Careless cyclist fined in rare prosecution

[snailracer]

Yes, I get the occasional drafter on my commute (which is a whole other annoyance!) who can get scarily close and also several people participating in some SCR it seems. Luckily my route isnt the best for this behavior so it is rarer.

Some buses can sneak up behind me, they can be very quiet when coasting because the engine is at the back and they have low-rolling-resistance tyres.

In contrast, I can usually hear BMWs long before they get close because their grippy tyres make a loud "sucking" sound on the tarmac.

 

[MissTillyFlop]

I don't wear headphones and I am not "pro headphones whilst riding" by any means.

But in this case, the problem was that he wasn't looking where he was going and plenty of people without headphones do that. The amount of times I have been pushed into traffic by people not looking (Or those stupid cocks who weave across the whole lane like a 1950s representation of cartoon drunk - if you can't ride in a straight line, leave the bike at home, you posing git.)

 

[rowan 46]

Seems fair enough to me, cue the wrath of the "I wear headphones but they don't hinder my hearing" "shouldn't have been wearing headphones" posse.

Muppets

ftfy

 

[Jezston]

Well then, as your hearing is infallible, why would you ever need to look?
And presumably you can hear approaching cyclists, too?
Maybe you live out in the country where there is hardly any traffic about?

Someone being as overtly judgemental like that is never going to answer "yes" to the question "are you wrong?".

 

[snailracer]

I don't wear headphones and I am not "pro headphones whilst riding" by any means.

But in this case, the problem was that he wasn't looking where he was going and plenty of people without headphones do that. The amount of times I have been pushed into traffic by people not looking (Or those stupid cocks who weave across the whole lane like a 1950s representation of cartoon drunk - if you can't ride in a straight line, leave the bike at home, you posing git.)

The rights and wrongs of that are not as clear cut as some may assume.

If the rider in front was moving across lanes to turn at a junction, well the HC advice is that one shouldn’t overtake at a junction in the first place.

If the rider was moving out to avoid a parked car or slower cyclist, then that could reasonably be anticipated by the road users following behind, and it’s obviously wrong to overtake someone who is about to overtake something else.

And just how far can a rider move out, before that rider is deemed to be moving out? 2ft? 6ft? The width of the lane? Is the “lane” marked? Does a lane have to be marked with lane lines before it is legally considered a lane?

 

[rowan 46]

I was doing a BSL signing course about 12 years ago. I was talking to one of the teachers about cycling and was horrified when he said he cycled. like many I had always assumed you needed to hear traffic. He quickly disabused me of that notion. he said "it's useful but not necessary" What is necessary is awareness of traffic and that can be done with sight alone. Since that day I have used headphones you have to look more often and concentrate but that's all. Everytime the headphone argument is trotted out it is in my opinion a slur on the abilities of deaf people to cycle or drive. If you are saying you have to hear to cycle or drive you are saying deaf people shouldn't be on the road. Many deaf people can and do drive safely which is why deafness as a disability doesn't preclude people from applying for a license.

 

[4F]

Well then, as your hearing is infallible, why would you ever need to look?
And presumably you can hear approaching cyclists, too?
Maybe you live out in the country where there is hardly any traffic about?

I use both senses together and do not favour one or the other. I also ride a motorbike and am fully aware of carrying out frequent life save checks.

No I do not have spiderman sense hearing and no I cannot hear approaching cyclists (not that I see anyone else on my route)

Yes I do live in the country and at times I can do the first 8 miles of my commute with seeing maybe only 4 or 5 cars / tractors / farm HGV's.

 

[snailracer]

Someone being as overtly judgemental like that is never going to answer "yes" to the question "are you wrong?".

That's why I included a cop-out answer

 

[wiggydiggy]

I was doing a BSL signing course about 12 years ago. I was talking to one of the teachers about cycling and was horrified when he said he cycled. like many I had always assumed you needed to hear traffic. He quickly disabused me of that notion. he said "it's useful but not necessary" What is necessary is awareness of traffic and that can be done with sight alone. Since that day I have used headphones you have to look more often and concentrate but that's all. Everytime the headphone argument is trotted out it is in my opinion a slur on the abilities of deaf people to cycle or drive. If you are saying you have to hear to cycle or drive you are saying deaf people shouldn't be on the road. Many deaf people can and do drive safely which is why deafness as a disability doesn't preclude people from applying for a license.

Calm down dear!

I dont think anyone is suggesting this. I think the general consensus (and my opinion) is although the ability hear traffic and whats around you is beneficial to cycling, it is by no means the be all and end all and every day literally 1000's of cyclists go about their business with their own personal soundtrack and suffer no misshap.

Each to their own isnt it?

 

[4F]

I was doing a BSL signing course about 12 years ago. I was talking to one of the teachers about cycling and was horrified when he said he cycled. like many I had always assumed you needed to hear traffic. He quickly disabused me of that notion. he said "it's useful but not necessary" What is necessary is awareness of traffic and that can be done with sight alone. Since that day I have used headphones you have to look more often and concentrate but that's all. Everytime the headphone argument is trotted out it is in my opinion a slur on the abilities of deaf people to cycle or drive. If you are saying you have to hear to cycle or drive you are saying deaf people shouldn't be on the road. Many deaf people can and do drive safely which is why deafness as a disability doesn't preclude people from applying for a license.

You counter your own argument within your post and your suggestion that it is a slur is quite ridiculous.

ie he said it is useful but not necessary

If it is useful then why block it out ?

 

[MissTillyFlop]

The rights and wrongs of that are not as clear cut as some may assume.

If the rider in front was moving across lanes to turn at a junction, well the HC advice is that one shouldn’t overtake at a junction in the first place.

If the rider was moving out to avoid a parked car or slower cyclist, then that could reasonably be anticipated by the road users following behind, and it’s obviously wrong to overtake someone who is about to overtake something else.

And just how far can a rider move out, before that rider is deemed to be moving out? 2ft? 6ft? The width of the lane? Is the “lane” marked? Does a lane have to be marked with lane lines before it is legally considered a lane?

I mean the bus lane. A London bus lane, where there are a LOT of cyclists, not one or two, about twenty and it's also shared with motorbikes. I mean, I have been in the middle of over taking, when someone has pulled out, not even in front, but into the space where I am and have physically pushed me into the next lane of traffic by falling onto me.

Not even an attempt to look.

There's no "it's not clear cut" - if you pull out into the side of another vehicle, then you shouldn't have pulled out.

 

[4F]

Someone being as overtly judgemental like that is never going to answer "yes" to the question "are you wrong?".

LOL pot for mr kettle, you sticking around for a bit this time or are you going to flounce off like last time ?

 

[rowan 46]

You counter your own argument within your post and your suggestion that it is a slur is quite ridiculous.

ie he said it is useful but not necessary

If it is useful then why block it out ?

Because I like to hear music whilst I cycle just like millions of car users and cyclists do. the fact is you can cycle safely whilst listening to music. I have heard it it trotted out time and again that you need to be able to hear traffic. You don't. It is useful but it's not essential I cycle as safely with or without headphone

 

[snailracer]

You counter your own argument within your post and your suggestion that it is a slur is quite ridiculous.

ie he said it is useful but not necessary

If it is useful then why block it out ?

IMO safety is necessary, usefulness is optional.

If I need to move out and hear something approaching close behind me, I slow down for it to pass and then look for more following vehicles when I can no longer hear any approaching. Hearing approaching vehicles might save me the inconvenience of a few shoulder checks and allows me to time my next shoulder check more precisely, but that is to do with convenience rather than safety.

 

[wiggydiggy]

IMO safety is necessary, usefulness is optional.

If I need to move out and hear something approaching close behind me, I slow down for it to pass and then look for more following vehicles when I can no longer hear any approaching. Hearing approaching vehicles might save me the inconvenience of a few shoulder checks and allows me to time my next shoulder check more precisely, but that is to do with convenience rather than safety.

See I'd never move before looking, is that what your saying you do?

I have been surprised in the past by cyclists I cant hear coming as well (SCR's, drafters etc)