority the stick seems to work better.............but then I don't see increased penalties for endangering cyclists anytime soon. Oh what a cynically sod I've become!


----------



## Amanda P (30 Apr 2010)

NigC said:


> ...from the number of threads detailing close calls, accidents and sadly deaths, it's clear that the cyclist drivers puts theircyclists' life at risk every time they go out.



Fixed that for you...


----------



## jonny jeez (30 Apr 2010)

4F said:


> Bad news makes good news. If we all posted "Nothing happened on my ride in this morning" it would get very boring.
> 
> My personal experience of 5000 miles a year for what must be going on nearly 10 years now is that maybe I have had a dozen occasions of really poor driving where I have felt endangered.




Correct...by the way, I tried it once only got 605 views!!!...see this link

https://www.cyclechat.net/

Posts and videos are a bad representation of cycling, we pass literally millions of vehicles each day and all survive to tell the tale.

in around 3000 miles I've had ONE bad experience. and probably a maximum of 30 close passes etc, all nothing worth getting upset about.


----------



## Trevrev (30 Apr 2010)

As long as i get home in one piece, no matter what has happened, i class that as a good ride home.


----------



## Trevrev (30 Apr 2010)

Browser said:


> older drivers need re-educating (and by older I mean anyone over forty years of age)



Anyone over forty years of age.......!!!! Forty isn't old FFS!!!
You might have guessed, i'm in my 40's !!!..hahahahahaha!!!
I still think you're an ageist T**T !!!!


----------



## brokenbetty (30 Apr 2010)

I recently read this book : http://www.amazon.co.uk/Risk-Scienc...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272627946&sr=1-1

The main theme is that mass media's ability to broadcast individual experiences round the world cause modern humans to massively overestimate certain types of risks.

I thoroughly recommend it.

I have no doubt that the bad driver anecdotes that get posted on here cause many people, including experienced cyclists, to overestimate how dangerous cycling is.


----------



## snorri (30 Apr 2010)

NigC said:


> Actually, I think the most "at risk" cyclists are those that commute: They are on the roads at the busiest times of the day and almost always have to be somewhere at a given tme - no matter how mcuh time you have, this always adds a little pressure to a journey. A casual cyclist would never normally be on the roads at this time and would most likely pick a route that was much more peaceful anyway.


I can't agree. Commuting cyclists are on the same route every day at the same times, they know the locations of hazards and are aware of potential risks, they know how long their journey times will take so adjust their journey start times accordingly. Utility, touring and leisure cyclists are likely to have little or no local knowledge and be more at risk from poor infrastructure and lack of awareness of alternative routes.


----------



## Mark_Robson (30 Apr 2010)

Let me play devils advocate for a moment, what about the inexperienced cyclist that is a danger to him or herself and everyone around them? At least every car driver has had recognised training in the operation of the vehicle and using it on the public highways.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Apr 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> Let me play devils advocate for a moment, what about the inexperienced cyclist that is a danger to him or herself and everyone around them? At least every car driver has had recognised training in the operation of the vehicle and using it on the public highways.




A cyclist is a danger to everyone around them? Ahaahaahaahaahaahaha!!! Now that is massive overestimation of danger.


----------



## jonny jeez (30 Apr 2010)

BentMikey said:


> A cyclist is a danger to everyone around them? Ahaahaahaahaahaahaha!!! Now that is massive overestimation of danger.



Oh my god look at that cyclist..."HE'S GONNA BLOW!!!"

Sorry Mark.

I think Mark meant those close by as apposed to just "everyone"


----------



## BentMikey (30 Apr 2010)

*cough* near or not makes no difference.


----------



## Mark_Robson (30 Apr 2010)

BentMikey said:


> A cyclist is a danger to everyone around them? Ahaahaahaahaahaahaha!!! Now that is massive overestimation of danger.


Don't forget that I was playing devils advocate.


----------



## GrasB (30 Apr 2010)

The driver also is in charge of a vehicle that can cause a lot of damage even at very low speeds.


----------



## adds21 (30 Apr 2010)

magnatom said:


> So IMO, councils should stop putting down cycle lanes that encourage poor cycling and reinforce the idea that cyclists should cycle in the gutter, and put up road markings/signs that alert drivers of their responsibilities and that often for good reason cyclists may need to be in the centre of the lane.



Couldn't agree more. Cycle lanes are a real nuisance when they just consist of a white line down the edge of the road. All that happens is cars think they can pass without giving extra space. They're worse than useless, and in some cases, dangerous. I'd much rather be "on the road" and considered as "just another vehicle".

The only good cycle lanes (IMO), are ones which take you away from the traffic completely.

..And don't get me started on shared pavements!...


----------



## HJ (30 Apr 2010)

NigC said:


> I've not been visiting this forum for very long, but from the number of threads detailing close calls, accidents and sadly deaths, *it's clear that the cyclist puts their life at risk every time they go out.*



That is a total exaggeration, you have to remember that a lot of people post on here to let off steam, the reality is that cycling is actually a fairly safe form of transport. There is risk in everything but if you look at the road "accident" statistics you will find that on a mile for mile basis the cycling is actually safer than driving, but if you are really worried then take the bus, which is the safest form of road transport.

That is not to say that things could be safer, there are seven unnecessary deaths on the roads every day, here are a few things that could make it safer for all.


----------



## boydj (30 Apr 2010)

snorri said:


> I can't agree. Commuting cyclists are on the same route every day at the same times, they know the locations of hazards and are aware of potential risks, they know how long their journey times will take so adjust their journey start times accordingly. Utility, touring and leisure cyclists are likely to have little or no local knowledge and be more at risk from poor infrastructure and lack of awareness of alternative routes.



+1

I do think that in most places outside London, commuting cyclists are not so common and drivers get used to the cyclists they see on a regular basis and their driving tends to better - at least that's my experience commuting in Glasgow for the last five years.

I also believe that drivers commuting in the rush hour tend to be much more 'on the ball' - i.e. alert and aware of what's going on round them and so the standard of driving is better than it is say, when the school run gets going.


----------



## buggi (30 Apr 2010)

i was saying to a guy at work today that when you add up all the things a cyclist has to be aware of on the road, it's a wonder any of us make it home in one piece.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (30 Apr 2010)

Thing is though...

Today I set off, was waved out of a junction, 1/2 mile on indicated right to move into o/s lane of a dual c/way, car behind patiently waited instead of barging on through, headed up an uphill 2-lane carriageway in the r/h lane to turn right at the next lights with no hassle from the following car. One aborted overtake from a van driver, the overtake was aborted early and though whilst it would have no doubt been marked down on a driving test, showed enough alertness to re-evaluate the situation and pull back and wait until safe.

I had to think hard about any noteworthy comments because tonight was simply "how it should be"

Of course, it would still have only taken one idiot to make the journey into a really memorable one for the wrong reasons, but most journeys aren't like that..they are forgettable


----------



## dondare (1 May 2010)

I've been cycling in London for 30 years without ever being killed, seriously injured or involved in a fight with a motorist. 
I suspect that the vast majority of cyclists could tell you the same thing. (Well, not necessarily the 30 yrs in London bit but you know what I mean.)



(I've had some pretty heated debates on cycling forums, but none that I would regard as life-threatening.)


----------



## NigC (1 May 2010)

Almost tempted to let this one die, but not quite just yet. A couple more things I want to say:

OK, yes, what gets posted here is more than likely the juicy bits we all know we want to hear and as such is going to tend towards the more dramatic. But from my own experiences as a driver and cyclist, I absolutely believe life on 2 wheels is considerably more dangerous than on 4. Here's a brief reflection of my "moments" as a motorist for 24 (wow!  ) YEARS:

3 very low speed prangs (none my fault I hasten to add).
1 low speed near miss: car pulls out from side road.
1 Icy moment: Didn't allow for a thin layer of snow and skidded out from a junction - luckily nothing coming.
1 scary moment on a motorway: 3/4 completed an overtake of a lorry (me in middle lane) when the lorry starts indicating and pulling in to my lane. I quickly employ the right foot, check and move to ouside lane.
1 very serious near miss: pulling out onto a mini roundabout with the road to my right perfectly clear. I'm moving, but check to my left and see a 40ft artic hurtling towards me. Thankfully I stopped and just gave him enough room to squeeze past. A "sorry" wave from the driver didn't help me get any sleep that night! That was 8 years ago and I still treat mini roundabouts as regular junctions now.
1 stupid speeding fine: downhill on an empty dual carriageway, I was photographed doing 82 in a 70 limit. Entirely my fault.
Now my 18 MONTHS as a cyclist averaging (I guess) around 6 journeys a week:

3 very dangerous moments where cars have pulled out from side roads. 1 time I had to brake so hard I almost tipped the bike over - rear wheel in the air for what seemed like an eternity.
4 skip lorries passing me way too close - enough to feel the suction and definitely very scary.
Lost count of the times I've been cut up by drivers turning left on a roundabout where I go straight across. It must be in double figures.
1 Bus passing way too close - was expecting more than that, but that's all I can remember.
1 post office van cutting in close on a left bend while I was also there, forcing me to brake hard.
1 jogger crossing in front of me without checking and getting the fright of her life as I swerve to avoid her.
Many cars passing too close for comfort (sorry - never kept count of these).
1 car driver thinking about overtaking me, but changeing their mind - choosing to sit with their nearside bumber level with my backside and clearly too close for comfort as they didn't think they had room to pass. This one was particularly stressful as there was no pathway to escape onto had I felt the need.
And in that same 18 months as a pedestrian:

Nearly got hit by a banana skin thrown by WVM.
50 times (at least) got really annoyed when my boot laces have come undone.
Almost slipped 3 or 4 times during the winter snow.
I consider myself a very careful road user, no matter what my choice of transport is, but my own personal stats are testament to the vulnerability of the cyclist. Having said that, I believe my own awareness has improved while cycling and a large number of my "moments" were in the earlier months.

What worries me is the numbers in relation to time spent on the road when compared to driving. OK, so most have been pretty undramatic, but I know some time sooner or later I'm going to take a spill, which I'm sure, statistically, is likely to just see me home with the odd cut and bruise. But I don't like the odds when compared to taking the car. BUT, I'm still going to take the bike anyway 

As to this not really relating to commuters on bikes, I'm still of the belief it very much does. As I've said before, the commuter is travelling at the busiest time of the day and often on the busiest roads in the area. Many members here are very experienced cyclists and have no problem handling the odd "moment", but many people are giving the bike a "go" because of various reasons: ridiculous petrol prices; fitness; cycling is quicker! These are most likely people that have ridden a bike as a kid, so know how to handle it, but haven't got the skills they might need for a commute. Learning by your mistakes as a cyclist can be much more painful than as a driver.

A casual cyclist will almost certainly know their area well enough to know the busiest roads and the busiest times and quite probably plan their cycle deliberately to avoid them. In fact, they'll probably choose a more scenic route entirely where motorised traffic is not permitted.

Well I think I've said enough on this now, I'm off to bed


----------



## hackbike 666 (1 May 2010)

Why would I want to take the bus?

It's one reason why I cycle...so I go years without catching one.


----------



## PBancroft (1 May 2010)

NigC, out of interest what was your road position during those incidents? I'm by far no expert on this subject, but I'm wondering how much of a bearing it may have had (if at all).

Forget primary, secondary, etc., perhaps just a description?


----------



## summerdays (1 May 2010)

I think in the car we don't notice/assess the risk as well - and note the risk isn't always to ourselves but also our passengers as well as those around the car whether they are in other cars or cycling or pedestrians. I think you become detached from true reality, thinking you are safe in your metal bubble. I think on the bike we are more aware how we can create a risk ourselves or be at risk from other people.


----------



## ComedyPilot (1 May 2010)

Nigc, most of these threads are in the 'Commute' section. Commuting is something people do in cars, buses, trains, vans etc. They are all trying to get somewhere. Cycling isn't just about commuting, it is a very diverse pastime. 

Have a look at touring and racing for two examples, and see how people enthuse about their riding. Commuting tends to bring up a few negatives, as it (in some places) can get hairy. But, it can be like that for all road users, not just cyclists. 

As long as you use the attitude that all other road users haven't seen you and will step out, turn, stop without a thought about you, then you'll be ok.

Just don't think commuting is the 'be all and end all' of cycling, it isn't.


----------



## Riding in Circles (1 May 2010)

We're doooooomed! If we posted every single uneventful ride on here then you would hardly notice the odd ride where something happened.


----------



## GrasB (1 May 2010)

Catrike UK said:


> We're doooooomed! If we posted every single uneventful ride on here then you would hardly notice the odd ride where something happened.


+1 most of my rides could be summed up with "nice ride, nothing note worthy happened". Would make for boring reading.


----------



## NigC (1 May 2010)

Ah forget it. I just thought you guys might be interested in making it a little safer for future cyclists by highlighting the dangers we face. But clearly you're all just interested in bitching about how you've been wronged by motons. That's fine by me, have a safe journey in your own little personal worlds


----------



## BentMikey (1 May 2010)

Calm down dear!


----------



## dondare (1 May 2010)

Britain's biggest killer is heart disease, which regular, moderate exercise protects you from. This far outweighs the dangers of cycling on the road.


----------



## GrasB (1 May 2010)

NigC said:


> Almost tempted to let this one die, but not quite just yet. A couple more things I want to say:
> 
> OK, yes, what gets posted here is more than likely the juicy bits we all know we want to hear and as such is going to tend towards the more dramatic. But from my own experiences as a driver and cyclist, I absolutely believe life on 2 wheels is considerably more dangerous than on 4. Here's a brief reflection of my "moments" as a motorist for 24 (wow!  ) YEARS:
> 
> ...




I doubt this gets close to covering the number of incidents you would have remembered had your vehicle been a bike. When I looked through a video from the Exige going down the motorway for 85 miles 70% of people that pull in front of me were close enough to the off-side front of the car that had they given the same space on the bike I've been very concerned, also there were a number of people who overtook me without even fully crossing the road division. Oh & for over 75% of the time I had someone behind me with less than 2 cars lengths away... that's fairly dangerous at 70mph. Due to the fact that I was wrapped in a metal & fibreglass cage I was far less concerned.


----------



## snorri (1 May 2010)

NigC said:


> Ah forget it. I just thought you guys might be interested in making it a little safer for future cyclists by highlighting the dangers we face. But clearly you're all just interested in bitching about how you've been wronged by motons. That's fine by me, have a safe journey in your own little personal worlds



That's a bit rich coming from you.

The last line in Post 1 and the last paragraph in Post 26 would suggest to most of us that you are the one not interested in making an effort to improve conditions for cyclists.


----------



## NigC (1 May 2010)

snorri said:


> That's a bit rich coming from you.
> 
> The last line in Post 1 and the last paragraph in Post 26 would suggest to most of us that you are the one not interested in making an effort to improve conditions for cyclists.



I'm not, I thought, just maybe, there'd be some interest from somebody who IS willing to do something and I'd get behind them. Like I said, I'm a backseat driver. Besides, I'm not that experienced a cyclist.

I just didn't realise how self-centred a lot of you people are. This forum is full of expert cyclists who have a vast amount of knowledge and experience when it comes to dealing with everyday situations while commuting. But instead of putting in some effort to help, most of that effort goes towards complaining.

I should have known this would go nowhere when I suggested making some useful tips for would-be cycle-commuters. Only a very small number actually bothered to reply at all, and an even smaller number actually gave something useful.

They say a little knowledge is a wonderful thing (or something like that) and I have mine now. So from now on, I'll just stick to complaining about the incidents I suffer on my journey and offering my sympathies to others.


----------



## BentMikey (1 May 2010)

That's surely a little unkind.

What about all the advice sharing done on here?
What about all the positive emails and letters sent to companies on their drivers' excellent behaviour?
What about all the helmet cam incidents where people make the effort to report stuff. It's not like we do this for any benefit to ourselves, as it's only likely to help future cyclists that driver encounters.


----------



## NigC (1 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> That's surely a little unkind.
> 
> What about all the advice sharing done on here?
> What about all the positive emails and letters sent to companies on their drivers' excellent behaviour?
> What about all the helmet cam incidents where people make the effort to report stuff. It's not like we do this for any benefit to ourselves, as it's only likely to help future cyclists that driver encounters.



I know, there's some good stuff too 

Sorry, I'm a little grouchy today and comments like "we're all dooooomed" really haven't helped my mood  Maybe tomorrow will be better


----------



## BentMikey (1 May 2010)

You see, I don't think cycling is particularly dangerous at all, not by the standards of other daily activities. Sure, it can be improved, but London is a cycling paradise, IMO. The huge mass of cyclists is having a big effect on safety for us all.


----------



## dondare (1 May 2010)

NigC said:


> I'm not, I thought, just maybe, there'd be some interest from somebody who IS willing to do something and I'd get behind them. Like I said, I'm a backseat driver. Besides, I'm not that experienced a cyclist.
> 
> I just didn't realise how self-centred a lot of you people are. This forum is full of expert cyclists who have a vast amount of knowledge and experience when it comes to dealing with everyday situations while commuting. But instead of putting in some effort to help, most of that effort goes towards complaining.
> 
> ...



My advice is to remove all "cycling facilities" and let cyclists be treated like legitimate users of the unmodified roads. The conditions and behaviour that make roads safe for cyclists are by and large those that also make the roads safe for motorists. 
Cyclists should not be alone in condemning dangerous driving and badly designed roads nor should motorists be alone in condemning foolish behaviour by cyclists.

When I cycle I stay aware of what is going on around me and what is happening; and might happen; on the road ahead. I know the dynamics of pedestrians, bikes, cars and lorries so I know when it is safe to filter, for instance, and when it would be suicidal. This should make sense. But what works for me is to ride the way a Samurai warrior fights; with an empty mind. I let my experience and instinct guide me through situations which I don't have time to think about. I would not recomend this technique to a novice.


----------



## 661-Pete (1 May 2010)

Trevrev said:


> Anyone over forty years of age.......!!!! Forty isn't old FFS!!!
> You might have guessed, i'm in my 40's !!!..hahahahahaha!!!
> I still think you're an ageist T**T !!!!


Well ... ahem ahem ... I've just turned sixty. So I have to take that side of things too, plus 50%!



NigC said:


> But clearly you're all just interested in bitching about how you've been wronged by motons. That's fine by me, have a safe journey in your own little personal worlds


Can't see that we have. Indeed, can't answer for everyone of course, but I make a point, in the few threads I do post on here, in *not* bitching too much about 'motons' (your choice of word). If you look at the thread which I started, yesterday, you'll see that the party with most reason to feel aggrieved after the accident I described, was _a motorist_. And, although I did sense a little bit of anti-cyclist hostility at the scene, you will also see that I didn't think it was an issue. I posted my experience because it was an _exceptional_ experience and for that reason I felt it had to be written up.



dondare said:


> Britain's biggest killer is heart disease, which regular, moderate exercise protects you from. This far outweighs the dangers of cycling on the road.


Don't I know it! Cue Mayer Hillman and his data on 'life years' (twenty life-years gained for every one lost). Everyone should read his writings. NigC too!



NigC said:


> Like I said, I'm a backseat driver.


I thought you said, in an earlier post, that you were an experienced driver of 24 years standing.



NigC said:


> Sorry, I'm a little grouchy today and comments like "we're all dooooomed" really haven't helped my mood  Maybe tomorrow will be better


Come come now, that was a joke!

Myself, OK I'm an 'experienced' cyclist I reckon, with 50 years of cycling behind me I suppose I have to be. But my attitudes to cycling have hardly changed in all those 50 years. And the 'incidents' I've been involved in, like yesterday's little affair, have been very much the exception, not the rule.

I think the main objective for aspiring cyclists is, they've got to really enjoy cycling. To *love* it in fact. Once they've achieved that, they're sold on cycling for the rest of their lives, come what may. My sense of this is, Nigc, you haven't quite reached that point yet. You haven't given it enough of a chance. Please persevere. Please try to see if you can really *love* the bike. I don't really want to criticise your thread but it has come across very negative.


----------



## summerdays (1 May 2010)

I guess we cyclists don't like to seen doing something which is considered dangerous as it may put off potential new cyclists who often approach it as "it must be very dangerous" - its certainly the attitude I get from many non cycling friends/family (to be honest, myself too, before I tried it again).

Yes there are dangers ... but there are in many of the things we do in life. The best advice I could give for commuting would be to read Cyclecraft.


----------



## dondare (1 May 2010)

summerdays said:


> I guess we cyclists don't like to seen doing something which is considered dangerous as it may put off potential new cyclists who often approach it as "it must be very dangerous" - its certainly the attitude I get from many non cycling friends/family (to be honest, myself too, before I tried it again).
> 
> Yes there are dangers ... but there are in many of the things we do in life. The best advice I could give for commuting would be to read Cyclecraft.



Mile for mile, cycling is safer than walking.
Who is too afraid to walk?


----------



## summerdays (1 May 2010)

dondare said:


> Mile for mile, cycling is safer than walking.
> Who is too afraid to walk?



But ask a pedestrian or car driver that and it won't be their answer... the perception of risk is greater for cycling - presumably so we can continue our love affair with the combustion engine.


----------



## NigC (1 May 2010)

dondare said:


> Mile for mile, cycling is safer than walking.
> Who is too afraid to walk?



Hmmmmm, interesting stat. Where does that claim come from?


----------



## Crankarm (2 May 2010)

summerdays said:


> But ask a pedestrian or *car driver* that and it won't be their answer... the perception of risk is greater for cycling - presumably so we can continue our love affair with the combustion engine.



Motons believe cycling is dangerous - quite correctly, as they themselves know exactly how careless or dangerous their driving is. They know they regularly speed, use their phones, laptops, any other electrical device, read newspapers, eat breakfast, lunch and tea, carry out general office work, apply their make up, fiddle with the sat nav and get angry with their kids, all, whilst driving.

Anyway I gave up road riding a couple of weeks ago after 25-30 years. I couldn't take anymore of the constant harrassment and bullying, frequent near death experiences and the breathtaking ignorance and arrogance of drivers as happy to drive over as around you. Often I thought I wouldn't make it home.

I now enjoy pootling along in my car. It's far safer pootling along in a car than on a bicycle. It might be a bit more expensive, but it's cheap in comparison to being dead. I was already knocked off once and hospitalised back in 1999. It was time to give up now before I became a government dead statistic. On a bicycle one is vulnerable, very vulnerable. There is often only going to be one outcome if a vehicle collides with a cyclist.

I read a report some years ago that the mortality rate was 9x higher for cyclists than for car drivers. That seems about right to me. Maybe even a little too conservative an estimate.

The biggest single change that governmemt could make to provide safer roads for cyclists, and all other vulnerable road users, pedestrians, is for the law to be changed that where any vehicle is in collision with a pedestrian, cyclist, horse, milk float, etc. that there is a _*rebuttable*_ presumption that the driver was negligent. It is a rebuttable presumption so if there was compelling evidence that the driver was not negligent and therefore was not responsible for causing the collision then they would not be punished, fined, etc. This would need to be a heavy burden to over come though. Absolutely no Mr Loophole defences accepted. This would drastically slash the daily carnage that takes place on the roads.

Still, safe cycling to those still doing it.

Ps. I was cycling about 10,000 miles a year.


----------



## hackbike 666 (2 May 2010)

summerdays said:


> I guess we cyclists don't like to seen doing something which is considered dangerous as it may put off potential new cyclists who often approach it as "it must be very dangerous" - its certainly the attitude I get from many non cycling friends/family (to be honest, myself too, before I tried it again).
> 
> Yes there are dangers ... but there are in many of the things we do in life. The best advice I could give for commuting would be to read Cyclecraft.




Cyclecraft does not fix appaling driving.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (2 May 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> Cyclecraft does not fix appaling driving.



Doesn't it? Maybe in some cases it does..

But I found it in the library years back after I was clipped by a stray strap from a curtain-side lorry that was headed along a busy main road to the docks.

I found it and instantly felt that it was totally what I was looking for after thanking my lucky stars that I fell left onto the pavement and not right under 16 wheels

I was 16 then end looking forward to getting my "L" plates and Cyclecraft made a real impact on the only kind of Roadcraft that I was qualified to practice at the time.....and I really do think that regularly cycing and deading Cyclecraft in depth, made me a better driver as well as cyclist.


----------



## hackbike 666 (2 May 2010)

That reminds me...when I first started commuting @ 17 years of age the internet was not around and nor was cyclecraft.



Sheffield_Tiger said:


> ...and I really do think that regularly cycing and deading Cyclecraft in depth, made me a better driver as well as cyclist.




Yeah and I bet there are a few on here who think they are better than they actually are.



Crankarm said:


> Motons believe cycling is dangerous - quite correctly, as they themselves know exactly how careless or dangerous their driving is. They know they regularly speed, use their phones, laptops, any other electrical device, read newspapers, eat breakfast, lunch and tea, carry out general office work, apply their make up, fiddle with the sat nav and get angry with their kids, all, whilst driving.



Definetly...It's got worse with mobile phones....I hate those bloody things so much.

They also can't actually see what they are doing wrong because they like everyone else thinks they are so good at driving/multitasking.

Have you seen how poor their road positioning is when they use a mobile phone...plus the driving deteriorates.

Crankarm as you don't bang on about Cyclecraft every five seconds did you ever read it?
Just out of interest question and not meant as any sort of criticism...


----------



## Crankarm (2 May 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> That reminds me...when I first started commuting @ 17 years of age the internet was not around and nor was cyclecraft.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I once read part of it all the way through. I took my full motorcycle test in preference. It troubles me somewhat that cyclists are relying on this publication when it is not a statement of road traffic law. A lot of it is common sense though.


----------



## hackbike 666 (2 May 2010)

Crankarm said:


> I once read part of it all the way through. I took my full motorcycle test in preference. It troubles me somewhat that cyclists are relying on this publication when it is not a statement of road traffic law. A lot of it is common sense though.



I have read some of it and agree with what you say.


----------



## summerdays (2 May 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> Cyclecraft does not fix appaling driving.



No but it does tell you situations to watch out for and how to position yourself to prevent some problems happening.

I agree with Crankarm that the law should be changed so that it is closer to the Europeans, and think it would make a difference to how they drove. But most of the general public don't understand it and don't want that change. If one of the parties had it in their manifesto I would vote that for them.


----------



## skudupnorth (2 May 2010)

To be honest I find driving the car more and more stressful than it used to be nowadays because the same clowns who cause cyclists problems do the same to other car drivers ! The other day I got left hooked on the bike but "luckily" it was in a place that I know this sort of action happens and was sort of expecting an incident.the nice shiny Peugeot now has a nice bar end scratch to remind them not to do it again !


----------



## Arch (2 May 2010)

NigC said:


> I'm not, I thought, just maybe, there'd be some interest from somebody who IS willing to do something and _I'd get behind them_.



Um, someone said, some pages back, get campaigning. You can get behind the CTC, or your most local campaign, or Sustrans or whoever you happen to believe in most.

You're the one who started the 'doomed' bit.


----------



## Arch (2 May 2010)

Crankarm said:


> I once read part of it all the way through. I took my full motorcycle test in preference. It troubles me somewhat that cyclists are relying on this publication when it is not a statement of road traffic law. A lot of it is common sense though.



I don't think cyclists 'rely' on it, any more than they rely on the Highway Code, or the Road traffic Act. They read it, and are able to make better informed choices about their cycling. They don't make it into a papier mache shell, or strap copies to their elbows - that's not how books work.

You once read 'part of it, all the way through'? And did you then think about it and let it shape your riding or did you scoff and assume it couldn't teach you anything?


----------



## PBancroft (2 May 2010)

Crankarm said:


> I once read part of it all the way through. I took my full motorcycle test in preference. It troubles me somewhat that cyclists are relying on this publication when it is not a statement of road traffic law. A lot of it is common sense though.



I once read part of the Bible all the way through, then got bored and gave up.


----------



## Jaguar (2 May 2010)

skudupnorth said:


> To be honest I find driving the car more and more stressful than it used to be nowadays because the same clowns who cause cyclists problems do the same to other car drivers


 Me too, after my crash last year I am more nervous in a car than on my bike 



hackbike 666 said:


> [drivers on the phone] can't actually see what they are doing wrong because they like everyone else thinks they are so good at driving/multitasking


 My OH is a constant offender: speeding especially. He's had 2 tickets in 6 months, and even though I was hit by a car (driver "didn't see" me) last year, he doesn't change 
He has an expensive hands-free jobby, and uses the phone constantly because he is bored. His attention is definitely elsewhere when he's on the phone: if he calls me and I know he's driving, I tend to hang up and say I'll talk later. 




Crankarm said:


> Motons believe cycling is dangerous - quite correctly, as they themselves know exactly how careless or dangerous their driving is.


 I have to agree with you. OH is a case in point: he won't use his bike at all, because "it's too dangerous" - probably I don't help because daily I have tales of the twit who cut me up, or chased me, or forced through a gap when I had priority


----------



## Jaguar (2 May 2010)

NigC said:


> Hmmmmm, interesting stat. Where does that claim come from?



have a Google: I don't have time to check the sources, but one quote is "seven times as many pedestrians are killed each year as cyclists and ...pedestrians have more fatalities per mile of travel than cyclists" http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm


----------



## Crankarm (2 May 2010)

Arch said:


> *I don't think cyclists 'rely' on it, any more than they rely on the Highway Code, or the Road traffic Act*. They read it, and are able to make better informed choices about their cycling. They don't make it into a papier mache shell, or strap copies to their elbows - that's not how books work.
> 
> You once read 'part of it, all the way through'? And did you then think about it and let it shape your riding or did you scoff and assume it couldn't teach you anything?



The point is Cyclecraft is not a statement of the law. The RTA, Highway Code and other relevant legislation are.


----------



## Davidc (2 May 2010)

NigC said:


> Hmmmmm, interesting stat. Where does that claim come from?



ONS (Office for National Statistics)


----------



## BentMikey (2 May 2010)

Crankarm said:


> The point is Cyclecraft is not a statement of the law. The RTA, Highway Code and other relevant legislation are.



Teh highway code isn't law either. Arch is exactly right, IMO.


----------



## Davidc (2 May 2010)

Cyclecraft has a lot of good advice in it, and tells you a lot of best practice.

I've read it, and even after 50 years of cycling managed to find some new ideas on how to navigate and survive our roads.

Back to the OP, I'm like a number of the other posters on the thread, I've been cycling for deades, had a few near misses, and come off a few times, but I'm still here. I try to avoid trouble, usually successfully. The worst and most life threatening crashes I've had have been in a car, apart from nearly being run down by a drunk driver when waiting for a bus. Fortunately for me he killed all of a family who were stationary in their car instead.

Of course it looks bad on this and other cycling forums. Every cycling death gets reported - it's worse than the Daily Wail for that. That means that every one of the roughly 250 deaths appears here, two every three days. (Correct my figures if they're not quite right please - didn't re-check them). There were about 2500 road deaths last year, and more of them were pedestrians and drivers than were cyclists, but we generally don't highlight the others.


----------



## Crankarm (2 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Teh highway code isn't law either. Arch is exactly right, IMO.



Congratulations BM you are wrong, again .

Btw your spelling is slipping as well ........


----------



## hackbike 666 (2 May 2010)

Kaipaith said:


> I once read part of the Bible all the way through, then got bored and gave up.



Wash your mouth out.Cyclecraft is the bible.AMEN.



Arch said:


> You once read 'part of it, all the way through'? And did you then think about it and let it shape your riding or did you scoff and assume it couldn't teach you anything?



Nope...no way...I just don't generally read books....just the way I am.


----------



## BentMikey (2 May 2010)

Crankarm, how exactly is the highway code law? What is the name and date of the act?

As for commenting on typos - that means you've already lost.


----------



## hackbike 666 (2 May 2010)

Jaguar said:


> My OH is a constant offender: speeding especially. He's had 2 tickets in 6 months, and even though I was hit by a car (driver "didn't see" me) last year, he doesn't change
> He has an expensive hands-free jobby, and uses the phone constantly because he is bored. His attention is definitely elsewhere when he's on the phone: if he calls me and I know he's driving, I tend to hang up and say I'll talk later.



I always wonder what that is about...some people at work just seem to have a phone glued to their ear all the time.Very unsociable and sometimes I just don't bother saying hello if it's like that because I have been ignored in the past.Yes I have a phone but I mainly use it for work and it has to be off otherwise I would get the sack...Allowed to use it in an emergency though.


----------



## GrasB (2 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Teh highway code isn't law either. Arch is exactly right, IMO.


+1 



Crankarm said:


> Congratulations BM you are wrong, again .


So another 'experienced' cyclist who needs to properly acquaint them selves with the highway code..


Directgov http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070236 said:


> Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘*MUST*/*MUST NOT*’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'.
> 
> Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.


To paraphrase this: The HWC is a statement of law and best practice. It may be sighted in court to define expected behaviour


----------



## Crankarm (2 May 2010)

GrasB said:


> +1
> 
> 
> So another 'experienced' cyclist who needs to properly acquaint them selves with the highway code..
> ...



Uhhhh...!!!????

You very successfully contradict yourself GrasB - agreeing with BM, but then agreeing with me that is a statement of law in that it can be cited in court. You even copy the piece that states that road users can be prosecuted for breaking it's rules ......... . It must be painful sitting on that fence .


----------



## BentMikey (2 May 2010)

The highway code isn't law, but it paraphrases a number of acts.


----------



## Mark_Robson (2 May 2010)

IMO the highway code like any other approved code is simply an easy to understand explanation of a set of regulations or an act. An ACOP may not be legally binding as such but the regulations or act that it interprets certainly are.


----------



## Dan B (2 May 2010)

You can't be prosecuted for breaking HC rules. You can be prosecuted for committing a motoring offence. Some HC rules (the ones with CAPITALS) are backed by specific motoring offences, some are not. Some motoring offences (e.g. "careless driving" or "dangerous driving") are quite broad in scope and depend on the prosecution proving that the standard of conduct fell below "reasonable" - in these cases they may well refer to the HC rules to explain what the "reasonable" standard is. But the simple fact that there is an HC rule relating to some behaviour does not automatically mean that behaviour is forbidden/required by law: the decision will be made on a broader overall picture.


----------



## Crankarm (2 May 2010)

The HC is law. Some rules are mandatory such as speed limits and mandatory road signs, some road markings eg double white lines, box junctions and double yellow lines and then there are traffic signals, others are merely advisory in nature, but it is still an authoritative statement of the law. Cyclecraft is not.


----------



## Mark_Robson (2 May 2010)

Where's Vike when you need him.


----------



## GrasB (2 May 2010)

Crankarm said:


> Uhhhh...!!!????
> 
> You very successfully contradict yourself GrasB - agreeing with BM, but then agreeing with me that is a statement of law in that it can be cited in court. You even copy the piece that states that road users can be prosecuted for breaking it's rules ......... . It must be painful sitting on that fence .


Now some parts of the HWC are a *statement of legal requirements*, however others are simply *recommendations of best practice*. While not following that best practice is not illegal in its self the fact you didn't follow best practice has led to an incident is something to be taken into consideration.


----------



## BentMikey (2 May 2010)

Crankarm said:


> The HC is law. Some rules are mandatory such as speed limits and mandatory road signs, some road markings eg double white lines, box junctions and double yellow lines and then there are traffic signals, others are merely advisory in nature, but it is still an authoritative statement of the law. Cyclecraft is not.




Wrong. It is not law. Are you missing a bit of CLUE?

Neither the highway code nor cyclecraft are law, but they both often describe traffic law, and explain expected and best practice behaviour on the roads.


----------



## Riding in Circles (2 May 2010)

NigC said:


> Ah forget it. I just thought you guys might be interested in making it a little safer for future cyclists by highlighting the dangers we face. But clearly you're all just interested in bitching about how you've been wronged by motons. That's fine by me, have a safe journey in your own little personal worlds



Have you ever ridden a pedal cycle on the roads? I rarely have any issue with car drivers other that dingbat yoofs in Corsas with beancan exhausts, who like to beep their horns a lot, due to some genetic disorder they have inherited from their scum parents.


----------



## Crankarm (2 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Wrong. It is not law. Are you missing a bit of CLUE?
> 
> Neither the highway code nor cyclecraft are law, but they both often describe traffic law, and explain expected and best practice behaviour on the roads.



Continue in your ignorance, why change over something so fundamental? ....... .


----------



## BentMikey (2 May 2010)

I try to reduce my level of ignorance every day, but here I'm not the one confounding intimidation with actual danger, nor law with guidance.


----------



## Arch (2 May 2010)

Whether the HC is law or not is a red herring. The point about Cyclecraft isn't that it's the law, it's that it suggests useful ways to behave to increase your safety. You said yourself, Crankarm, a lot of it is common sense.

Would you rubbish a cookery book because it isn't the law? Or a carpentry manual? They are just the same - aids to doing something well.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (2 May 2010)

MacLean said:


> Too many cyclists on here expect perfect driving from those all around them... Never gonna happen no matter how much training you give them... The only hope is riding defensivly to how people drive, not how their suppose to drive according to the highway code.... How many average driving people do you think read the highway code on a regular basis? Ride expecting everyone to be a nutter and do the craziest thing at any moment then you dont get angry when they do it.
> 
> Cycling is riskier than driving, but if you want a life without risk then stay at home and take up knitting. Everyones gota go one day, one way or another.


I can relate to that; more cyclists than motorists read the highway code over here in Australia, too. This is simply because cyclists are still a definite minority and their slightest infraction is pounced upon by irate motorists demanding punishment of the "lycra louts", so the cyclists become experts on the highway code partially in self-defense. Because they're so informed on the highway code, they naturally notice when motorists break it.

I also think there should be more focus on sharing the road with cyclists in drivers license examinations and road tests. The problem is that (in Victoria, Australia, at least), the rules that either specifically apply to bicycles or just mention bicycles number perhaps 30 to 40 out of a total of 400 rules, so what hope have we that drivers tests will allocate more than 7-10% to these rules?


----------



## dondare (2 May 2010)

The Highway Code is a very dangerous mix of The Law and the opinions of the Driving Standards Authority, which are sometimes neither legal requirement nor best practice. 
Cyclecraft isn't The Law either, but the opinions and advice in it are better than some of that in the HC. 
It is unfortunate that some police officers, the DPP and some magistrates might regard failure to comply with the HC as evidence of careless or inconsiderate cycling. 
Both the HC and Cyclecraft are published by HM Stationery Office which gives Cyclecraft at least a bit of authority.


----------



## Crankarm (2 May 2010)

Arch said:


> Whether the HC is law or not is a red herring. The point about Cyclecraft *isn't that it's the law*,



Ha! Well it isn't, sorry to disappoint you.



Arch said:


> it's that it suggests useful ways to behave to increase your safety. You said yourself, Crankarm, a lot of it is common sense.



As I say I read part of it all the way through.



Arch said:


> Would you rubbish a cookery book because it isn't the law? Or a carpentry manual? They are just the same - aids to doing something well.



Uhhhh ??????????? ............. Cookery, carpentry ....... you've lost me. What on earth have the rules of the road got to do with these frivalous subjects? Ok carpentry isn't frivalous, but it's totally irrelevant to the instant topic, unless you are contemplating building your own gallows with which to hang your argument ?


----------



## summerdays (3 May 2010)

Arch's point is that you don't need something to be the law to tell you how to do something, to guide you. 

Another way to think about possibly is that Cyclecraft is equivalent to driving lessons - yes there are cycle training courses but cyclists don't have to take them to go out on the road. Until I read cycle craft I couldn't understand why I was getting left hooked at junctions - or rather how to prevent it from happening. The advantage of Cyclecraft over those driving lessons is that I go back and re-read it every now and again - how many go back and take additional driving lessons.


----------



## Crankarm (3 May 2010)

summerdays said:


> Arch's point is that you don't need something to be the law to tell you how to do something, to guide you.
> 
> Another way to think about possibly is that Cyclecraft is equivalent to driving lessons - yes there are cycle training courses but cyclists don't have to take them to go out on the road. Until I read cycle craft I couldn't understand why I was getting left hooked at junctions - or rather how to prevent it from happening. The advantage of Cyclecraft over those driving lessons is that I go back and re-read it every now and again - how many go back and take additional driving lessons.



SD, but the point is that the HC is law whether the rules it states are mandatory or advisory and Cyclecraft happens to be a book with ideas on how to cycle safely which is not law. It really is as simple as this.


----------



## BentMikey (3 May 2010)

Crankarm, really, when are you going to get it? The highway code is just that - a code, not an act of law. That's why it refers to various dated acts.


----------



## PBancroft (3 May 2010)

Crankarm said:


> SD, but the point is that the HC is law whether the rules it states are mandatory or advisory and Cyclecraft happens to be a book with ideas on how to cycle safely which is not law. It really is as simple as this.



Um, the Highway Code isn't law. Many of its rules are legal requirements (which is different), and of course it is worth bearing in mind that even those that aren't may be used in court to determine liability. The Highway Code itself says as much.

In comparison Cyclecraft is not law either. However it includes sections on the aforementioned Highway Code and how important it is. It is the foundation of Bikeability, and is recommended by RoSPA.

The two *are not* mutually exclusive.


----------



## Crankarm (3 May 2010)

BM & K. It is so. So get used to it. If it wasn't law even more road users would disregard it .

So what it is the national speed limit on motorways and non-motorways?

What is the sign that indicates no entry to a road?

When can you park on a double red/double yellow line/single yellow line?

When can vehicles cross a double white line?

So if one were to follow your contention that the HC is not law, then the above would be unenforceable .


----------



## BentMikey (3 May 2010)

Explain why all the MUSTs have references to law like the Road traffic act then. It's because the highway code isn't the law, it's a book of advice, some of which has MUST and is enshrined in actual law outside of the highway code.

For your first example:



> *Speed limits*
> 
> *124*
> 
> ...





It's not the highway code that mandates this, it's the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, sections as quoted.

Are you really this thick, or are you simply on a windup?


----------



## PBancroft (3 May 2010)

Crankarm said:


> BM & K. It is so. So get used to it. If it wasn't law even more road users would disregard it .
> 
> So what it is the national speed limit on motorways and non-motorways?
> 
> ...



As I said above, many of its rules are legal requirements, some are not. Those that are not may be used in court to determine liability. This is different to saying something is law. You list things which may or may not be legal requirements. A couple of other rules in the Highway Code are:-



> Help other road users to see you. Wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions.



This relates to pedestrians. Sound advice though it may be, it is not a legal requirement.



> Do not park in passing places.



Again, very sensible advice for motorists, but it isn't a law. You might get done for obstructing traffic if you happen to also be doing so, but that's different.

There are loads of these. In fact, the HC quite clearly states which of its rules are legal requirements, and which aren't. That doesn't mean its useless or irrelevant (far from it) but its worth bearing in mind before writing off anything else for not being law.


----------



## marinyork (3 May 2010)

Kaipaith said:


> Again, very sensible advice for motorists, but it isn't a law. You might get done for obstructing traffic if you happen to also be doing so, but that's different.
> 
> In fact, the HC quite clearly states which of its rules are legal requirements, and which aren't.



This is a poor example because the 'do not' is actually the second highest in the hierarchy. A better example would be something just said at all without a do/do not and should/should not attached at all.


----------



## summerdays (3 May 2010)

Crankarm said:


> SD, but the point is *that the HC is law* whether the rules it states are mandatory or advisory and Cyclecraft happens to be a book with ideas on how to cycle safely which is not law. It really is as simple as this.



Disagree - it references the individual acts of parliament as the others have said. Good job too given some of the advice it has had in the past with regard to cycling.


----------



## PBancroft (3 May 2010)

marinyork said:


> This is a poor example because the 'do not' is actually the second highest in the hierarchy. A better example would be something just said at all without a do/do not and should/should not attached at all.



True, I just picked something at random to make the point. This is an advisory rule which will not in itself cause someone to be prosecuted - it is not a legal requirement.


----------



## Crankarm (3 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Explain why all the MUSTs have references to law like the Road traffic act then. It's because the highway code isn't the law, it's a book of advice, some of which has MUST and is enshrined in actual law outside of the highway code.
> 
> For your first example:
> 
> ...



You obviously know you have a poor case to argue when you resort to nasty petty personal sniping .


----------



## marinyork (3 May 2010)

Kaipaith said:


> True, I just picked something at random to make the point. This is an advisory rule which will not in itself cause someone to be prosecuted - it is not a legal requirement.



Not directly prosecuted, no, there's a small possibility of them being prosecuted for something else, especially if things kick off. If some accident happens they might be in big trouble for breaking one. I tend to take some of the DO NOTs pretty seriously, some of them are very likely to get people injured or killed, that's why they are down as do nots because they are deemed pretty important.

Anyway I don't think any of us are daft enough to say the HC and cyclecraft are unvaluable. All too often on this forum we have people saying words to the effect that only the *MUST*s in the highway code matter.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 May 2010)

Crankarm said:


> Ha! Well it isn't, sorry to disappoint you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Frivalous"?


----------



## PBancroft (3 May 2010)

marinyork said:


> Not directly prosecuted, no, there's a small possibility of them being prosecuted for something else, especially if things kick off. If some accident happens they might be in big trouble for breaking one. I tend to take some of the DO NOTs pretty seriously, some of them are very likely to get people injured or killed, that's why they are down as do nots because they are deemed pretty important.
> 
> Anyway I don't think any of us are daft enough to say the HC and cyclecraft are unvaluable. All too often on this forum we have people saying words to the effect that only the *MUST*s in the highway code matter.



Indeed, the rules do all matter. I'm just attempting (badly) to make the point that I think it is disingenuous to suggest that Cycle Craft doesn't matter because it "isn't law" and that the HC is law when the two are not mutually exclusive, do not contradict each other, and both cover legal requirements as well as fairly robust advice on safety.


----------



## marinyork (3 May 2010)

He just doesn't like cyclecraft, I think we did it about a year and a half ago but can't remember what on earth the reason was. Crankarm likes one of them, which is good enough for me, I think people could go a lot more wrong than that. He might just be in a bad mood, I always get like that on bank holidays because the roads are not especially pleasant to be on on the bike. A lot of the cyclists I've met in person haven't heard of cyclecraft, think it'd probably be quite good for them as they don't really like reading the HC, it depends what way you see the world really.


----------



## dondare (3 May 2010)

The Highway Code tells me that:-

*59
Clothing. You should wear

•a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
•appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
•light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
•reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark*


I do not follow this advce. I am not, however, breaking The Law.


----------



## dondare (3 May 2010)

*61
Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.*

This is confusing, misleading, and not legally enforcable.


----------



## marinyork (3 May 2010)

dondare said:


> I do not follow this advce. I am not, however, breaking The Law.



As I've already pointed out numerous times the highway code is a hierarchical system, coming out with yeah, but, no, but, yeah, but, no, but, yeah, but, no, but it isn't a law misses the whole point.


----------



## Arch (3 May 2010)

Crankarm said:


> Ha! Well it isn't, sorry to disappoint you.



That's what I meant, it (Cyclecraft) isn't the law, and the point is that that isn't the issue. The issue is that it's a useful way to learn how to make yourself safer.

Anyway, what do you care? You gave up.


----------



## Davidc (3 May 2010)

Although the HC has content which isn't law, failure to obey the non-law parts can be used to determine liability if there's an accident or incident, and can also be used as evidence if you're done for an offence such as lack of respect for other road users or due care and attention.

Cyclecraft is an official publication so presumably could also be quoted in legal action?


----------



## BentMikey (3 May 2010)

Davidc said:


> Cyclecraft is an official publication so presumably could also be quoted in legal action?



Well, it is published by the govt. stationery office and endorsed by RoSPA.


----------



## BentMikey (3 May 2010)

Ah, but more importantly, are you going to be the first to side with Crankarm that the highway code is THE LAW?


----------



## GrasB (3 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> Hmm..I'd still be inclined to go directly to the RTA act TBH.


It's the bits that aren't explanations of the law where the HWC (I prefer to use HWC rather than HC btw) may be used in court from what I understand.


----------



## GrasB (3 May 2010)

Everything that isn't a "MUST" or "MUST NOT" is recommendation rather than law, though they may used to define liability via being 'best practice'.


----------



## GrasB (3 May 2010)

I'm sure there are, I'm not saying it's the definitive guide to everything but it seems to be regarded as a document of best practice.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (3 May 2010)

NigC said:


> I can appreciate that this is used as a place to vent ones anger and that it will appear worse than normal if you take this as the norm.
> 
> But I have had many close-calls in the past 18 months that more than outnumber anything I can remember in 18 years of driving. And of course I'm much more prone to bruising and bleeding whilst sitting on 2 wheels rather than encased within 4.
> 
> I still think things could easily be improved with a little education at the right time




not read past page 1 so apols if repeating someone else.

If you've had this many close calls in 18 months, what makes you think its everyone elses fault?

I'd be considering a hard critical look at my own riding or possibly a bikeability course if you're regularly having near misses. Else that or refining what I consider to be bad driving by others.

Or if you are beyond reproach and everyone else is an idiot them maybe yoyu should lop the foot off a rabbit and polish the St Christopher a bit harder.

near 20 years, god knows how many thousand road miles and I can count the genuinely frightening incidents on my fingers.


----------



## Norm (3 May 2010)

Arch said:


> That's what I meant, it (Cyclecraft) isn't the law, and the point is that that isn't the issue. The issue is that it's a useful way to learn how to make yourself safer.


Most everyone on the road will have read the HC / HWC at some point. 

Even if they have forgotten much of it, people may remember that it says cyclists must ride on the left, should use cycle lanes unless it is unsafe and should wear helmets.

One of my issues with Cyclecraft is that not even all cyclists have read it and comply with it. Following the lessons in Cyclecraft on a bike _will_ make you do stuff which our fellow road users don't understand, so they will misinterpret it. 

Approaching a pinch point, a car driver may have no intention of overtaking but, if the cyclists moves into the middle of the road, that driver sees a cyclists doing something he doesn't expect and doesn't understand. He has to interpret the action without the benefit of Cyclecraft and there's a chance that interpretation will lead the driver to the conclusion that he's just been blocked for no reason.



GrasB said:


> Everything that isn't a "MUST" or "MUST NOT" is recommendation rather than law, though they may used to define liability via being 'best practice'.


The liability thing concerns me considerably. It says that cyclists should wear helmets and bikers should wear white helmets and hi-viz clothing, are we doing ourselves out of a payout by not doing so?



Kaipaith said:


> In comparison Cyclecraft is not law either. However it includes sections on the aforementioned Highway Code and how important it is. It is the foundation of Bikeability, and is recommended by RoSPA.


No, but it's recommendations are not even agreed upon by all cyclists. I doubt if many car / bus / taxi / lorry drivers who don't cycle understand what its adherents are doing much of the time.


----------



## GrasB (3 May 2010)

Norm said:


> One of my issues with Cyclecraft is that not even all cyclists have read it and comply with it. Following the lessons in Cyclecraft on a bike _will_ make you do stuff which our fellow road users don't understand, so they will misinterpret it.


Following common sense for someone who is experience on a bike will make them do things which other road users don't expect. Such as riding around a very large puddle on the left hand side of the road; I can't see the road surface I don't know what's under the water so I'm not prepared for any pot hole, sunken drain covers etc, thus it's not safe to use that road space & I will avoid it.

I suppose I should add that before reading cyclecraft I was cycling in primary through pinch points after a nasty accident involving one. But you try & explain to a motorist that it's down right dangerous for a car & a bike to be in the pinch point & they don't want to hear it. It's not about people understanding or not imo, people who kind of remember bits of the HWC only remember the parts that are convenient to them.


----------



## NigC (4 May 2010)

shouldbeinbed said:


> not read past page 1 so apols if repeating someone else.
> 
> If you've had this many close calls in 18 months, what makes you think its everyone elses fault?
> 
> ...



I doubt I'm beyond reproach, but of all the incidents whilst cycling, I can think of only one where I had a genuine chance to make it less dramatic - waiting by the side of the road for traffic to clear so I could cross and make a right turn, I get the space so off I go, but a car pulls out from the road I'm turning into. I assumed he'd pull out to half way and wait for me, but no, he keeps coming and doesn't even appear to see me. Next tiime I'll just let them go.

The incidents at roundabouts have been discussed in another thread and I have changed my tactics for that junction. I think a combination of my positioning and poor driving made these worse than necessary.

As for all the close passes, what can I do? I'm at the mercy of drivers wanting to pass me - short of cycling on the path, I have nowhere to hide. I believe I'm in a good position: not in the gutter, but not in the middle of the lane either. I have noticed recently that I tend to pull a bit left when I hear the bigger traffic behind me.

Maybe it's the combination of busy-ish roads and not a lot of cyclists around for the drivers to get used to passing? I don't know  Things have been easier in the past few months, so maybe my awareness has improved without me realising.


----------



## BentMikey (4 May 2010)

NigC said:


> I have noticed recently that I tend to pull a bit left when I hear the bigger traffic behind me.




Mate, more looking and less hearing would be a good start.


----------



## NigC (4 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Mate, more looking and less hearing would be a good start.



I'm not completely blinkered, but I can't keep looking over my shoulder every few seconds either. Surely you have to have little faith in the traffic's ability to miss you?

Road noise is a good indicator of what's behind you - although I always check if I have to avoid a pothole or other such wonderful obstacle. And I do check behind me from time to time regardless of what I hear or have to avoid.


----------



## NigC (4 May 2010)

Anyway, this thread was never intended to highlight my problems with my journey, more to highlight the general dangers of commuting by bike.


----------



## summerdays (4 May 2010)

I move over to the left a bit more sometimes .. but that's the reason for the secondary position to be part of the traffic and to have the area to our left as an escape route. 

The looking behind can be a very useful tool ... quite often if I start looking behind a bit more anticipating a junction coming up ... I tend to find that the following car starts to give me more space - I even end up pulling out earlier than I intended because of the room they have given me. Equally actually making eye contact with someone waiting to pull out of a side road can prevent some of them from pulling out on you and makes you look to see whether you could expect them to pull out... if they haven't looked at you then assume the worst.


----------



## NigC (4 May 2010)

summerdays said:


> I move over to the left a bit more sometimes .. but that's the reason for the secondary position to be part of the traffic and to have the area to our left as an escape route.
> 
> The looking behind can be a very useful tool ... quite often if I start looking behind a bit more anticipating a junction coming up ... *I tend to find that the following car starts to give me more space* - I even end up pulling out earlier than I intended because of the room they have given me. Equally actually making eye contact with someone waiting to pull out of a side road can prevent some of them from pulling out on you and makes you look to see whether you could expect them to pull out... if they haven't looked at you then assume the worst.



Absolutely correct - I find this a lot too. From a driver's perspective, when you see a cyclist looking around when approaching a junction, you know their intentions and can give them the space to do it.


----------



## summerdays (4 May 2010)

I think that may be one of the benefits of cycling in a place where there are a reasonable number of cyclists... drivers are more used to them.


----------



## BentMikey (4 May 2010)

NigC said:


> I'm not completely blinkered, but I can't keep looking over my shoulder every few seconds either. Surely you have to have little faith in the traffic's ability to miss you?



Oh, it's definitely possible to keep looking back. It's not just about seeing drivers, it's about becoming more human to them and forcing them to acknowledge your presence on the road in front. You can often change an impatient driver into one who'll wait for a few seconds.

If you're using your hearing to decide to pull left when heavier traffic is behind you, then you're definitely not looking enough.


----------



## NigC (5 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Oh, it's definitely possible to keep looking back. It's not just about seeing drivers, it's about becoming more human to them and forcing them to acknowledge your presence on the road in front. You can often change an impatient driver into one who'll wait for a few seconds.
> 
> If you're using your hearing to decide to pull left when heavier traffic is behind you, then you're definitely not looking enough.



I'll give it a try, although it's rare I'm in a situtation where I'm holding up traffic (and I think I do look round more when I am).

I'm on the foot today, so I'll try and remember to sneek more peeks next time


----------

