How would define a safe cyclist?

[swee'pea99]

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

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

And above all, always:

Anticipate, anticipate, anticipate!

 

[swee'pea99]

polles are a waste of time

Bloody good builders tho'...

 

[classic33]

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

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

And above all, always:

Anticipate, anticipate, anticipate!

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

 

[classic33]

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

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

And above all, always:

Anticipate, anticipate, anticipate!

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

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

 

[Shut Up Legs]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Shut Up Legs]

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

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

 

[classic33]

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

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

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

 

[freewheelwilly]

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

 

[freewheelwilly]

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

But a cyclist should make a good driver

 

[swee'pea99]

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

 

[martint235]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[John the Monkey]

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

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

 

[martint235]

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

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

 

[John the Monkey]

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

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

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

 

[martint235]

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

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

Yep probably best.

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