UKC

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2014-07-23/bike-somersaults-through-the-air-...

In a case like this, there is no ambiguity - the driver was definitely at fault. There are eye-witnesses in the video and this is not an accident - it is blatantly incompetent driving.

The government should revoke the driver's license and take them off the roads forever.

In reply to Xharlie:

Typical incorrect headline - "... Cyclist smashes head on in to a car" which should read "... driver crashes in to cyclist"

In reply to Xharlie:

This is why road cycling awareness should form a central part of the driving test.

It's not aggressive, it's just ignorance.

In reply to Xharlie:

Did that guy seriously land on his feet?! Good effort.

I suppose it is totally possible driver didn't see them, so not paying attention.

In reply to JoshOvki:


Very possible and still inexcusable. I see no mention in the report of her being charged with a motoring offence - in fact she even disputed the insurance claim !

No doubt the usual suspects will be along soon to argue that by wearing a head cam the cyclist was hoping for a crash and therefore at fault, or at least "asking for it"

In reply to Xharlie:
Shouldn't the cyclist have had lights on his bike and be wearing high-viz clothing given that he presented a narrow profile and so was harder to see?

In reply to Shani:

Yep, you're correct. They should have been painted bright yellow and orange, with a rotating strobe light on their helmet, as well as at least a dozen lights along the handlebars, despite it apparently being broad daylight.

Alternatively, the driver could have looked left and made sure nothing was coming the other way. I've had a few near misses with the same scenario, while wearing a brand new high-viz top, and a light being on. Doesn't matter what you are wearing, if the other road user doesn't look, they are not going to see you.

In reply to Xharlie:

That seems harsh. As someone has already said it is likely that the driver didn't see the cyclist. No excuse though, and a fine for driving without due care and attention would be appropriate. But revoking someone's licence for ever for making a human error seems too extreme.

I'll bet there isn't anyone amongst us who hasn't made a careless mistake at some time. Generally we get away with it as a "near miss". I had one last week in France when I missed understanding a "priority a droit" situation and nearly hit a car which pulled across me from a road joining on the right. If I had hit it, it would have been my fault for not paying full attention to the French rules of the road. I would feel mighty pissed off however, if I got a lifetime ban from driving in France as a result.

We are all human.

In reply to Xharlie:

Same happened to me - luckily I was in a car doing 20 mph not on a bike - wouldn't have fancied being hit on a bike. Be careful out there - they're not looking out for you.

In reply to Scomuir:


It looks quite dull and overcast with lots of 'street furniture' and the like. I'd imagine the cyclist would easily blend in to his background in such circumstances.

In reply to Shani:

But if the driver is not spending the time looking as Scomuir says you can be done like the Trafalger Square Christmas tree and still not be seen.

there seems to be a reason for drivers 'not seeing' cyclists http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/ which is why any road user needs to look, look and look again.

In reply to paulcarey:


I dispute this. Lights would offer contrast and you'd stand out quite markedly.

There is also evidence that having lights on joints (ankles, knees, elbows, shoulders and head), would make the human form stand out significantly and draw attention to yourself (can't remember where I read this).

It is to do with motion illusion and is illustrated with this human light-point walker animation (http://bit.ly/1kbVrQL). This is just a collection of light points, but your brain sees it as a walking human...but it is just light points. It shows though, that arranging lights on key parts of the body, moving in concert, makes your brain 'see' a person - even if no person exists.


My point above is made in this article "The smaller the vehicle, the greater the chance it will fall within a saccade."

In reply to Shani:


That's why you drive according to the weather, road, traffic (or street furniture) conditions.

In reply to Shani:

Would you also appear to attribute some blame to a pedestrian being knocked down by this driver at this junction, if they were not wearing lights & high-viz clothing while crossing the road?

In fact, imagine it was the other way round, and the cyclist turned right into a car. How do you think it would sound if the cyclist said that the car should have had lights on, and be a brighter colour? Yes, there is of course a difference in size, but again, if you don't look, you're never going to see whatever it is coming your way.

In reply to Scomuir:


The car driver is to blame. I am making the point that, as we see from the comments on this thread alone, this phenomenon is not unheard of so we should do all we can as cyclists to make sure we stand out.

If you are paralysed from such a crash and 'in the right'....well you are still paralysed. I am offering a possible strategy to make cyclists stand out significantly.

With regard to your comment about the cyclist turning in to a car, as above "The smaller the vehicle, the greater the chance it will fall within a saccade." Thus it is more likely that a car will be visible to the cyclist. Also as cycling is more 'viceral' and often slower mode of transport than that of a driver cocooned in his/her car at speeds of at least 30mph, the cyclist will likely be more attuned to the dangers present and at a slower rate of sensory overload.

In reply to elsewhere:
Yes. A good example of this is drivers who are blinded by the sun... it happens. There's nothing that can be done, other than the driver to take extreme care. exactly the same as fog.

I can't see this video as I'm at work, but it sounds very like the scenarios you read about where a driver waiting in traffic flashes another vehiclecoming the other way that its ok to turn, the turning driver then assumes its safe, and drives into cyclist/bus/car in the next lane across because they've abdicated their responsiblity.

In this case probably an over reaction to ban a driver for life as suggested, however it needs to be clearer that driving a car is a privilige, not a right, and there are some people who either don't have the ability to drive within reasonable bounds of safety, or don't have the mental capacity/morals to understand that when you are driving, you are responsible for the safety of people around you, and therefore 100% of your concentration should be on the road and nothing else (obviously there are very few drivers including myself that don't occasionally day-dream/have careless moments.) When these people injure another road user (be it a cyclist, other driver pedestrian etc) they must be held accountable for their negligence and in severe cases a life ban is fully justified (and probably not enough punishment)

In reply to Xharlie:

"The government should revoke the driver's license and take them off the roads forever."

Do you also believe this should be meted out to any drive who turns across another car and thus hits it?

If not, why not? The level of incompetence is the same.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

Do you even think its anything to do with the government at all ?

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Banning for life would clearly be an over-reaction in this case (though applicable elsewhere), but if no action is taken against the driver (as it would appear) then that is just as much an under-reaction.

Being blinded by sunlight has frequently and successfully been used as an excuse for hitting cyclists - no amount of hi-viz clothing is going to make a difference there.

But the big problem with the hi-viz lobby is that it puts the onus on cyclists to do something outside of the norm - no one is calling for pedestrians or motorist to wear special clothing or helmets - and risk being blamed if you don't. All of which has the effect of putting people off cycling.

In reply to Xharlie:

Sensasionalist pish. I am not defending the driver but we certainly don't know their side of this story. I am sure many people could post that excellent blog by the fighter jet pilot who gives many good reasons why "I didn't see them coming" is as good a reason as any.

Any surely everyone knows that insurance companies hate it if you admit responsibility for an accident?

Just glad the cyclist was ok.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

High viz clothing ain't sexy, but lights are now small and bright enough for some entrepreneur to oblige in the way I've indicated above.

The conditions in the video appear overcast so in this case, may have worked.

God knows some of the strobes cyclists in the Peak use regularly blind me in such conditions and stand out VERY strongly even in bright conditions given their blue-hue.

I agree with your sentiment that "no one is calling for pedestrians or motorist to wear special clothing or helmets" but the status quo is that drivers will continue to hit cyclists in circumstances such as the above. Drivers will still use their phones. Drivers will still feel they have priority over other road users.

Cycling is increasing in popularity and roads aren't getting wider or less crowded. Do you think your average 25 year old driver is going to be influenced to change driver habits by legislation?

In reply to Shani:

"God knows some of the strobes cyclists in the Peak use regularly blind me in such conditions"

Don't encourage people to use those. It does my head in being blinded when driving and cycling and having these shone in my face. And it's downright dangerous to have a dazzled driver heading towards you unable to see your exact position because they are dazzled.

If they don't have dim-dip features of any kind, they are NOT suitable for use on the public road.

Neil

In reply to Xharlie:

I have rewatched this video over a dozen times now. I agree that it is the driver's fault here, by law - and logic. But a separate issue bugs me. It is clear that the car is beginning to turn from the moment just before the cyclist hits the green lane; yet he doesn't seem to slow down - in fact, it looks to me like he's pedaling on practically till the crash. Whether it is a blind hope that the car will stop at the last moment and leave him a foot of space to pass, or simply inability (or unwillingness) to look around and assess the situation, I do not know. Regardless, while the driver is at fault, it seems like both parties aren't particularly attentive or careful enough. The road is full of people barely able to drive; and if you do not take it into account (whether driving or cycling), you aren't gonna get very far (although the consequences might be worse for a cyclist).

In reply to JoshOvki:


Also possible he was paying attention and still didn't see him, our vision/perception can be much patchier than we might like to think.

The cyclist doesn't exactly appear to be defensive. He's fast approaching in the wet a car that already appears to be creeping out on the left and the one that hit him appears to be indicating. Alarm bells should really be ringing. Approaching that in those conditions at that speed in a car I'd be on the brakes and hovering over the horn, on a bike it's much the same but I'd be less visible and more vulnerable. People make mistakes (you/me included), accepting that and doing your best to mitigate the risk is all part of road use.

jk

In reply to sgitl:

We hear the cyclist when he becomes aware of the car coming across his path, it is as soon as the car starts to make the manoeuvre. The distances are small, time very short, I am pretty certain he could not have stopped quickly enough. If the driver had hit the brakes half way through the manoeuvre he probably would have got past. As it was I don't think the driver looked until the cyclist was on the bonnet. It is a judgement call, braking hard may have put the cyclist under the rear wheels.

In reply to sgitl:

This is my reading of the event. I feel that the cyclist was riding in a way as to force the situation. He had the right of way, don't get me wrong, but I think it was foreseeable.

And before any hot-heads jump up and down WE HAVE ALL DONE IT,RIDING WITH THE SENSE THAT WE ARE IN THE RIGHT AND SO WE WILL HAPPILY TAKE THE IMPACT! Sure we are in the right, but NO we are NOT going to back down.

In reply to Xharlie:

The woman at the end that asks straight away if he is alright and gets him to sit down makes me believe there is still some good left in this world.

In reply to Shani:

I watched it a few more times, he did not have a hope of getting out of the way, there was no forcing the situation.

In reply to Shani & sgitl:

Watch the video again, and pause it at the points were key things happen. There's less than one second from the point that the car starts turning across the centre line, and the impact with the cyclist.

I acknowledge that you agree that the driver is at fault, yet I struggle with your view that the cyclist could have foreseen this, or "forced the situation", or should have "backed down". If the cyclist slows down when approaching every junction, that very action will encourage drivers to try and make the manoeuvre crossing their path, in the same way that cycling close into the edge of the road encourages dangerous overtaking on stretches of road that are too narrow for a safe overtake.

In reply to Xharlie:
The car driver was a muppet and must surely shoulder full legal responsibility.

The muppet car driver was however a clearly perceptible hazard, there was no sudden "going for it" on their behalf, but a gradual creep turning into a manoeuvre.

The cyclist doesn't change their view once in the entire video, no looking over shoulders on clear sections, no looking up and ahead - assuming their default stance is roughly similar to the cameras's view.

If the cyclist keeps riding like that they're going to keep breaking their bike and one day their back.

It's no fun being the moral winner but the physical looser.

I suspect that if this had been a driving test hazard perception test, the cyclist would have been expected to perceive the hazard several seconds before they notice in the video.

Perceiving hazards and adjusting your driving, riding or running style accordingly is partially about saving yourself from other people's bad mistakes. This is even more the case on two wheels. Personally I am very cautious about crossing the path of a turning car until I have made eye contact. I don't like to slow down as this is likely to encourage them to "go for it" but I am not going to be blindsided by them either.

If I am approach a car in a situation like the one in the video, and it is clear the driver has no awareness of me, I will change my lane positioning then pre-grip the breaks, then prepare to slow PDQ.

In reply to The New NickB:

Ah, but if he'd been going a walking pace, he'd have had time to stop. And if he hadn't been on the road at all, cos he doesn't pay road tax, the incident wouldn't have happened.

I despair that even in a clear-cut case as this some people seem so desperate to find some fault with the victim.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I despair every time this line is trotted out.

Saying that the victim could have avoided something is not the same as saying it is their fault. I used to think differently until I had a nasty case of being knocked off a motorbike at speed which was not my fault. I then realised that no matter whose fault it may be, I was going to work hard to make sure that I was not a victim of others again. Doing so involves recognising actions that I personally can take to improve my chances of survival against the mistakes of others.

In reply to wintertree:

I think you are misreading what Chris was saying (writing) - As I stated in my earlier post, the headline is "Cyclist smashes head on in to a car" implying that it was the cyclist at fault.

A few years ago I witness a similar accident though between a car turning right and a van. The car driver was immediately trying to blame the van driver when it was entirely his fault as he shouldn't have cut across two lanes of traffic that was on the move. Even longer ago I was in an accident when a van pulled out in to me *after* the driver and I had made eye contact - he'd just had a "moment" - fortunately the only damage was to our vehicles.

Whether driving or riding we all make guesses as to the probability of other road users doing particular actions, it's when someone does something odd that things go wrong. In the case in the video, the car driver had no reason to carry on making the manouevre so the cyclist would be assuming that they were going to stop. In a way they both got it wrong but it was the car driver's fault.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Agreed - "ride as if everyone else is out to kill you" is a snappy reminder, but if you followed it strictly you'd never leave your house. In practice you've got to draw the line somewhere and assume some level of competence from other people on the road.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Perhaps a more sensible idea is that you shouldn't deliberately put yourself at risk just in order to assert your priority. If you think someone is going to do something stupid, let them, humour them, wave your fist or raise a finger if you must, but live another day.

Neil

In reply to Bob:


Fair dos. A technically true statement but I can see how it could be construed misleadingly. Not sure what a more aligned statement would be "Driver puts car in front of cycle sending cyclist airport" is not such a snappy headline...


That's where the cyclist has to look specifically *at* the car driver to see if they have any recognition of the cyclist, or if their head is already looking where the car is going to go. In the video the cyclist never adjusts their gaze towards the car, and peripheral vision is not good enough to tell you where a car driver is looking. The cyclist assumed the car wasn't going to try and kill them; whilst I agree that if you don't you might end up cowering at home behind the sofa. In practice - eye contact, or at least look to see where the driver is looking. Every time.


Absolutely.

In reply to Shani:


You cycle much Shani?

Only ask because I do, and I'm 6 foot 4, 21 stone, quite broad (in short I'm far from a narrow profile) and my hi-viz jacket and flashy LED lights jacket appear to double as a Klingon cloak of invisibility.

That's the only explanation as to why I've had about three of these types of things happen to me (luckily they were near misses).

It could also explain why people often overtake me on the roads (leaving a lot of space, which is nice), come to a crossroads and then do a sharp left, almost taking me out. They must have noticed me when overtook me, yet they forgot I was there when they came to the turn?

Maybe they all just hate me. I have one of those faces.

I probably use the roads about 70% of the time on a bike, and 30% in a car. I'm slowly getting more and more convinced that you shouldn't be allowed to pass unless you've spent three weeks on a bicycle riding around the streets of a major city.

In reply to sgitl:


I don't see how it's possible to make any appreciable difference to his speed from the moment the car starts turning till the moment of impact - around 1.5 seconds. It doesn't really matter how quick your reactions are, or how good your brakes are, on a road bike with skinny tyres on a wet road you're not going to get the traction to make any difference.

However, you do tend to have enough grip to change direction, if you have the space to do so. The main thing the video highlights for me in regard to the cyclist is the importance of ignoring the cycle lane markings and taking up a dominant position in the driving lane, giving yourself the most possible room to maneuver if someone does something stupid.

In reply to Xharlie:

Similar one here, but after being crashed into, he gets run over! "I didn't see you..."

youtube.com/watch?v=6qycF0raqpg&

In reply to ThunderCat:
I cycle weekly at the moment, on occasion daily. I've also been knocked off my bike by a car trying to get past me on the road leading up to the Botanical Gardens from Hunter's Bar in Sheffield. It was dark but I had three flashing rearward lights, high viz jacket and at 6ft 3" and 80 odd kg, figured I was visible.

And do you know what? The motorist DID see me, he just thought he could make the gap on a narrow bit of road (traffic was double lane on the opposite side of the road thus making things tight).

Nowadays I ride such sections further out from the gutter to prevent motorists 'going for it'. Yes I am assertive when I need to be. But I also know that being 'right' shouldn't preclude you from reflecting on how you could have made the situation better for yourself.

In reply to Shani:


Agree. And so do I. Point I was trying to make was that sometimes, no matter how much better you try and make the situation for yourself there are some people who shouldn't be in control of a 1 ton piece of steel on the roads. I didn't feel the need in that clips to find reasons why the cyclist was at fault, because he wasn't. The motorist was. The motorist made that situation happen. And although there is no way of proving it I reckon she would probably have hit that cyclist even if he was lit up like a christmas tree.

In reply to Xharlie:

This exact thing happened to me two weeks ago. I had decent lights on my bike but the driver (who incidentally was uninsured and drove off) just turned right without looking. I smashed my face up and dislocated my AC joint, can't climb for 6 weeks. My forks snapped exactly like in the video and I think the rest of the bike is a write-off

It's crazy to think that Shani and sgitl are stupid enough to suggest that the cyclist 'forced this situation' or deliberately took the hit to avoid backing down. If a car turns right when you are already over the junction there is no way you can stop. I slammed my brakes and all that happened was that I skidded for a second before my face and shoulder slammed into the passenger door. Perhaps I avoided going under the wheels but i don't think it made any difference. My crash could have easily been much more serious as could this one. I don't know what planet Shani lives on to suggest that cyclists in these situations deliberately take an impact on a point of principle. I've cycled across traffic almost daily for probably 8 years and never been in a situation like this before. I know how and when to assert myself and when to be vigilant but there are some situations you can't legislate for.

I was probably doing 20mph ish. A similar speed to what a car would have been doing on the stretch of road where I was hit, and I'm fairly sure that the driver would have seen a car.

I don't think you can tell whether or not the driver in this video indicates but it's irrelevant really. I can't remember if the car that hit me was indicating (probably because I immediately smashed my face on his car) but even if he had been, I would have taken his indication to mean that he would turn right after I had passed the junction, not drive straight into me. I take on board the point that its no good being dead but in the right but if you assume that everyone on the road will drive as if they haven't seen you, you couldn't get on the road in the first place

In reply to Sandstone Stickman:

Did you see that the one who ran over his bike also claimed not guilty?

In reply to Shani:

In the video posted by Sandstone Stickman (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qycF0raqpg) a cyclist with his lights on and a high - vis jacket on gets hit.

Then a someone runs over his bike and says "Where were you?" quite a few times.

In reply to ThunderCat:


There seem to be a lot of drivers who, despite bearing no ill will towards cyclists, don't seem to understand that we can and regularly do exceed 5mph.

In reply to wintertree:




... its a 18 second clip (8 seconds before he's hit) There was no reason look over his shoulder, he's going in a straight line. Do you look over your shoulder every 8 seconds? Thought not. He might have seen that car the whole time, but it doesn't change anything, he has a second or two max as the car turns. You have thinking distance and braking distance, absolutely impossible, what is he supposed to do? Throw himself into oncoming traffic?


If the driver keeps driving like that, they're going to kill someone. Better focus on the cyclist though.


Zzzzzz.


He had no chance of stopping.


So what are you actually doing? You're not slowing down so you get hit by the car same as this guy.


Where would you go? You've got a second to check over your shoulder for moving out and then try miss the car (if the way is clear).

It looks like he's avoided serious injury and has got a insurance payout. That's a pretty good state of affairs when someone pulls out infront of you like that. You don't sound like a cyclist.

Btw the whole "make eye contact with the driver" this isn't any use. They stare right at you and pull out, that advice isn't used anymore.

Believe me, there are times where I would say 'had he been more defensive', but this isn't one of them.

I have little to add to the conversation beyond noting that 1-1.5 seconds is a lot of time. It might not seem so in the non-traffic life, but driving/cycling it is an eternity, especially when a situation like this one is unfolding before your eyes.

While I agree that it is wet and thus it is unlikely the cyclist would have been able to stop completely, the point is not necessarily stopping but slowing down and mitigating the consequences.

In reply to FreshSlate:


I regularly look back, yes. I also regularly look up. I would have looked up once in that clip, maybe back once for reasons revealed in a bit... Changing view is a big help to helping your vision system perceive hazards.


Yes and he has a long time before that second or two to perceive an obvious hazard. If you perceive an obvious hazard and it gets you, you're not working very hard to preserve your safety against the idiocy of others.



I started by stating the driver was an idiot and at fault. Against such idiocy the cyclist absolutely has to focus on the cyclist or else they will get broken.


Go read my other post. Look for eye contact, look for recognition the driver has seen me - where are they looking? Change road position - get their attention by motion other than towards them. Hands on brakes - ready to slow down if all else fails.



You know earlier when you said I'd not have checked over my shoulder. Now you know why I might have! Perceive distant hazard? Check shoulder. If I can't for some reason it's a good sign I am going I fast and should slow down. Also, breaks are pre-gripped approaching a hazard like this, that's another half to quarter second of breaking, and I don't ride slicks. The more you slow down, even of you don't stop, the better.

>. You don't sound like a cyclist.

Well I am. You sound like a tit for assuming that all cyclists must have the same mindset Motorbikes for 5 years, owened a car for five, used to cycle commute 2500 miles a year. Still cycle a lot.


Well then you're screwed, nothings perfect. If you look at them and they are looking not at you but at where they're aiming to go, it gives you a damned good idea of what's going to happen. Not perfect but hey; it helps in some cases.

In reply to Xharlie:

I'll moderate my opinions on suitable punishments: the driver should have her license revoked but be permitted to apply for a new one after a one-year ban. She should have to take the driver's license test, again, and pass an advanced driving course or awareness course.

This would rehabilitate the driver and avoid a permanent sentence. It would also force her to experience the plight of pedestrians (and even, perhaps, cyclists) for a year - lending some much needed perspective.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Can I just ask, would any of you *drive* like that? Fast approaching a narrow junction with a car creeping out of it and a car indicating into it (nowhere to go if the car keeps creeping), in the wet and without any appreciable sign of slowing, covering the brakes or even acknowledging the hazard?

Yeah, the car turning in made a mistake but it's not the only one on that video. People make mistakes, you can't change that so you accept it and take what action you can to keep yourself safe on the road.

jk

In reply to Xharlie:

Flying instructors know that as people scan a scene, the brain blanks out the bits where the eyes are actually moving between objects because the brain doesn't want the blurry bits. This explains whey drivers, even good drivers, can easily miss a relatively small object in an apparently obvious position in their field of vision. The answer is for the cyclist to move laterally across the driver's field of vision so that the movement attracts the driver's eye. As a motorcyclist I used to move right across the field of vision of drivers waiting to come out of junctions, s well as covering horn and brakes and sometimes even holding the headlight full beam button down.

In reply to jkarran:

Exactly, you need to ride defensively. (I certainly do since being T-Boned by a bus last year). It's no use arguing over rights of way from a hospital bed.

In reply to jkarran:

I doubt I would, but realistically it would depend on the junction, conditions, speed of events, etc.

Someone mentioned about having a flashing front light even in bright daylight - imagine as a driver if thirty cyclists with flashing lights all moving at different speeds came at you! Wearing hi-viz, well so many people are wearing hi-viz jackets or gilets these days that you hardly notice them.

The underlying problem (more correctly: one of them) is that everyone is in such a rush, no-one seems prepared to wait for anything or anyone regardless of what they are driving/riding. Is the 5 or 10 seconds you "save" by overtaking on a blind corner or squeezing through in the face of oncoming traffic going to be used for anything other than being part of the next traffic jam?

In reply to jkarran:


You are making an awful lot of assumptions about the cyclist that you cannot substantiate based on the video.

Would I drive like this. Based on the information I have, I like every other driver in the world would likely have been travelling faster than the bike on that road.

In reply to gazhbo:





Sounds like you were cycling like a tw*t.

In reply to The New NickB:
Indeed. But a bike is smaller and less visible than a car.

Yes, car drivers should watch where they are going. But they often don't. They also have a big metal cage around them, so if they crash, most likely they won't die. A cyclist or motorcyclist is different.

Do you want to die? If not, it is sensible to ride more defensively than you would drive a car.

Neil

In reply to Bob:

"Someone mentioned about having a flashing front light even in bright daylight - imagine as a driver if thirty cyclists with flashing lights all moving at different speeds came at you!"

This is a good point. But now all new cars have daytime running lights and have had for a couple of years, soon all cars will have them. Then a cyclist without them will be hidden - and they will be at risk as a result.

It's one reason I am not a fan of DRLs, but they are not going to go away, so in practice cyclists will need them soon enough.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

I suppose this sort of idiotic response to to be expected.

I was making to simple points. People are making far too many assumptions about the actions and thought processes of this cyclist and secondly, cyclist generally and me definitely do ride more defensively than drivers drive. Speed being a factor in that.

In reply to The New NickB:
"I suppose this sort of idiotic response to to be expected."

It's not idiotic, it's self-preservation.

A cyclist should not assert their right of way if it will put them at risk. Shout, wave your fist, raise a finger or whatever by all means, but if you're dead your right of way was worthless. As soon as you see someone starting to do something stupid (you're looking at their wheels occasionally, right?), let them do it.

Not saying the cyclist could have avoided this one. But some cyclists do not ride in any way sufficiently defensively.

Speed is in some ways less relevant. Above about walking pace, if you collide with something on a bike it is really going to hurt. In a car it'll hit your wallet, but probably not cause serious injury until a much higher speed.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:


Total random aside, but isn't it fascinating how creep is more obvious from small wheels than a great big car. Yet another example of how important the quirks of human vision are to hazard perception.

In reply to wintertree:

A good point. You can of course also see the front wheels of a car turn just before the car's body actually turns. More warning = more safety.

I look for it all the time, both when driving and when cycling. It's particularly useful for ensuring idiots in the wrong lane don't side-swipe you on roundabouts. Has saved me an insurance claim a couple of times.

They really should teach that sort of thing in driving lessons. (The other thing they really should teach is that a car does not have zero length, and a younger friend who side-swiped a bollard at low speed with me in the passenger seat highlighted this a couple of days ago).

Neil

In reply to Xharlie:

Having watched the clip several times I fail to understand how the car driver could not have been looking in the direction of the oncoming cyclist before turning right, and therefore could not have been driving with due care and attention.

Lights on the bike especially a flashing one may have helped given the overcast conditions.

I'm both a cyclist and Audi driver yes I know a dichotomy

The car driver was at fault, but the cyclist seems to take no evasive action or ride defensivly (as I would on that road in those conditions) and all cyclists have the most to lose.

Its a busy road with lots of street furniture to break you, most injuries heal but not all. Right or wrong cycle like you want to ride again folks.

J

In reply to John Lewis:
Exactly. It was clearly fully the driver's fault (in insurance claim/legal terms), but knowing that is of no use whatsoever if you're dead.

Also worth noting that in some cars a cyclist can get hidden behind the pillar for a short period. The driver, of course, should plan for this and move their head, but again, knowing that is no use when you're lying in a hospital bed with serious injuries.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:


It is idiotic because it relates in no way to what I have written.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I look for position on road, any turn on front wheels and most importantly look at the driver, you can see if they have seen you.

A fast ride is good and strava sections have to be beaten but not at all costs.

In reply to Neil Williams:

But this isn't about asserting your right of way in the sense of seeing someone in the process of pulling across you and thinking "well, instead of stopping I'll smack into his bonnet and risk killing myself, that'll teach him". It's about not assuming that everyone who has any possibility of ignoring your right of way will do so. Not slowing to a crawl every time you pass a side road just in case someone comes out of it without looking, that sort of thing. For instance, there are two more points in the 8 seconds of that video before the accident where he passes people waiting to pull out - should he have slowed right down for each of them so he could have avoided them even if they'd pulled out at the last minute?

As someone said above, the only sensible way to really "ride like you're invisible" is to stay off the road...

In reply to The New NickB:


What assumptions?
He's moving quickly.
It's visibly wet.
The junction hazard is visible and rings alarm bells from early in the clip.
He doesn't slow.


I'd be surprised if you were moving much faster looking at that road I'm assuming it's wet, in a 30 limit and the bike is really shifting along. Even if you were you're highly visible, what other road users are looking out for and if they still somehow miss seeing you you have 4 big contact patches, abs and a padded metal box around you.

jk

In reply to Ramblin dave:

"As someone said above, the only sensible way to really "ride like you're invisible" is to stay off the road..."

True to a point. But yes, it might well be worth slowing down on approaching a turning where there are cars in a position where they might unpredictably turn.

Or at least look for *any* sign of them turning, and when you see it assume they will.

Neil

In reply to jkarran:



The question is how quickly and if that speed is reasonable.


This relates to the above.


A number of hazards are visible. We don't know about the mitigation from the video.


We don't know if he slows at all or covers his breaks.


You know fine well that even at 25, which is considerably faster than the cyclist is going, you would have traffic queued up behind you. I'll slow in these conditions, but I'm in a minority of drivers.

In reply to Neil Williams:



It's the sort of thing you're probably too busy learning to drive to pick up while learning to drive but worth a mention for sure. It's easy enough to pick up once the actual driving is automatic and the workload has dropped. Like the rest of driving, for most people it just becomes automatic, they often probably couldn't tell you exactly why a hazard situation triggered a response but they respond none the less. Sitting in with a novice driver vs an experienced one is quite eye opening and occasionally alarming as you go to cover the brake pedal you don't have while they blithely accelerate toward whatever it is that's spooked you.

Scanning junctions properly and moving your head around to clear blind spots and change perspectives really should be taught, it costs nothing in terms of added workload. I'd be grounded for not doing it in the air but nobody ever pointed out the huge flaws in my (our) vision while learning to drive among the visual clutter of our roads. The first time I realised I don't always perceive what I can clearly 'see' was when I pulled out on a car from a T junction. I'd looked up the road in good conditions and it wasn't obscured by anything other than my brain blanking out the blurry bits as my eyes flicked around. As soon as I pulled out the perspective changed and a bloody great big car (with a thankfully awake driver) appears in my door window.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

There is a car in front of him at the beginning of the clip which accelerates away. Car traffic on the road is moving faster than he is.

In reply to jkarran:

"but nobody ever pointed out the huge flaws in my (our) vision while learning to drive among the visual clutter of our roads"

Not just that, but the hazard perception test works only on a view out of the front of the car. Which actually freaks me out a bit, as I am used to looking out of the sides and in the side mirrors very frequently.

Neil

In reply to Xharlie:

You've got to love it, he's riding in the middle of the lane clear as day and at the last minute she pulls across him. His tone of voice says it all, Oh ***k off.

Just like those climbing moments when suddenly the cliff face is whizzing past your nose and you're totally calm just thinking sh*t.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to gazhbo:


So what? Doesn't mean either of them (cyclist or car early in clip) approach the junction with sufficient caution. The guy in the car will walk away from his error of judgement if it turns out to be one.

jk

In reply to Toby_W:
"Oh ***k off"

I just watched that section again a few times, and I can see no evidence of any evasive action by the cyclist other than *possibly* slowing a little. I think he assumed the car would see him when he made his assertion.

That phrase was said over about 2 seconds. Probably enough to react in some way.

Still the driver's fault for turning onto oncoming traffic (of any kind) but I think the cyclist could have saved himself anguish by mitigating it a bit, perhaps by turning left alongside the car so it was only a sideswipe rather than a full-on collision. (I've avoided a muppet pulling out on me on a roundabout by that kind of action - she still hit me, but not even with enough force to knock me off, and I don't think there was any damage to her car either, probably just a bit of a thud as the bar hit the window and bounced off).

Edit: Even the way it was said was a typical "I'm sick of cars doing this, pack it in" rather than "My life is in danger, I must react now".

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

! Neil, I'm not even going there on this discussion, just thought the tone and phrase amusing.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to jkarran:


Nope!


I think your point about the lack of defensive cycling in the video is valid. Especially when you add in that it was his second time out on his new cycle commute.

Incidents like this used to happen to me on a bike, but they generally don't these days. Some of the reasons for that are explainable (in this instance I would have most likely clocked the potential hazard well back and would be slowing and moving towards the centre of the carriageway) but some of them are too subtle to really explain.

However that doesn't take away from the fact that the driver should have seen the cyclist, but they made a human error.

However the ultimate reason for the accident has a lot to do with the design of our infrastructure. If you mix bikes and large volumes of cars on a large scale like we do here, accidents like this are always going to happen. You can educate the driver and the cyclist to be more defensive but it isn't ultimately sustainably safe. There are acres of available real-estate in the video but the bike is being forced to use a narrow car dominated carriageway. There is no subtlety to the design of these streets based on analysis of how accidents happen.

In reply to jkarran:

I assume you slow to a crawl whenever you pass any junction (in a bike or a car).

In reply to gazhbo:
I certainly find that in a 30mph limit I am doing 30mph only some of the time. I will at least be lifting off at quite a number of places when driver's intuition tells me there's a high chance of someone doing something silly.

While this isn't the case here, it's also worth noting that doing quite a fast speed on a bike (20+ mph, perhaps) requires enough physical effort that that physical effort can in itself be a distraction, FWIW. But then I cycle mainly as a mode of transport rather than for fun and mainly at lowish speed. Those practiced at going faster will clearly see this differently.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:


Crikey - round here you'd be getting continuous blasts of car horn directed at you. 30mph is seen as a target not a limit, drivers enjoy seeing the flashing speed signs as they head to work.

In reply to petellis:
"However the ultimate reason for the accident has a lot to do with the design of our infrastructure. If you mix bikes and large volumes of cars on a large scale like we do here, accidents like this are always going to happen. You can educate the driver and the cyclist to be more defensive but it isn't ultimately sustainably safe. There are acres of available real-estate in the video but the bike is being forced to use a narrow car dominated carriageway. There is no subtlety to the design of these streets based on analysis of how accidents happen."

I saw a counterexample of this on the A5 south of Milton Keynes yesterday, in which the bus I was on almost hit a cyclist because the cyclist in front of him was riding in the shoulder (not, I think, officially a cycle lane there). The bus sounded his horn at the rear cyclist, who did not move into the shoulder (as indeed he did not have to, and given how poor quality and overgrown the shoulder is there nor would it have been sensible to) and as a result came within a few inches of hitting the cyclist (and then overtook far too close). I would certainly have been giving evidence against the bus driver had a collision actually occurred, though won't take it further otherwise because it was a small, less reputable bus company who I know won't do anything about it if I do.

However...I'm with you on the idea that Dutch-style quality cycle infrastructure is needed in our towns and cities. But that said, most such infrastructure is not suitable to cycling at 20mph.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

Look at the speed of the white lines going past on the left, it's clear he does slow down.

In reply to RBonney:
It appears so, but only slightly. It does not appear to be a full emergency braking, or if it is, his brakes need adjusting or he needs (for his own benefit) to perhaps consider a bike more suited[1] to urban cycling.

[1] I really, really don't understand why so many people choose road bikes for riding in heavy traffic in places like London. The brakes are far less strong than V-braked hybrids or anything with disc brakes, the narrow wheels more susceptible to damage on the regular potholes, and unless you ride on the drops or you have extra "proper" levers (not the crap linked ones you had in the 80s) on the horizontal bit of the bars you can't put full force into the brakes you do have. Yes, you can go fast, but in city traffic I am more interested in the ability to stop fast and to take evasive action than my top speed.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

My commuter has disk brakes. They have a nice loud squeal as well which does make dozy pedestrians take note when they decide to step out in to the road whilst reading their latest status update on their mobile phone.

In reply to Bob:
Hee hee, that can help!

My saddle has developed an irritating squeak of late, I expect I will have to replace it soon but until I do you can definitely hear me approaching.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

I would not want brakes any more efficient than those on my road bike, I would suggest they are far more efficient than v-brakes on a hybrid. They are Dura Ace, so top end, but they really are amazingly efficient.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I think they've become contaminated with diesel off the road, even new pads don't get rid of the squeal. They sound more like an HGV applying emergency brakes than a bike!

In reply to Ciro:

This raises an interesting point or two; Given that the cyclist was aware of the limitations of skinny tyres on a wet road:

- should he have ridden with this in mind and altered his riding behaviour accordingly (such as reducing speed according to his compromised stopping distance)?
- should bikes of such specialist design (and resulting poor braking qualities - particularly in the wet), be allowed on public roads? We have controls on specialist racing cars and sports bikes to make them road-legal.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I make it 1.5 seconds between seeing the car start to turn and impact. Especially in those road conditions, over that time frame the only thing that slamming on the brakes is going to achieve is locking the wheels up and skidding, where he would have risked going under the wheels. Similarly for a sudden swerve to the left.

V brakes would only make the problem worse, you have too much stopping power and not enough modulation, what you want at speed is modulated braking which is exactly what you get with dual pivot brakes on road bikes.

In reply to Shani:



Not sure I follow any of this. Something is wrong if you are loosing traction under heavy braking with skinny tyres, wet or dry skidding the front wheel is virtually impossible on tarmac.

Road bike brakes on anything but a bottom end bike are really very good in the dry but I admit they loose some performance on the wet.

The reason road race bikes are a poor choice for commuting is because they put you in a head-down position which makes it harder to look a long way ahead and behind as well as many of them not allowing the fitment of mudguards and racks for carrying/keeping you dry.

In reply to gazhbo:


Why on earth would I do that?

That said, assuming I was paying attention I'd most certainly cover the brake (and usually horn) and/or slow as appropriate when approaching a junction with a car creeping out of it in wet conditions with oncoming traffic restricting my ability to go around if it keeps creeping. I'd suggest any other approach was indicative of inattentiveness, recklessness and/or inexperience.

I'm not claiming I'm a perfect driver, not even a good one. I, like everyone else have been and will be guilty of of being inexperienced, inattentive and even reckless from time to time. I accept that and I accept that like me, others will make mistakes, I just do my best not to get tangled up in them.

Any better straw men to offer?
jk

In reply to wintertree:


Eyeballs can rotate. You do realise this? He could have had a perfect view of the road infront, 99% of cars don't turn across your path or you'd have an accident every week.


It's a car on the road pulling up to the middle of the road to turn right? There's no more obvious hazard than that. He could have easily stopped at the speed he was driving.


You may quickly add the caveat about car driver, but here we go again, blaming the cyclist.


As I said, drivers can look straight through you, the fact they are looking at you means nothing, you should know this by now.


It's not just behind you, but there's also the incoming traffic you'd need to throw yourself under. Road bikes don't aqua plane, the tyre doesn't need to shift water in that way. Might help on a motorbike but it's ineffective as road bike tyres cut through.



Cyclists must have the same mindset as motorcyclists? When did I say that? Clearly not. Driving a motorbike is not the same as cycling.


The guy just hasn't seen him, he might have looked directly at him, it's not a sure fire thing. To be honest, trying to brake hard and swerve sounds a good way to end up under someone's tyres in those conditions. Brake gradually, hit head on seems to be the wisest move which is pretty much what he did. How much speed did he scrub off? Not a lot, but he's done well and had good reflexes for his fall landing on his feet like that. Took it like a pro that dive.

I understand why we are focusing on the cyclist because there is no debate about the driver but it's still unfair imo.

In reply to Shani:


Is this a competition in ignorance?

In reply to jkarran:

The cyclist was reckless inattentive and inexperienced? 0/10

Covering the brake is not enough when someone pulls out in front of you 10m ahead, slowing down to a crawl was the only way. As we've heard in this thread most wouldn't slow down to that degree then most would have hit the car.

In reply to Bob:

Sometimes misalignment of the pads can cause that kind of vibration - unusual with new pads though as you never quite get them on exactly the same as the previous set.

Neil

In reply to FreshSlate:


I was discussing *driving* towards that set-up without slowing but yeah, since you want to go there I'd say possibly all three, possibly a bit of one a bit of another, possibly just one. He got creamed by a car at an obvious hazard he approached at speed in poor conditions... Kinda hard to argue he did everything right!

The car driver is in the wrong but both parties made mistakes.

The point I've been making all along which seems to piss off cyclists and drivers alike is that we're fallible and our vision system is flawed, we make mistakes. We need to accept that and work around it to make our own luck on the roads.


Slowing down to a speed where you can get stopped or take evasive action at least until both vehicles at the junction have clearly acknowledged you visually is the only sensible course of action in that situation. You could change your road position a little to help them lock onto you and you could be well lit but ultimately you have to accept bikes are easy to miss at junctions. If you realise that and are willing to plough on regardless then fine (join the club we're almost all in every day) but you have to accept you drop into the reckless category.

jk

In reply to The New NickB:

If it is, then you've just won with that question.

In reply to Shani:


Go on, justify that! Whilst you are at it, explain why the brakes on road bikes are inadequate for the road.

In reply to The New NickB:

First ask yourself what is the objective of most modern road bikes and their design/build. Is safety up there, or is it speed perhaps?

In reply to FreshSlate:


Yes eyeballs do, and they continue to view the world from the same point. Moving your point of view is important - and not just moving it by letting it move with your direction of travel.


There's no obvious hazard other than the big hazard? A minor hazard if you are in a car, but the sort that is dramatically increased by both your relatively poor visibility and the significantly higher consequences of a crash when on two wheels.


I AM NOT BLAMING THE CYCLIST. Read my posts. My opening words of my first post were blaming the driver. I am giving my thoughts on why it would be very unlikely to be me getting side swiped by a car in that case. There is no debate that the actions of the cyclist could have prevented the crash, only over to what level such actions might be reasonable (better hazard awareness, moving position on the road to catch the drivers eye, ultimately slowing down, ) vs unreasonable (yielding to every car, going slowly, staying at home, wearing a full set of christmas tree lights)


I never argued this. If the driver looks through you, you are no better off. HOWEVER, if you see that they have never looked at you, you know for sure that they are unaware of you. So it can save you, some times.


1) If there's no escape route then your hazard perception should automatically crank up another notch or two.

2) Do you know how I read that? I'm out on a high speed road vehicle with tyres unstable for the conditions and am riding to fast for that and that's okay because I'm a cyclist. Can you imagine the reaction if a car was unable to stop and said "Ah but I'm out with my track day slicks on"


Yes, heaven forbid that anyone should discuss ways in which a nasty crash might have been prevented.

In reply to Shani:


Well, pro road races frequently involves tightly packed groups of riders hitting about 70kph descending twisty mountain roads with big drops to the side, so I'd hope that safety was fairly well up there...

In reply to Shani:

Safe, efficient riding. Now answer my question.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

And do you think that the road conditions experienced in pro road races involving tightly packed groups of riders hitting about 70kph descending twisty mountain roads with big drops to the side are the same as an urban commute where roads are 'unsecured' (ie there are lots of other road uses, pedestrians, motor vehicles, all going in one of several directions), and where motor vehicles are mixed in large numbers with cyclists?

I wonder, do Pro Roadies use different tyres for different conditions?

In reply to Shani:

No, but having working brakes is a pretty fundamental requirement for both.

In reply to jkarran:

There is nothing to suggest he wasn't covering the brake. The fact that he slows just before the impact suggests that he was. Most bikes have brakes conveniently located on the handlebars so that riders are generally 'covering the brakes' at all times.

From the instant the car moved across the path there is no way that collision was avoidable. It wouldn't have been avoided by a care driver with his foot over the brake either. The first opportunity the cyclist had to react was when the car started to move right and by then the only thing he could do was try to minimise the impact.

It seems you are suggesting that the crash was avoidable by anticipating the cars movement before it happened. But taken to its logical conclusion that means nobody should ever be on the road in any vehicle.

In reply to The New NickB:

Wow - that is your answer to a question about the objective(s) when building a modern road bike? I am not sure if you are naive or deceitful.

I went to the Boardman site (http://bit.ly/1pLaGgX), and looked at one of their premium road bikes. I searched the page for any mention of 'safety'. No hits.

Interestingly the opening sentence is:

"Whether you're racing for the win in the World Triathlon Championships or one of the world's greatest road races, it's all about exploiting minimal gains and the AiR/9.8 has enough of them to make the difference between the win and 2nd place."

Even the page on their basic bike (http://bit.ly/1oh5J1s) has no mention of safety. But again alludes to speed:

"full carbon fork with tapered steerer and a full Shimano wheelset offers race bike performance to match your competitive desire whether racing, training or commuting."

So you might want to revise your response above.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Agreed. But building with safety in mind would facilitate a wet weather build and/or 'urban' build for specific conditions. You know this.

In reply to Shani:

Most UK public roads are not really 'designed' for cars at all (laying down some tarmac on an existing lane is not 'design'). They came into being based on the requirements of slow moving pedestrians and animal-drawn carts. Bikes are a reasonable fit. Cars are a very recent fad and the onus should be on them (well, their drivers) to fit in without compromising other users' safety.

I'd be quite happy to add disc brakes to my commuting bike if cars are limited to 30 BHP (more than enough on our non-motorway roads) and had a spike in the middle of the steering wheel (to balance the risk). We all then would be 'suitable' for public roads.

In reply to Shani:

I can't help feeling that watching this thread is a bit like watching a drunken brawl outside a pub at throwing out time. Vaguely facinating, somewhat demeaning and runs the risk of getting yourself drawn in to the fight.

Oh, crap...

In reply to gazhbo:


He doesn't appear to slow much if at all to me, in fact he appears to sit up somewhat suggesting to me that he may not even be down on the drop bars at the point of impact, hard to tell though. And thanks for the condescension, I do have a bike and funnily enough I know where the brake levers are. They're only really 'convenient' if you're down on the drop bars with your head and shoulders down and even then, unless you're actually covering them with a finger it's going to cost you 5-10m at that sort of speed just to get onto them.


The hazard (actually the creeping car on the left and the restricted options caused by the turning car would be my main concern) is visible long before the one on the right actually turns. Saying the accident is unavoidable at the point where it's happening is both obvious and pointless nonsense. Avoiding accidents is about knowing what your options are, making some if the ones you have are no good and looking well ahead for hazards, not reacting to accidents that are already happening.


If that's your idea of a logical conclusion we have very different definitions of logical.

jk

In reply to Marek:

Agree with much of this.

Let me reiterate; I am NOT pro-car or anti bike. I cycle and I like cycling. But as discussed above, the roads are a dangerous place for cyclists, many humans are not good at looking out for cyclists from the luxury of their cars, and as you've pointed out, roads weren't designed with cars in mind, or bikes - never mind the mix of cars, lorries, bikes etc...

Now chuck in to the mix for exmaple, an increasing number of mamils riding round on £2k worth of bike designed to be a "Fast, race-orientated road bike with precise handling and class-leading efficiency” (http://bit.ly/1AaT1X3), and you can see a problem .

Of course "Cars are a very recent fad and the onus should be on them (well, their drivers) to fit in without compromising other users' safety" but this isn't going to happen any time soon.

So given these points, and given that legislation is unlikely to make drivers better to the point that cyclists no longer get broadsided at junctions, we as cyclists need to think about how we can reduce our risk of injury.

Riding a bike designed for competition and speed would not look like a bike designed for the erratic nature of urban road riding in a variety of conditions.

In reply to Shani:

Have you ever heard of marketing?

In reply to Shani:


Modern road bike brakes work perfectly well in all these conditions.

In reply to gazhbo:

"Most bikes have brakes conveniently located on the handlebars so that riders are generally 'covering the brakes' at all times."

Unless they're on the hoods, where unless you've got very big hands you will have to move, either to the tops of the bars or the drops, to be able to apply maximum braking force. Though that may be irrelevant to this situation as in wet conditions maximum force may just cause a skid.

Neil

In reply to Marek:

"Cars are a very recent fad and the onus should be on them (well, their drivers) to fit in without compromising other users' safety."

Indeed. Meanwhile in the real world?

If a cyclist goes around thinking that and acting accordingly, however morally correct it is, they aren't going to be alive very long.

Neil

In reply to The New NickB:

Two can play at that game. Have you heard of 'design'.

Ever wondered why racing cars have different compound tyres for different weather conditions? Ever wondered how different tyre footprints affect braking? Ever wondered why there are different kinds of brakes?

Again, you know this, but let's keep up the pretence eh?

In reply to Shani:
"Riding a bike designed for competition and speed would not look like a bike designed for the erratic nature of urban road riding in a variety of conditions."

Agreed. I personally find that a 700c x 35[1] wheeled hybrid with either V-brakes or disc brakes is the optimum for those conditions. I personally prefer a more upright seating position, but that is a matter of opinion. (Coincidentially that's what I bought for use in those conditions).

Of course, if you have a road bike for use out on the open road you're going to want to ride it through the town first if you live in one, but that's vastly different from rush-hour commuting.

[1] I find that that wheel size gives a good combination of not too much resistence (provided you keep the tyres well inflated) but also shock absorption and not being easily damaged e.g. on potholes.

Neil

In reply to jkarran:

If you can't reach your brake levers (and be able to pull on them enough to lock up your wheels) from your hoods then you need to adjust their position/add spacers so that you can.

I have no problem braking when on the hoods (yes it is a greater force required than on the drops, but they are still perfectly good)

Shani... in your googling, did you come accross any cars that are advertised as being sporty, nippy, accelerating fast? how many of these talked about what their stopping distance was or how good their brakes were?

It may surprise you, but the gains refered to in your boardman post would include better braking for obvious reasons. It's probably worth pointing out that adverts and marketing are very different to design purpose (unless you really think driving a polo will suddenly mean all your maates who are scared sh!tless of your driving will suddenly think everything is OK?)

In reply to Shani:

Prove to me that brakes on road bikes are inadequate for road use.

I'm not pretending anything.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Does it vastly affect your braking ability?

In reply to balmybaldwin:
Does what? Having wider tyres and easier to pull brakes? Yes, of course it does.

It also means you're more likely to be able to take evasive action, e.g. swerving, without losing grip.

Neil

In reply to Shani:


So you are upset with the car driver because you noted that they didnt have the wet weather specific tyres on?
Ever wondered about the rather obvious difference between a racing car and a road bike? Ever wonder why although there are different types of brakes each discipline tends to select just one?

I am somewhat baffled by your reference to that bike review as well. Do you really think that safety is ignored because it isnt mentioned?
If, and its a big if, they did review an unsafe bike I can pretty much guarantee it would have a truly awful review.
likewise if you found a brakeset which didnt work it would score rather lowly.

In reply to Neil Williams:



Sounds like operator error to me.

In reply to The New NickB:

Sadly it must be ignorance then. I am not saying that brakes on road bikes are inadequate for road use as their is not bike MOT against which to quantify their performance. But they are not the best choice for urban riding where conditions can vary (http://bit.ly/1lzlHz5)

"A decent set of rim brakes are lightweight, relatively easy to adjust and offer fairly predictable braking so long as they are properly maintained. In a moderately dry environment rim brakes are great. If you find yourself only riding in the summertime or are what you might call a fair-weather rider then these brakes will work great for most applications. Where they start to fall down is when the weather turns ugly."

In reply to Neil Williams:

If your bike is properly set up you can operate the brakes perfectly from the hoods, more easily in fact than if you are on the drops.

In reply to dissonance:

No. I am upset with the car driver for not looking out for cyclists.


Avoids my question about tyre compounds.


It is not about a bike being unsafe. It is about the best tool for the job. It is about specificity.

This comes back to the point that a bike built for all-weather urban commuting would not be the same kind of bike as one built for racing.

In reply to Shani:

Is that the best you can do? Must try harder Shani!

In reply to The New NickB:
Very evasive Nick.

Your question "Prove to me that brakes on road bikes are inadequate for road use" cannot be answered as there is no objective measure. But are there differences in brakes that make some better than others in certain conditions? Yes.

Why do manufactureres provide different kinds of brakes? What are the limitations of each kind of brake type? What factors affect performance?

In reply to balmybaldwin:


I'm not arguing he couldn't brake or about the merits of various brake and lever designs. We can't see hands or bars, maybe he could reach the levers, maybe he couldn't, point is he didn't or if he did it was long after alarm bells should have been ringing.

jk

In reply to Shani:


Sorry, what question was that and what relevance is it to this case? Bearing in mind I somewhat doubt you recognised the tyre and its tread I am not sure how you have decided it isnt suited.


Yet you have yet to show any evidence that a different tool would have been any better for some halfwit deciding to ignore those tedious rules. Unless you were riding a fat bike with downhill discs I doubt you would have been able to get the speed off safely and, of course, that would have disadvantages in every other scenario.


well it depends on your commute really doesnt it? For example what you seem to think is the best design would have difficulty keeping up on a faster stretch of road.

In reply to dissonance:

Exactly my point! Well done.

I also note you allude to speed when, given the topic, having a bike optimised for quick stopping might be more appropriate.

In reply to Shani:


No, just on my phone.


So you admit your original statement about inferior brakes was wrong.


Different types of activities. We are talking about biking on the road.

In reply to The New NickB:


You are the only one to mention 'inferior'.


Exactly. Different brakes are better for different activities (and by extension different conditions).

So in an urban environment where conditions can be mixed, on a bike that will be used in all weather, where drivers can pull out in front of you unexpectedly, one might want to express a bike's features that promote the quickest and safest reduction in speed.

You got there in the end. Well done to you too!

In reply to Shani:



That'll be "walking", then?

In reply to Shani:


Dont be so condescending, particularly when you fail to grasp the point being made.


I commented about speed because, despite your fantasies about urban riding, it isnt all stop and go.
As for stopping. As several people have patiently tried to explain to you a road bike can stop perfectly capably and quickly.
The difference between good calipers and discs is minute and generally overruled by issues such as grip. Its not as handy as disc in mud etc or when you need to brake heavily and continously eg on serious downhills but for most usage its more than adequate.

To take this particular case. Do you honestly think different brakes or bike would have made any difference? Short of it being a trials bike ridden by a pro (although if it was a pro then the type of bike would be less important) I dont.

In reply to Shani:


"resultant poorer braking qualities" contextually I think we can safely say you mean inferior. If you don't think they are inferior, we can just agree that you have wasted everyone's time.


Or that one type of brake is perfectly adequate for a range of conditions within a specific sort of activity, such as cycling on the the road, even in the wet.


No bike, or car or motorbike, could have stopped in the circumstance in the video, but my brakes have brilliant stopping power, wet or dry, but they are the same as the pros use so they must be the wrong sort somehow.

In reply to dissonance:

Wow - after accusing me of being condescending, you condescend!


And a different set up of bike could have enabled the cyclist to stop sooner.


The difference between good calipers and discs is NOT minute when you account for set up, conditions, tyres etc... That is the whole point.

In reply to The New NickB:

Or that you are willfully wasting everyone's time by ignoring the fact that some setups can improves stopping distance.


Adequate against what criteria?


Empty rhetoric.

In reply to Shani:


yes its called returning the favour.


Not in time to make any difference in a safe manner, in fact quite possibly could have made things worse. Unless, as I already said, possibly a fat bike with downhill brakes. However outside of dealing with morons driving directly in front of you they aint the most practical bike in the world.


No the point is you are one of those strange people who feel the need to rant and rave about cyclists even when its fairly clear they couldnt have avoided the accident. If they had been driving the results would have almost certainly been the same, although the damage would be more even. I will leave you to it.

In reply to The New NickB:

Clearly the operator needs to know the limits of their vehicle. But also clearly some vehicles have better grip and braking ability than others.

A modern car, for example, can brake more quickly than a 1960s equivalent, even with the most skilled driver.

Neil

In reply to dissonance:

Mature!


Again exactly my point. Different set ups could affect braking distance. To quote YOU "Unless, as I already said, possibly a fat bike with downhill brakes".


I am a cyclist. I am suggesting that some bike setups would be safer than others in an urban commuting environment. That is it. Nothing more. I don't think that that is controversial.

As for 'ranting and raving', we can all spin it our own way with an emotive flourish. Are you one of those rabid cyclists above any form of advice or criticism...yada yada...yawn.

In reply to Shani:

We are not going to agree, but let me just clarify, bikes should only go on the road if they have the latest disk brakes? All rim brakes should be banned.

In reply to The New NickB:


A ridiculous summary and an immature synopsis.

In reply to Neil Williams:



Thing is most of these road bikes are far more technologically advanced than your hybrid and ridden correctly probably stop better.

In reply to Shani:


Or the logical conclusion to your idiocy. Bye.

In reply to Shani:



So people should only commute on fat bikes with downhill brakes then?


Well, you were asking whether "bikes of such specialist design (and resulting poor braking qualities - particularly in the wet)" should "be allowed on public roads" - which suggests that you don't just think they're marginally less optimized but that they're potentially so dangerous as to be worth banning. Unless you think the answer is "no, obviously", in which case why ask the question?

In reply to The New NickB:

The expensive ones most probably yes. But not every road cyclist is riding an expensive high-tech road bike. In London you see a real mix.

Neil

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Nope. Different bike setups favour different environments an conditions. Given that drivers pull out unexpectedly then you might want to favour a commuting build optimised for sudden, safe braking rather than a bike favoured for speed.


Your uber-defensive ranting is symptomatic of a big problem in online discussions. To summarise my position as one "which suggests that [I]don't just think they're marginally less optimized but that they're potentially so dangerous as to be worth banning" is bizarre.

Given that cyclists are hit by careless car drivers, it makes sense to discuss how we as cyclists can improve our chances of avoiding serious injury or death. It doesn't matter if the cyclist is in the right - what matters is that you've improved your chances of a safe journey. Not sure why you are attacking this line of thinking.

With respect specifically to optimising a bike for certain conditions and activities, it is worth exploring the idea not least because if the various motoring lobbies attack cyclists from this angle, we had better be prepared with well thought out arguments in response. Your histrionics above will not suffice.

In reply to The New NickB:


runaway much?

In reply to Shani:

"Nope. Different bike setups favour different environments an conditions. Given that drivers pull out unexpectedly then you might want to favour a commuting build optimised for sudden, safe braking rather than a bike favoured for speed."

Exactly my point. It's not dissimilar to helmets, perhaps. Most probably you can ride a bike for years without wearing one and not get killed - they have only been the norm for 10 years or thereabouts at most, and still aren't in many places (most Boris bikers don't wear one, and few leisure cyclists in Milton Keynes do either). However, if you do have an accident they may well prevent serious head injury.

You mostly might not need the additional grip or braking force of a commuter bike - but it might come in useful if you do.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:


Sure, but that is different debate. The expensive ones still have rim brakes and thin wheels. Anyway, it is the expensive ones that Shani seems to have an issue with.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I hear you Neil! Seems there are a few precious folk on here who think that "drivers SHOULDN'T hit us so we don't need to take any precautionary measures" rather than realising you can't legislate for ALL driver-muppetry and so you should anticipate that it is likely to happen and what steps can you take to minimise those chances of it happening - and reducing the consequences when it does. Hardly an "anti cycling" stance and hardly a 'rant'.

Happy cycling!

You can tell it's a hot day, a whole load of people spouting utter nonsense about bicycle brakes, clearly I'm a bit cranky (joke) to be replying to this again but then I blame the fact I ride the sadist uber aero bike fit where I need a chiropractor with a baseball bat to get me on my bike in the morning and can't see where I'm going.

What's the old saying, beware arguing with an idiot, a bystander may not be able to tell who is who.

Right I'm off to heat up some more on the Brompton.

Step away from your computers.

Cheers

Toby smiley face smiley face in case I get any death threats.

In reply to The New NickB:


Nope. This is a mischaracterisation. I have reiterated my position explicitly in several posts. You are willfully avoiding it despite having acknowledged the thrust of it in several places.

In reply to Shani:


Stop with the lying!

In reply to Shani:

In the wet the limit for bicyles is rubber on tarmac, in the dry the limit is going over the handlebars. Brakes stronger than that don't achieve anything.

In reply to elsewhere:

Weight and riding position will further affect those, as will the width of tyre.

Neil

In reply to Shani:


You think it's bizarre to infer that position from:

"This raises an interesting point or two...
- should bikes of such specialist design (and resulting poor braking qualities - particularly in the wet), be allowed on public roads? We have controls on specialist racing cars and sports bikes to make them road-legal."

It seems like a fairly reasonable summary to me.


The well thought out argument is that a cyclist shouldn't have to have the reactions of a fighter pilot and be riding some sort of super-optimized urban commuting bike to have a reasonable chance of surviving city roads. If we want to have a decent rate of participation in cycling then, by driver education or better infrastructure, cycle commuting should be reasonably safe for ordinary, relatively sensible cyclists on ordinary, relatively sensible bikes. And a modern road bikes - like cheapo "student special" hybrids, bromptons, fixies, Boris bikes etc - are well within the bounds of "relatively sensible."

If, whenever we discuss cycle safety, we turn the focus onto very marginal gains that could be made at considerable expense and inconvenience to cyclists - in this case, owning and storing an extra bike for commuting when you already have one that's entirely serviceable for that activity - then we just pour further fuel onto the victim blaming fire that says that it's all our own fault and there's no point expecting anyone else to try to improve things.

In reply to Ramblin dave:
True. But equally there are quite a lot of new cyclists who are buying bikes on the Bike to Work scheme and are spending up on expensive road bikes purely for commuting (because they look cool) when they could go for something that is both cheaper and better for their intended use.

Neil

In reply to Ramblin dave:





No it is not a reasonable summary for you to turn what I think is an 'interesting point' in to a suggestion that I "think that they're potentially so dangerous as to be worth banning". Motoring lobbies may well take this line of approach in the future and so there is benefit in exploring the point.



You start of with the usual banal rhetoric here but get past that and I agree with everything you've written in this paragraph.


NO ONE ON THIS THREAD HAS BLAMED THE CYCLIST. Stop trying to push that agenda.

Yes, road conditions and legislation should be improved for the benefit of cyclists, I have no problem with that and fully support it. But ,shit happens and so a few people have discussed how to improve survival when the shit hits.

Let me give you a climbing analogy. When an accident happens at the crag, on occasion it gets discussed on here in the hope that people can learn from it. Even the victims of the accident bring up their tales as cautionary events.

Why the inflamed, defensive response when someone addresses actions that may improve survival in a biking accident?

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Spot on, well said.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I would be amazed if they were using it for bike to work. I remember seeing the takeup rate for where I work and thinking, since we only have a single shower, thats its quite lucky none of the buggers will commute in (I know being picky it can be used for part of the journey but since the train would be rather inconvenient I think it is safe to assume that doesnt happen).
Cycle to work is even more dodgy in terms of stated goals than the previous computer scheme.
As for what is better. My CX bike is rather handier for the commute than the boardman I had previously. I was dubious about drop bars, since I was fairly biased towards the mountain bike side, but difference isnt noticeable in the traffic bits.

In reply to Shani:



To follow your analogy, you are doing the equivalent of proposing that climbers should use two harnesses and two belay devices (optimising against belay loop failure) because it would improve safety in certain situations.

While it's true that using two belay devices and two harnesses provides marginal improvements to safety albeit to what is already a reasonably designed system, you are suggesting that wearing two harnesses might improve the odds of walking away from an accident involving ripping gear - the point people have been making all afternoon and that you have been steadfastly ignoring is that braking performance is totally irrelevant to the current scenario.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Real World? What do you mean? This is the Internet, not the Real World! It's both bad thing and a good thing that some people can't tell the difference (make of that what you will).

In reply to Quiddity:

No I am not. It would be more akin to suggesting one wore a helmet on a mountain route but not on a sport climb. Or that a bad landing be pedded out with a bouldering mat.



Again, a preposterous suggestion. Two harnesses? WTF are you on about?

In reply to sgitl:

I wonder if it took him a few moments to catch up with what was actually happening, there's actually some quirk to do with how the human brain works which means we don't always pick up on things which are happening in time, but as somebody who rides a bike in traffic, he does seem perhaps a 'little' bit slow in reacting to what's happening.

It's pretty easy to be precise when you're viewing the footage from home though.

In reply to Xharlie:
This is exactly what happened to me about a month ago (except it was in Canada so the car turned left across my path. I broke his passenger side window on impact but (luckily) didn't go over the top.

Two broken ribs and a f**ked wrist later I am recovering well. The driver got a ticket and the insurance will cover bike damage (surprisingly minimal), new helmet and shirt and any additional physio.

In my mind, I can replay this and wonder how I couldn't stop, but I was travelling at about 35km/hr and I really didn't have a chance. I can assure everyone that I had no desire to hit a car at that speed and I doubt this guy did either.

In reply to Xharlie:

I often wonder why we have to blame one person or the other and why blame can't be apportioned.

Anyone who has driven a car in rain knows their vision is not as good as in good weather. There are also blind spots presented by the A pillar. I've lost whole transit vans in mine as I've approached mini roundabouts at the same speed.

As a cyclist riding along at high speed in the rain is a recipe for disaster. If that guy was only doing 20mph I would be very surprised.

The London Cyclist article above points out what happens to our vision when travelling at the same speed at the object we're trying to track.

The adverts say that if you get hit by a car doing 30mph you have an x% chance of dying, so why do cyclists increase this likelihood by riding so fast?

No one is perfect.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Firstly 20mph isn't high speed, but I have watched the video a few more times and I don't even think he is going that fast.

In reply to DancingOnRock:







Because in urban cycling, there is often safety in speed and swift acceleration.

On a bike, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Someone's going to find some way to blame you for their cock up.

In reply to Xharlie:

That's a terrible piece of driving. She, or her insurance company, have some nerve disputing culpability.

When I cycle down a road like that I am twitching about every car that might pull out in front of me. (I twitch watching this clip.) To have it reinforced that it's not just me--the cars really might do that--is not reassuring. But I suppose it might save me a short stay in hospital, or a longer one in the cemetery.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

"I often wonder why we have to blame one person or the other and why blame can't be apportioned."

Insurance companies do apportion blame, but in practice an 80-20 doesn't differ in its effects (loss of NCB etc) from 50-50, so in reality you just get one person's fault or 50-50.

Neil

In reply to Shani:


I'm not saying that you or anyone else here has blamed the cyclist. I'm saying that when "motoring lobbies" argue against cycle safety improvements that aren't convenient for them, victim blaming is a standard tactic. And if we continue along this line of seriously debating the suitability of road bikes for commuting then we're giving them more ammunition to do that with - "why do you think a bike lane is going to improve safety - cyclists are a bunch of thrill-seeking daredevils who ride high speed racing bikes with dangerously inadequate brakes - they'll find a way to kil themselves anyway."

It's not an "interesting point" that needs to be "explored", it's an irrelevant point that needs to be dismissed before it grows roots. Whether you commute on a road bike, a hybrid, a fat bike with downhill brakes, a brompton, a unicycle or whatever, you just have to have a basic idea what it can do and adjust your riding accordingly. FWIW, I ride a knackered hybrid with rather sluggish brakes, and I just ride fairly slowly if I can see anything with the potential to turn into a hazard ahead of me. If I had nice disk breaks I'd probably get to places with the same margin of safety, but faster.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

'Angonnamo, isn't it cyclists who often argue against cycle lanes because riding on the road allows a greater speed/freedom/pleasure of cycling/whatever?

Not so clear cut. Indeed, rather a paradox - fast cyclists are better on the road, but without quality cycle facilities takeup of slower cycling will never near the Dutch level. But if you have cycle lanes and most cyclists are on them, treatment of cyclists on the road by motorists gets worse because they think the ones on the road shouldn't be there.

Neil

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Actually Dave, you said "If, whenever we discuss cycle safety, we turn the focus onto very marginal gains that could be made at considerable expense and inconvenience to cyclists - in this case, owning and storing an extra bike for commuting when you already have one that's entirely serviceable for that activity - then we just pour further fuel onto the victim blaming fire that says that it's all our own fault and there's no point expecting anyone else to try to improve things."

Now given that I was talking about what could be construed as 'marginal gains', the inference is clear. I am glad to see you back peddaling though.


A clear attempt to stifle debate. Let's not talk about it and ignore this possible line of attack eh? How productive do you think that approach is, rather than rational discourse.

As for your boasting that you 'ride a knackered hybrid with rather sluggish brakes', there is safety legislation covering various builds of bike ('normal' bikes, Mountain Bikes etc...) and there is legislation covering brakes specifically (if you ride a normal bike, you have to have two independent braking systems - one which operates on the front wheel, and one which operates on the back). The law also requires you to keep your brakes in efficient working order (not rubbing on a pneumatic tyre for example), but there doesn’t seem to be any compulsory stopping distance or other standard test, so this is likely to be a matter of judgment.

A uniformed officer can perform a roadside inspection and you could be charged with a consequent offence - particularly if you are involved in an accident where someone is hurt.

In reply to Shani:
So you want a rational debate. You have yet to present any actual evidence that impaired stopping distances (in the wet or the dry) as a specific result of brake or bike design, is a contributory factor in cycle accidents? What proportion of cycle accidents could be avoided or mitigated by a better braking system?

Taking into account the fact, pointed out, that the limiting factor on braking distance, especially in the wet, is grip of tire on tarmac. (tire tread doesn't improve grip on tarmac in either wet or dry conditions, hence slicks are more grippy than tires with tread as you have more rubber in contact with the road, let's get that one out of the way).

The point I tried to make yesterday, which perhaps didn't come across, is you seem to have fixated on the one factor of brake design without any actual evidence that it contributes to, or might mitigate, accidents. While my earlier point was perhaps hyperbole, your argument is akin to those who argue that climbing harnesses could be made safer by provision of two independent belay loops (eg http://www.metoliusclimbing.com/safe-tech_all-around.html ) while all the evidence suggests that belay loops are sufficiently strong to be irrelevant in virtually all cases.

While it seems appealing to believe that shorter stopping distances would make bikes safer, the overwhelming cause of fatal injuries in eg. Central London is being run over by HGVs, particularly being caught in a blind spot when they are turning left. Indeed, a bike 'optimised for stopping' might well encourage inexperienced cyclists to ride closer to heavy vehicles with large blind spots, when the real danger is not being seen when they start to manoeuvre. Focusing on spurious issues about bike design just distracts from the real safety issues, which are about road layout and HGV cab design.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Insurance companies do but car drivers and cyclists don't.

The roads would be a lot safer if instead of taking sides people looked at common accidents like this and worked out why the accident occurred and what, if anything can be done in this situation to lessen the likelihood of it reoccurring or reducing the suffering afterwards.

Instead it just boils down to
A) Cyclist was going too fast.
B) Car driver didn't look properly.

When no one was actually in either of those positions to judge properly.

Oh good lord, what a thread.

For the car;
Highway Code 180 states

Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner.

For the cyclist
Highway Code 72 states

On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road.

Note, the highway code makes no mention of the need to slow down when approaching the junction. This, I presume, is because whatever the mode of transport (legs, bikes, motorbikes, cars) you have priority over those turning.

Based on highway code, the car failed to comply with code 180. The cyclist complied with code 72 as there is nothing in the highway code directing him to slow down or take extra precautions.

I cannot see how the cyclist is at fault as he had priority on the road.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
"I cannot see how the cyclist is at fault as he had priority on the road."

Nobody said the cyclist was at fault. However asserting your legal priority over all else as a vulnerable road user (cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist) is a good way to get killed.

Neil

In reply to Xharlie:

According to Road Cc, the cyclist was on his way to a Cirque du Soleil rehearsal.

any other punter would be in the council fridge, cooling nicely...

In reply to Quiddity:

I have no argument with this.

"Indeed, a bike 'optimised for stopping' might well encourage inexperienced cyclists to ride closer to heavy vehicles with large blind spots, when the real danger is not being seen when they start to manoeuvre. "

What bollocks is this?

"Focusing on spurious issues about bike design just distracts from the real safety issues, which are about road layout and HGV cab design."

I agree that we need to tackle road layout and HGV cab design to make cycling safer. In the meantime, and until this happens, we should look at ways of ensuring our safety as cyclists.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:


To slow down may even be dangerous as the oncoming car *may* take this as a sign that you are slowing down to let him/her turn. I made this point above about riding assertively.

In reply to Shani:

right, I'' try and answer some of your questions.

1) given that the largest road bike market is driven by the Septics and they all love a bit of litigation having working brakes and attendant bits and bobs is generally held to be in the manufacturer's best interest

2) there are many different tyres, with commuter tyres having a slightly harder compound, puncture resistant belts and light tread. counter intuitively, slick racing tyres can also be the grippiest using a mixture of ground glass (or ceramic) and some rubbish called Black Chilli - whatever that is....

3) Most rims brake work fine and for winter can be improved by swapping the blocks out for a wet weather compound which is usually softer, hydrophobic and treaded to shed crap and grime.

4) There is a drive for safety - that's why a lot of commuter bikes are cross bikes or similar with disks.

5) Of course, any amount of braking is useless if the road surface is covered in diesel or any other range of shit that finds itself there with depressing and bruising regularity

6) It's not really the same to compare the marketing of bikes as that of cars in terms of performance. One is a little mix of metal and carbon and skin and the other a fecking great lump of iron that can deliver the driver and all his screaming passengers into a motorway bridge at speeds your grandad could only dream about.

7) when you've perfected air bags for bikes I look forward to Mr Bannatyne saying "Shani, I'm in".



Personally I think the road law should be like the Collision Regs, everyone gets the blame then it's apportioned after wards. the one with the largest amount gets his arse well and truly fried.

and on the nautical theme, don't underestimate the "radar affected collision" phenomenon, whereby you are so busy watching the hazard you lose context and then two become one, with no cuddling afterwards.

In reply to Shani:

I'm suggesting that while a bike 'optimised for stopping' might be intuitively appealing to some, it is not clear whether it would actually provide a safety benefit in heavy urban traffic, especially if it encourages you to ride in a way which puts you more at risk, ie. riding more reactively rather than planning ahead. While you might feel this is unlikely, I am just pointing out that things are not as simple as the 'quicker braking = safer' assumption which you are making.

FWIW my main urban bike is a steel framed tourer, which was done up as an urban commuter. I recently took the V brakes off and put dual pivot calipers on, because at the sort of speeds encountered on my commute I would rather have brake modulation than raw stopping power. I am sure whoever put V brakes on it in the first place thought they were optimising it for stopping, but if they offer less control over my speed than dual pivots, then they are less safe in the specific context of my commute.

Additionally, it has repeatedly been shown that the main thing which makes urban cycling safer, per mile, is more cyclists on the roads. But you risk putting people off if you try to convince people that the streets are unsafe unless you are riding something prescribed as an 'urban-optimised bike' and flashing like a christmas tree, while the truth is that exactly what sort of bike you are riding does not make that much difference to your safety as long as it is roadworthy.

In reply to Removed User:

Also what happened to me last year, head went through the passenger rear window, bust jaw, collarbone, knocked out front teeth and wrote off bike.
Still waiting for a payout

In reply to DancingOnRock:


It really does boil down to that though. Change either one of those, or both and the accident doesn't happen. That's the obvious bit.

What's less obvious is what to do about it, how do we educate drivers many of whom will be experienced and never again take instruction to improve their lookout, check their blind spots, consider what they can't see, look ahead for hazards and act early to avoid them. Likewise for cyclists.

There isn't an easy practical answer.

jk

In reply to Shani:


I meant you were providing additional ammunition to people who might want to blame victims, not that you were doing it yourself. But I can't be bothered arguing semantics.


There is no rational discourse to be had because it's a totally specious point. By trying to prolong a discussion of it, we'd make it a more dangerous line of attack by giving it some appearance of credibility.


I said "slightly sluggish" not "dangerously ineffective". My point is that I go a bit slower on it than I would on a bike with well set up disc brakes, in order to keep my stopping distance within what I'd consider to be safe for the situation. So in fact, as far as I'm concerned the argument for having a bike with better brakes is speed, not safety!


If nothing else because stopping distances are dependent on speed, so brakes that are entirely safe on your granny's sit-up-and-beg three speed would be suicidally dangerous on a downhill mountain bike. Once again - it's not the choice of bike that's important, it's whether you ride in a manner that's appropriate to the bike, the conditions and the situation.


Are you still getting all this from "slightly sluggish"?

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:


Being in the right doesn't stop you getting creamed.


The fault is not a legal one, it's in not accounting for the obvious hazard. If I had that accident on a bike or in a car I'd rightly be aggrieved but I'd also feel like a proper wally for not seeing the danger and giving myself options in advance.

jk

In reply to Ramblin dave:



That's all true, but technically I guess the safest situation would be to have pin sharp disc brakes and to ride as if one has brakes which are pretty bad. It's not something I find myself doing though.

In reply to wintertree:


We can't tell if the camera view is the full story.


You still haven't explained how you would react to this hazard, you have already stated you wouldn't slow down for a car turning right. So then what?


Yes you are, you're fully concentrating on what the cyclist has done wrong, you're still at it. Mashing your capslock button doesn't change that. We're obviously talking about what he could have done once he was aware (or could have been) the car was turning across his path. Staying at home isn't a valid answer.


We don't know if he clocked the driver, so there's not much point arguing he didn't.


Yeah, I get you, crank it to 11.


Car tyres and bike tyres work are not the same, if you have noticed car tyres are a much higher volume and lower PSI. The problem with slick car tyres is that they lose contact with the road over pools of water. They use tread to divert water from the middle of the tyre outwards. Cycling tyres don't work that way, especially ones that are mountable on a road bike and are generally run at 70-100 psi. They cut through the water, any tiny bit of tread they put on is just for show. Yes, you would use 'slick' road tyres in the wet. Again, you would know something about this, if you were actually a cyclist.


Yeah, if you get hit on the motorway because someone pulled over without checking there blind spot I will say 'you could have stayed at home that day', 'should have turned up that hazard perception up a notch', brilliant.

In reply to jkarran:





Ideally you change both. But while the two factions are arguing that it's the other person's fault nothing will change

In reply to jkarran:

Perhaps one way would be to accept that most accidents are not malicious but a product of various conditioning stresses on road users. The response therefore should focus less on blame and punishment (although there is obvious a place for that where appropriate) but more on changing peoples' ingrained habits and attitudes. The current system of lessons on how to use the controls, a rudimentary test and then you're off to 'learn on the job' as best you can is pretty anomolous for someone in charge of dangerous machinery in a public place. Ongoing (lifetime) training and assessment (kept up to date as road use changes) is one way. A move to regarding driving as a priveledge (earned and potentailly lost) rather than as a birthright is also key. Practical? I don't know. But probably more practical than thinking we can redesign the whole road network or thinking that simply jailing anyone who knocks a cyclist off their bike will work.

In reply to FreshSlate:
"Yeah, if you get hit on the motorway because someone pulled over without checking there blind spot I will say 'you could have stayed at home that day', 'should have turned up that hazard perception up a notch', brilliant."

You *don't* avoid being in someone else's blind spot, and if you do end up there watch very carefully what they're doing until you can remove yourself from there by slowing down or speeding up slightly?

I pay particular attention to that on roundabouts, particularly those with confusingly marked lanes, and it has avoided more than one collision.

Similarly, having been rear-ended once when I was much younger, I pay attention when stopping in a queue to ensuring that those behind me know I'm braking (if particularly heavily I knock the hazards on as I slow) and leaving myself a decent amount of space to the vehicle in front such that (a) there's an escape route if I see someone approaching too quickly from behind such that I don't think they'll stop, or if (a) is not possible as it often isn't then (b) at least leaving a decent space to the car in front such that if someone does shunt me from behind I'm far less likely to go into the car in front as well, thus minimising the complexity of the insurance claim, injuries to myself from a secondary shunt and avoiding injuries to further drivers.

Do other drivers really not think like this? (I think I know the answer, sadly.)

Neil

In reply to FreshSlate:


If you're sat in someone's blind spot then you should be assessing your options in case they move and acting to get out of it, not 'staying at home'.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

Exactly. At least I'm not the only one.

Neil

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Here you are once again back-pedalling and tending to hyperbole. You said "rather sluggish". A notch up from "slightly sluggish" I am sure you'd agree.

But whilst you wriggle like this, the thread is descending in to pedantry so let's move it on.

We all agree that in this case it appears to be the driver's fault. We all agree that roads are not really designed with bikes in mind. Accidents WILL happen given the current state of affairs and so some of us have speculated how a cyclist might improve their chance of survival in a collision situation (something discrete from 'blame' and 'fault').

Somehow, discussing ways of improving survival are being interpreted as an attack on the cyclist and of fomenting a dangerous line of attack.

Welcome to the Internet.

In reply to Shani:


But still a lot of notches down from "dangerously ineffective", no?


You weren't discussing ways of improving survival, you were saying that "road bikes should be banned because they're unsafe" is an "interesting point" worthy of "rational discourse" and then failing to provide any example of rational discourse on the subject that's more appropriate than "of course not, don't be stupid."

Ways of improving survival = whatever bike you chose to ride, be aware of its limitations and what it's safe to do on it given the conditions and the situation.

In reply to Shani:

This thread makes for depressing reading. Shani, what you and others are doing here is victim blaming.

The argument you're constantly trying to push in this thread is is exactly analogous to a woman being raped then saying 'We all accept it's the rapists fault, but if she hadn't worn that short skirt and make-up it wouldn't have happened'.

Your argument only reinforces a very unpleasant attitude of entitlement many motorists have that cyclists encounter day to day.

If we're actually going to get more people cycling, which I for one believe will be a great thing, it gets sedentary people active, reduced hugely congested cities easing the flow of traffic and reduces pollution. And not just keen young cyclists going at 20mph, but mothers taking kids to school, 50 year old on their way to work, then entitled, victim blaming attitudes like the ones on this thread need to change.

People need to look at videos like this and instead of saying 'It's the cyclists fault for not slowing every time they pass a car/not having lights on every joint even in daylight(actually in this thread!)/not having breaks as good as a cars, etc', but 'what would we do to make commuting better for cyclists'.

In reply to BJP001:

It'a also like saying that while it is bad that you can't leave your house unlocked and go out without your stuff being nicked, you should keep your house locked to ensure (as far as you can) that your stuff doesn't get nicked. Does anyone really argue with that?

I think your bringing in of the issue of rape to the argument is too emotive, TBH.

Neil

In reply to BJP001:
"what would we do to make commuting better for cyclists"

Dutch-style dedicated cycle lanes are the only way you'll get Old Mrs Jones cycling down the main road to the shops. But I'd level a bet that the cyclist pictured in the video would not support these, as they are pretty much never suitable for going that fast.

These work where present in London, though they are actually getting congested!

Neil

In reply to jkarran:


What if you are passing through someone's blind spot while over taking? Or do you never overtake either? Perhaps they veer quickly and wildly into your lane? What about when a car isn't paying attention and rear ends you at lights? Should have assessed the situation and act to get out of it doesn't always cut it.

In reply to FreshSlate:
You're moving the goalposts. When overtaking on a dual carriageway, you are safest spending as little time as possible in someone's blind spot. You don't just sit alongside them. If you end up in that position, either speed up to complete the overtake quickly, or slow down and abandon it.

Note to idiot drivers who speed up while being overtaken: if being overtaken has awoken you from your slumber, allow the overtake to take place then re-overtake. Accelerating while being overtaken is inconsiderate and unnecessarily dangerous. You should maintain a constant speed until the overtake is complete.

Neil

In reply to Shani:

The thing is, things you and others have said on this thread have been specifically aimed at focusing the problem on certain sectors of the cycling population:


Although you seem to have backtracked from this position, which is welcome.


Outside the context of this accident, yes of course I think that cyclists increasing their skill set and selecting equipment appropriate to their riding environment can be nothing but a good thing.

The problem is when this becomes the central focus to attempts to improve cycling safety, as it pretty much is at the moment. Requiring cyclists to have the reactions and hazard perception of fighter pilots is never going to amount to a coherent safety strategy. If we are going to encourage more cyclists onto the roads (and like it or not, this is what pretty much every urban transport strategy in this country is committed to), we will have a more diverse cycling population, which inevitably will include more novices, more children, more elderly people, and yes, more MAMILs on bikes. The constant message of "slow down and be prepared to get out of the way" (which succinctly summarises the safety tips on this thread) deters and intimidates nervous cyclists from being assertive about their road positioning, which is counterproductive. While making eye contact with the right-turning driver before they turn into your path and having lighting fast braking reflexes might be a sensible tactic, it is unreasonable to expect all cyclists to be able to do this, at speed, from 50m away, in poor visibility, 100% of the time. Instead the expectation needs to be that other road users will follow the highway code and this expectation needs to be enforced using laws which are already in place.

Yes, everyone does what they can to avoid being the next statistic but if we want to improve those statistics, the strategic focus needs to be shifted away from individual cyclists who are obeying the rules of the road, and has to come onto road design and other road users; ie. enforcing existing traffic laws and prosecuting drivers where they endanger lives and cause injuries and deaths.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Victim blaming is victim blaming. In your analogy I'd much rather live in a society that tries to remove the causes of burglary than just victim blame and have people invest in ever more severe security.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Who said sit along side them? No one is saying "do something really stupid like drive in someone's blind spot for ages". I'm not moving the goal posts you are.


Obviously... and if you are hit whilst choosing option A?

In reply to BJP001:


You should re-read the thread again. Here are explicit quotes from my posts:

15:17 Wed "The car driver is to blame"
17:04 Thu "NO ONE ON THIS THREAD HAS BLAMED THE CYCLIST. Stop trying to push that agenda."

And RambliDave said "I'm not saying that you or anyone else here has blamed the cyclist."



WTF?


Let's go back to a climbing analogy as this is a nice example of where 'shit happens' but we discuss it without little consideration to blame. Climbing is dangerous - so we have improved and look for ways to improve safety - wires, smaller and lighter gear, friends, sticky rubber, mats. I am questioning how, given that the roads are dangerous, can the survivability of a crash from an incompetent motorist be increased?


You mar what is a good paragraph with and emotive straw man. As Rambling Dave said, neither I nor "anyone else here has blamed the cyclist". I have not idea why you are willfully misreading the situation.


Another strawman. NOBODY on this thread is blaming the cyclist. What is being mentioned is how one could improve survivability in this situation.

I'm surprised you cannot understand this difference.

In reply to Shani:

You really aren't worth engaging with.

In reply to FreshSlate:

Really?

What are your options... You've checked the outside lane is clear, right? You know where the horn is without looking, right? You're a smart guy so you're obviously not overtaking with a tailgater in tow and you know what the middle pedal does, right? You're largely in control of your own destiny and if remaining so requires a little thought and god forbid maybe slowing down or waiting for a few seconds here and there then so be it.


What about what about what about. There are some things in life we have a lot of control over, some we have a little and some we have none. Accepting we have little to no control over some situations is a pretty shit excuse for abdicating responsibility in those situations we can at least partially control.

Incidentally having been badly hit from behind before and not wishing to repeat the experience in the same way I do what I can to avoid it or at least reduce the severity: Horn. Hazards. Move car to make space if possible and safe. Head back against the rest, shoulders square in the seat if not! All four of those have either saved me from a smash or meant I walked away without whiplash. We have some control even over situations that are not of our making.

Sometimes whatever you do you'll still get caught out. Life eh.

jk

In reply to Neil Williams:


Dutch-style cycle lanes, as frequently implemented in the UK, are actually terrible for the type of accident in the original video. This is on my regular commute:

http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/camden/campaigns/ssl-upgrade/index_html

It is a notorious accident black spot, motorists apparently don't expect there to be an extra two-way carriageway and frequently turn across cyclists. Cyclists forget they are on a road and frequently run down pedestrians who don't realise the cycle lane is there. Total horror show, it's safer to use the road.

I don't think there is an easy answer to this one, while I think London needs improved cycle infrastructure for sure, I am deeply ambivalent about 'Going Dutch' as a panacea.

In reply to BJP001:

No, it isn't, it's pragmatism.

You can leave your house unlocked if you like. It makes my house less likely to be broken into as they'll choose the easy option.

Neil

In reply to Quiddity:

That is I accept a downside. But then in Holland you tend to find that because there are so many cyclists people expect them so much more. You could argue that would also work if they were on the road, as indeed it would. But to get them there...

Neil

In reply to Quiddity:



Then let me reiterate that NO I am not backtracking from the position that a bike designed for urban riding would be different from one aimed at road racing.


Excellent.



Apart from your emotive flabber about 'fighter pilots', yes, I agree with pretty much all of what you have written here. I don't think anyone at any time on this thread has, or would, argue otherwise.

Given that such improvements are not going to manifest any time soon, I am happy to reflect upon what actions could be taken in the interim to increase the survivability of an RTA.

In reply to Neil Williams:



Out of interest, how many times would you say that the cyclist in the video did this? (Asserted his priority, that is, not got killed.)

That's a genuine question, by the way, not some sort of trap. As I see it, everyone makes some allowances while assuming some level of competence and predictability from other road users, but it's a matter of degree what that level is.

For instance, I'll normally be careful passing cars that are waiting to pull out of side roads, particularly if it's a busy road and there are a lot of distractions around, but if I've made eye contact with them and they aren't moving or obviously about to start, I'll ride past their front end without leaving myself many options in case they have a sudden fit of homicidal rage or short-term amnesia for no reason and unexpectedly step on it.

It's easy with the benefit of hindsight to point out how someone could have avoided a particular incident, but a question of whether it's worth applying the same rule in the tens of thousands of situations you're in every year that don't lead to an accident because the drivers behave, as they almost always do, in a relatively sensible manner. I'm not sure whether I'd have been more cautious than the guy in the video or not, to be honest.

In reply to Ramblin dave:
"Out of interest, how many times would you say that the cyclist in the video did this? (Asserted his priority, that is, not got killed.)"

From viewing the video a number of times it seems he took some time to react to the car beginning to turn. But I might be wrong there, and it might not have been deliberate.

I didn't pay a lot of attention to the rest of the video, TBH, other than to notice a number of muppets sticking their noses out of junctions and that the cyclist seemed by his breathing to be going at full pelt, which was perhaps not best for the conditions.

Neil

In reply to Shani:

There is a difference between explicitly and implicitly blaming. It really doesn't matter how strenuously you say you are not blaming the cyclist in your opening sentence, if you then go on to focus all your energy on what the cyclist should have done differently. You are saying one thing and doing another - it's like the 'I'm not racist, but...' people. If you genuinely weren't blaming the cyclist you wouldn't need the disclaimer.


Encourage more people out on bikes. The risks of an accident are still outweighed by the health benefits of being out on a bike in the first place. Where the roads are dangerous, campaign to make them less so. Write to your local councillors: 20mph limits on non-arterial roads in Central London (Islington and a few other boroughs have done this already), Banning HGVs from city centres during rush hour, enforcing ASLs - LCC has had genuine success with similar initiatives. (Sorry, all my examples are London-centric as that is what I know.) Road bike design and covering yourself in flashing lights, I'm sorry, are neither here nor there.

In reply to Neil Williams:



Y'see, what I find interesting is that there are a couple of cars waiting to pull out from the left, and the one that hits him waiting to pull across from the right. When I first watched it, knowing that it involved someone pulling out without looking but not having processed the bit about "opposite lane", I twitched as much when I saw him ride past each of the cars on the left as when he approached the car on the right.

I'm honestly not sure whether or not I'd have had the same reaction if I'd watched it thinking it was going to be about a white van man chucking a drinks bottle at him or something...

In reply to Quiddity:


Disingenous and limited understanding of the threa. The reason I have to put in the disclaimer is because people like you keep claiming I am blaming the cyclist. I am not. Even Rambling Dave has conceded this point.


I agree with all of this apart from your rather poorly argued last line. Now until this all comes to pass, what is wrong with reflecting upon what actions cyclists could do to increase the survivability in an RTA?

Now back to your last sentence, ever wonder why Volvo's have daylight running lights? Ever wonder why those lights now appear on motorcycles? There are indeed drawbacks to running with them, and campaigns against it, but what is important is that such ideas are explored and their impact assessed.

In reply to Neil Williams:


the car starts to turn at 19 seconds, impact is at 21 seconds. If you factor in reaction time from an unexpected event, I think you have unreasonable expectations of what could be done in those two seconds other than brace for impact.

In reply to Quiddity:

"It really doesn't matter how strenuously you say you are not blaming the cyclist in your opening sentence, if you then go on to focus all your energy on what the cyclist should have done differently"

Because it was concluded in about the first two posts that the fault clearly lay with the car driver, the discussion has moved onto what the cyclist might have been able to do different to mitigate the risk and/or level of injury. That isn't blaming the cyclist.

If you think it is, you're being over-emotive and not rational.

Neil

You need to increase your bran quotient Shani.

In reply to jkarran:



You think slamming on your brakes will be safe just as long as the car behind is more than a foot a way? Why mention tailgating? I'm all for slowing down and waiting here or there, but people act like idiots even in the most textbook overtake.


We can control situations, but guess what shit happens. From your armchair you reckon your car would have stopped in 10 feet and not hit the idiot who hasn't checked properly before turning right in front of you. Good for you, we're all impressed at your internet driving skills.



Basically the last sentence. You can do everything perfectly, but sometimes there are split seconds where someone else can f*ck up your destiny for you. You don't drive on the road, there are morons out there. This attitude where we have people who have never rode a bike saying 'if he had better brakes' is astounding. V brakes are plenty enough to lock up your tyres, after your skidding is that extra braking power needed? No. 'Perhaps if he had spent 10 years developing ABS for bicycles happened to be riding a prototype', it's just bullshit. A dear jumps out in front of your car, you hit it, do you say 'should have been driving a aerial atom, lighter, better brakes'. The reasons why the accident happened are about 100 ways the cyclist could have avoided and one way the driver could have avoided it.

In reply to Neil Williams:


(Emphasis mine) - ie. you believe (notwithstanding that you might be wrong) that the cyclist rode into the impact deliberately (?!)

Elsewhere, you have said:






I think a reasonable reading of your words is that you believe that even though the cyclist is not legally in the wrong, if he had made different choices (choices more like the ones you would have made) the accident would have been avoided. If that is a misrepresentation, my apologies and tell me where I am going wrong here because you can see why people are getting wrong end of the stick.

If that is what you believe then in my book that is attributing blame for the accident to the cyclist's actions no matter how strenuously you assert that it isn't.

In reply to FreshSlate:


I think that given the choice of sitting where you are doing nothing vs braking to drop back a bit avoiding an imminent crash there is no choice to make. Pulling an emergency stop in that situation in the middle of the road is as unnecessary as it is obviously stupid. If your brakes only do off or on then I'd suggest having your right foot re-calibrated

Who mentioned having a car a foot behind?

I mentioned tailgating while overtaking as it's an obvious hazard you see all the time, two or three cars in tight convoy going for an overtake on each other's arses, restricting visibility, closing off escape options. Stupid, dangerous and avoidable even if it means passing up on 'your' opportunity to overtake.

My point was that if you don't have a car immediately behind then 'backwards' is one of your available options for avoiding a 'pulling into blindspot' collision. If you do have traffic close behind then you'd be sensible to consider whether the other options you have available are adequate.


No, given the wet conditions I reckon I'd have hit him but probably not very hard. Knowing how I drive I'd have likely been slowing gently on/over the brakes with my thumb over the horn a second or two before that car starts to go. Even if he goes then stops when you beep the car on the left has narrowed the road so a bump is hard to avoid. I'm not a good or highly trained driver by any stretch but I do have the skills/instincts we all accumulate over thousands of hours of doing something.

I'm behind my keyboard now but in 10 minutes time like most days I'll be back behind the wheel doing it for real, paying attention, thinking ahead... Hopefully staying out of trouble.


You lost me a little there, probably my comprehension skills but given the thread and video is taken from the cyclist's perspective, of course we've focused on the things the victim could have done better. To suggest there is nothing he could have done better is moronic, he got creamed at a junction and in conditions a wet-behind-the-ears learner driver would be expected to flag up as hazardous and react to.

I've at least twice covered what the driver can do in that situation to reduce the risk and why.

jk

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


Down to ad hominem. Great.

Falling is fact of life in climbing. We look at how we can better survive the fall.

RTAs caused by careless drivers are a fact of life. Until road designs and legislation improve the lot of the cyclist I look at how we might better survive an RTA caused by a careless driver, and in doing so you think I need to increase my bran [sic] quotient.

Sigh.

In reply to FreshSlate:


Several times. Clearly. A series of events - including moving across the lane to take the drivers attention, pre-gripping brakes well in advance, watching their gaze and wheels, and - if all else fails - slowing down.


No I'm not. I'm not saying he was "wrong", I am sating he could and should have done better. Or do you think he should allow idiot drives to smear him all over the road?



I am actually a cyclist you twerp. Then again I wouldn't be cycling at those speeds in heavy traffic on 70-100psi tyres as I don't want to be an injured or dead cyclist. Or do you mean I'm not your kind of cyclist, because in that case, no I'm not.I understand the bike tyres work differently; the analogy is not slicks per sey, but riding with equipment that is unsuitable for the conditions. Or more precisely, wontonly riding beyond the limits of your chosen equipment.


Spot on. If you are in someone's blind spot you should damned well be aware that you are in a dangerous position and turn the hazard perception up a notch. I try to be highly aware of being in a blind spot. I won't put myself in one unless I have a clear path out of the other side. If I get put in one, I will accelerate or slow down out of it. After a few seconds in a blind spot the drivers sub conscious vision routines forgets you. So please do, if it ever happens to me I'll post on the forum here and you can be the first person to tell me those two things. I'll welcome the feedback.

In reply to Shani:

As I said above, a cyclist-centric approach to improving cycle safety:

1. puts off new cyclists (when it revolves around specialist equipment or wearing silly clothing) and the evidence suggests that more cyclists on the roads makes cycling safer for everyone

2. where the approach is skills-based (ie. advanced hazard awareness, defensive road positioning), it is not appropriate, realistic or reasonable to expect from all cyclists, especially the most vulnerable - ie. novices, the elderly, children.

3. distracts from the real issues and allows transport authorities to claim to be doing something about cycle safety, where that 'something' consists of sending police officers to stop cyclists at junctions and telling them they should be wearing high-viz clothing or wearing helmets, as recently happened in response to a recent spate of left-turning-HGV-related fatalities: https://www.google.com/search?q=hgv+turning+cyclist+deaths+police+response+... )

4. when a cyclist-centric message dominates discourse about cycle safety (as it is at the moment) it makes it harder for cycling victims of accidents to get redress or compensation or for campaigners to fight for improved cycling infrastructure, as it becomes all about the ways in which the cyclist didn't conform with safety 'best practice'

In reply to Quiddity:

>

No. I believe there is a chance he may have decided that if he continued assertively, the car might well see him and stop, albeit in a stupid position in the road, and thus chose not to take evasive action. I don't know if that is the case or not, but the expletive was not spoken in a "I'm going to die" tone, it was a "you idiot" type of tone. We can't know that without speaking to him to ask him if that was the case, though.


*May* have been avoided, or reduced in severity.


OK, it is, if you prefer. But that's irrelevant. Go cycling/driving without considering how you're going to deal with idiots not driving/riding/walking correctly, and without the view that avoiding collisions, howsoever caused, is paramount, and you'll either get hurt, die or kill someone in very short order.

If you want to cycle in that manner, I wish you the best of luck. I'd prefer to get to my destination, by whichever mode of transport, a bit slower, a bit less stressed and not dead.

Neil

In reply to Quiddity:

Why are you so polarised? Surely it is best to work on *both* approaches to cycle safety?

Neil

In reply to Quiddity:






Hi Quiddity. I agree with most of this.

No one is arguing for a cyclist-centric message. On the last point; this thread might be cyclist-centric but that is because a few of us discussing how to improve survivability of RTAs given that the roads are dangerous RIGHT NOW and it will take time until things improve.

But yes, bigger picture is that drivers need to pay attention to driving and cyclists in partiuclar, cycling infrastructure should be heavily invested in and improved as cycling is a great way to locomote.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Why won't you look at the bigger picture?


Because I feel strongly that there is far too much emphasis on the cyclist when it comes to accidents. Explore some of the stuff I linked to in my post of 16.50 - this is a very real-world consequence of the type of debate that is had around cycling. *You* might think that what you are suggesting is just a sensible safety strategy, next week cyclists are being stopped and warned by the police for having the wrong kind of brakes on their bike:

http://www.lbc.co.uk/police-catching-cyclists-who-break-the-law-81518

In reply to Quiddity:
So that's a problem with ill-informed police, needing to be solved, then, isn't it?

It isn't a reason why cyclists shouldn't consider their own safety.

By the way it isn't just cyclists. I know drivers who say of low-speed collisions in towns where you're unlikely to get killed things like "Well it doesn't matter, because if someone else crashes into me then their insurance pays, and I might get a whiplash claim". Genuinely. IMO, anyone taking that line shouldn't be on the road.

Neil

In reply to Shani:


I think we probably don't disagree so much pragmatically. I just don't think the daily commute should be about survival-of-the-fittest. While clearly I'm going to do what I can to improve my own chances - I just think there is too much emphasis on cyclists being the problem, which this thread seems to have aligned itself with.


On a more optimistic note. I have recently got back into Central London cycling after a couple of years off the bike and just in that short time I have things have changed substantially, for the better. For sure the roads still need to be much safer and there will always be maniacs around, but I think the pace of change might be faster than you think.

In reply to Quiddity:

"I just think there is too much emphasis on cyclists being the problem, which this thread seems to have aligned itself with."

As I've already pointed out, that's because the car driver was unequivocally and undebatably in the wrong. There was therefore no point in discussing that point any further.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:


Because there seems to be a school of thought, from TfL, the Mayor, the police - that the problem with cycle safety is primarily cyclists. I wonder where they get that idea from?

In reply to Quiddity:

"On a more optimistic note. I have recently got back into Central London cycling after a couple of years off the bike and just in that short time I have things have changed substantially, for the better. For sure the roads still need to be much safer and there will always be maniacs around, but I think the pace of change might be faster than you think."

The fact that there are now so many cyclists on London's roads means you can't so easily ignore them. The Boris bikes have helped there, but not just those.

Neil

In reply to Quiddity:
Certainly not from reading debates on UKC.

Some cyclists (the ones who jump red lights, ride aggressively etc) don't exactly help the cause, though. Sadly it is those, not the law-abiding majority, who are the visible ones.

I have, however, noticed over the last couple of years that obedience of traffic rules by cyclists in London has improved. Perhaps this is because cycling in London is now no longer the preserve of the MAMIL, but is becoming something a wider cross-section of society does, including those from outside London using Boris bikes?

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

These debates feed into each other though. Certainly it would be better if cyclists could agree amongst ourselves.


100% agree, I think red light jumping, bombing along pavements or through crowded pedestrian crossings with a green man, etc. are among the worst things that cyclists do to alienate ourselves in the eyes of the non-cycling public. Personally I would be glad if the police cracked down on this sort of stuff.


Also agreed


I don't think this needs to be a tribal issue. That being said, on my commute, by far the worst offenders for totally ignoring the rules of the road tend to be riding Boris bikes, take from this what you will...

In reply to Quiddity:

Quiddity is spot on.

I am polarised because I believe taking the stance of victim blaming only reinforces a very unpleasant attitude amongst some motorists that cyclists shouldn't really be on the road. As roads are for cars as they pay road tax, so cyclists who do ride on the roads deserve whatever comes their way. Emma Way is an example of someone at the extreme end of this mindset.

If however you take the opposing view, that this was in no way the cyclists fault and that we need to improve conditions in cities to reduce this type of accident, then you're not reinforcing the Emma Way attitude. You're making a statement that cyclists should be on the roads, and as this way of thinking spreads it will hopefully lead to more people cycling, and more changes being made to infrastructure to facilitate this.

In reply to FreshSlate:

Well, what the driver did wrong was obvious. That's why I started my first post by saying the blame lies with them. What do you want me to do, call for their public execution?

Let me try and explain this to you.

The driver turned across oncoming traffic without adequately checking for fast moving cycles. This is a bad fault, and is why my first post opened with saying that are to blame.

For many seconds before this, their car presented a clear, obvious hazard. Despite this, the cyclist was apparently totally unaware of the hazard and was promptly wiped out by it.

The driver of the car did wrong. The cyclist did no wrong but also did not do enough right to avoid putting themselves in a potentially life altering position because of the wrong of the driver.


No but it vents frustration at someone who is looking to reduce a complex set of circumstances to a simplistic discussion in which any attempt to discuss how one might prevent serious accidents is seems as "blaming the cyclist".


No, we obviously are not. I for one am saying he should have been aware much sooner. Then I - and others - have said he could have done more to mitigate the obvious hazard, such as altering road position to help the driver see him. A grown up view backed by vision science realises it's hard for a driver to see a fast moving, oncoming bicycle. So help them out. This does not in any way excuse the driver, but understanding why accidents happen helps prevent them. It takes a combination of the flaws in our vision and the judgement of the driver. You can help break one link in that chain.

If you want to reduce this to me saying "the cyclist is at fault and should have stayed at home" then go right ahead. You'd be spitting in the face of the comments I've made, but fine. If this is your attitude when cycling I suspect that you're much more likely to be involved in a potentially life altering accident than me, per mile cycled. Don't worry about it, get a helmet camera so you can upload the video to youtube. After all you are indeed morally in the clear and you can continue to be so. From your hospital bed. No skin of my nose, literally. Maybe yours though.

I once slid down a road some distance on my side with my motorbike on top of me where the legal and moral fault lay squarely with the car driver that did this to me. Clearly I am wrong to welcome comment and discussion that may help me learn and develop more so as to reduce the chances of it ever happening to me again. I should just carry on, head down, and know that I am not to blame when it happens again.

In reply to BJP001:

Do you really think that putting one subset of road users on an un-reproachable pedestal is the way to reduce stress and conflict on the roads and encourage harmony between all?

I've seen nobody saying this cyclist did wrong, only that they could have done more right. This is a pretty important point regardless of your mode of transport. Any road user has a responsibility to themselves to try and protect themselves from the idiocy of others

I would agree 100% that a newspaper article, or police statement or the like that leads with what the cyclist should have done, instead of the fault of the driver, would be utterly unproductive for cyclists. In fact, to even mention that the cyclists could have prevented it (worse still, should) would be counter productive for cyclists in a general press article. However, does that mean there can't be a grown up discussion about the fact someone was taken out by an obvious hazard, and how they might or might not have been able to reduce the probability of that reoccurring? I would rather that than the "hang 'em high" topic of the OP.

It seems there can't, because every time the "OMG you're blaming the cyclist you pig" brigade come out. Thank you for your post because it's the first time I have seen a rational reason for this view explained, and whilst I may disagree it's nice to see that it's not all motivated by parochial attitudes.

In reply to Xharlie:

happened to me at the rear of York Race Course right in front of a Policeman ,who did nothing but make sure I didn't need an Ambulance..

In reply to BJP001:
I'm really not clear why you have to say "it was no way the cyclist's fault"[1] to also say "we need to improve conditions in cities to reduce this kind of accident". Drivers and cyclists alike (most people who are cyclists are also drivers) are not perfect.

If you have a particularly badly designed junction and a driver causes an accident by not being careful at it, the accident was the driver's fault. However it doesn't mean we should not lobby the Council to redesign the junction to reduce accidents.

In a way one statement is rather emotive, the other rather more practical. And as I've said before when "think of the children" and such comes up, road safety issues should be dealt with purely practically, not emotively.

[1] Edit: I don't think I'd use wording so strong as to say it was the cyclist's fault, I'd more say "there may have been actions the cyclist could have taken to avoid or reduce the severity of the collision, given that the car driver had caused it". Clearly he did one such thing with his rather good landing!

Neil

In reply to wintertree:

"I would agree 100% that a newspaper article, or police statement or the like that leads with what the cyclist should have done, instead of the fault of the driver, would be utterly unproductive for cyclists. In fact, to even mention that the cyclists could have prevented it (worse still, should) would be counter productive for cyclists in a general press article. However, does that mean there can't be a grown up discussion about the fact someone was taken out by an obvious hazard, and how they might or might not have been able to reduce the probability of that reoccurring? I would rather that than the "hang 'em high" topic of the OP."

Exactly. I agree that the explanation is a good one, by the way, but equally legislation of any kind, be that road design or anything else, should never be prompted by emotion, rather the consideration of cold, hard facts and nothing else.

Neil

In reply to cat88:

I was luckier than you. I hope you get it sorted. But anyone on this thread who thinks the cyclist could have stopped needs to try it one day to see how it goes for them.

In reply to wintertree:

The question 'What could the cyclist have done more right' is not an unreasonable one. What I, and the 'victim blaming brigade' object to is the point at which it is asked, which I believe shows where your thinking is in cyclists rights to be on our roads.

If you do believe that cyclists should have much more of a presence on the roads, then after seeing a video like this where it's 99% the drivers fault, the questions you'll likely want to ask in order to reduce this type of accident are:

1. What would we do to alter the infrastructure to reduce risk?
2. What could we do to alter driver behavior to reduce risk?
3. How could we reduce the number of cars on the roads to reduce risk?
4. How could cyclists alter their behavior to reduce risk?

I think though, after you’ve fully addressed points 1-3, the question of 4 will start to fall away in all but the most extreme examples, as cyclists do much less damage than cars. Have a look at a picture of people riding in Holland and count the number of helmets and hi-viz jackets.

Though if you believe that on the whole you’d rather not see cyclists on the roads, and that cars take priority, effectively just trying to maintain the status quo of the roads, then then when thinking how to reduce risk you’ll skip points 1-3 and go straight to 4. With the ultimate outcome of this line of thinking being that cyclists shouldn't be on the roads as they’re too dangerous, and just not for them, or if they are they should be regulated and covered in all manner of bizarre, likely ineffectual protective gear so that only the most militant of cyclists remain. See this guy as an extreme example of this http://kspeat.wix.com/driversunion#!europe-cycling-myths/c22gr.

As for the cold hard facts to make the decision that Neil’s after, then you’ll find such ‘facts’ produced by both camps, and pointing in the opposite direction. I don’t believe it’s possible to eliminate emotion from a political decision in which people care about the outcome either way.

Why I find a thread like this depressing as a large number of people on this thread are jumping straight to point 4. I would have thought UKC would have a more progressive readership (being an already healthy, outdoorsy bunch), much more aware and open to the benefits of cycling than the general population. Though reading this thread, looks like I may end up in a Range Rover sport, sitting in traffic in 20 years’ time, but I hope not!

Wintertree, you said a press release or police statement blaming the victim would be a bad thing, and unfortunately they are all over the press (just look at the itv headline in the OP’s link). In terms of the police, then look no further than ‘operation safeway’, which Quiddity linked to above. The Police’s response to the week of about 7 cyclists deaths in London in Nov 13 was to randomly stop cyclists and tell them to make sure they wear a polystyrene helmet. The Government often talks a good game about promoting cycling but when it comes to spending money, trying to change drivers attitude or reduce cars on the road they take point 4 as well.

In reply to BJP001:

"1. What would we do to alter the infrastructure to reduce risk?
2. What could we do to alter driver behavior to reduce risk?
3. How could we reduce the number of cars on the roads to reduce risk?
4. How could cyclists alter their behavior to reduce risk?"

Yes. But as a cyclist, only #4 is in your control. It's mad not to consider it, surely?

Neil

In reply to BJP001:






No, it is entirely possible to think 1) is important and not want to see cyclists on the roads so much. In fact this is precisely the approach in Holland, Denmark etc. where very often cars have roads, bikes have bike paths and pedestrians have pavements. What is rarely possible is to have room for bike paths and bikes on roads. This means bike paths need proper design and maintenance, and cyclists have to accept that infrastructure is for getting from A-B, rather than racing on - using a bike path may be a little slower than the road.

In reply to MG:

The point is that to give cyclists infrastructure that infrastructure, you must take space away from motorists, so if you don't want your journey as a motorist impinged upon, you wont accept point 1.

In reply to Neil Williams:







And furthermore, whilst #4 might not be important in Holland which is much more cyclist-friendly, in the UK and on what may be CURRENTLY deemed as cyclist-unfriendly roads, "helmets and hi-viz jackets" etc... may be a good interim measure.

Once the UK reaches Holland's level of cycle-friendliness we may then be able to do away with "helmets and hi-viz jackets".

Looking at this another way; you have listed four areas where cycle safety could be improved. Out of your 1-4 list, which area could be tackled with greatest expediency?

In reply to Neil Williams:

In the very small picture (eg you on the road getting to work) obviously take all measures to keep yourself safe in the environment you find yourself in.

In the bigger picture (eg a public discussion forum), the other 3 take much greater priority in my mind, and are the ones I'd like to see being discussed.

In reply to Shani:

Read my post, that's exactly what I said.

In reply to BJP001:

It is a question of assigning road space, yes. But I think most people are supportive enough of bike lanes, certainly in cities - objections from motorists aren't really the problem. Design and maintenance certainly are though. The amount of pointless or downright dangerous bike lanes is high. Also the mindset among some cyclists that using bike lanes is somehow beneath them needs to go. If there is a good bike lane, cycling in the road should be no more acceptable than walking in the road where there is a good pavement. There simply isn't space for both.

In reply to BJP001:


So you are in agreement that there ARE practical steps that could and should be taken by cyclists until such time as 1-3 come to pass?

In reply to MG:


There, fixed that for you.

Given the current cost cutting by this government, the only one of those four options that is likely to see the light of day is #2. The problem then is that attitudes take a long time (in the order of decades) to change. Effectively the blame for any failure can be laid at the door of whichever set of mealy mouthed politicians happen to be in power at the time.

What is increasingly happening on our roads is that drivers are becoming distanced from the consequences of their actions, both in terms of guilt "it was just a cyclist" and in terms of justice - how many cases of dangerous driving get presented in court as driving without due care and attention? In a way it's symptomatic of a lot of modern day life: "It's somebody else's fault".

In reply to Shani:

Are you actually editing in comments on your post after I've responded, then using them to try and score points??

I wrote exactly what I believe in the post of 13:12, just read that.

In reply to BJP001:


No, you cross posted as I was editing my post. A genuine mistake. I wanted to add that question at the end to whit....

None of which escapes the question "Out of your 1-4 list, which area could be tackled with greatest expediency?"

In reply to Xharlie:

just seen this and reminded me of the crash in paris yesterday where a guy was starting to go hover his bars and then he miraculously released his pedals before landing feet first? would this be possible with spd pedals?

In reply to MG:
It's not so much that "they are beneath them" more that even when they are reasonably continuous they are often in such a poor state that it's less risky to be back out in the traffic than use them.

On my commute of 21Km there's about 3Km of cycle lane, 2Km of this is fine and clear and I use it as does every cyclist I see on that stretch, the other 1Km is full of broken glass, potholes and currently rather a lot of parked lorry trailers. What's slightly ironic is that this latter section goes past the local police station. Also the council have put in a new cycle path to avoid the very congested main road with three busy roundabouts that leads on to this section, from the sublime to the ridiculous.

In reply to BJP001:



I find it depressing that you emote so heavily that you refuse to see that pretty much everyone on this thread is in support of the cyclist in the OP, endorses your points 1-3, and, is generally pro-cycling.

The warning signs were there with your rape-analogy ("analogous to a woman being raped then saying 'We all accept it's the rapists fault, but if she hadn't worn that short skirt and make-up it wouldn't have happened'").

I think it is advisable that women avoid walking home at night alone, carry an alarm, avoid unlit areas, learn some self-defence etc.... None of which means I support rapists. Has this made it clearer for you?

In reply to Bob:


Yes, agreed. An annoyingly high proportion of dedicated cycle lanes are more trouble than they're worth, so I'll normally only use them if a) the road is sufficiently nasty that it's worth risking having to deal with potholes, protruding tree roots, gormless pedestrians, random street furniture, unexpected detours and incomprehensible junctions in order to avoid it or b) I ride there regularly and know that it's not too bad.

I'm sure that even with excellent off-road cycle facilities you'd get people who prefer to ride on the road, but they tend to be few and fast moving enough that people can reasonably be expected to deal with it...

In reply to Shani:



Given that there is no systematic training required to take to the roads on a bike, and no means of actually getting cyclists to undertake additional training, from a pragmatic point of view point 4 is currently the least tractable of those options to implement on a large scale on any kind of short or medium term timescale.

Whether there *should* be more provision of cyclist training given the amount that cycling is being pushed by transport authorities, is a debate I would be very receptive to. But this is where we are for the moment at least.

In reply to Shani:

Shani, despite your subsequent support of the cyclist, and I don't doubt that it was there from the outset, your fist post on this thread was:

"Shouldn't the cyclist have had lights on his bike and be wearing high-viz clothing given that he presented a narrow profile and so was harder to see?"

You're first response was BJP001's point 4, which kind of supports their argument. Generally, what BJP001 is saying makes sense. Of course, you've got to look after yourself, but the mentality has got to change. A lot of the non-cyclists I know have the attitude that it's too dangerous to cycle. My response is always that we should be looking at removing/educating the dangerous road users, not removing those that aren't dangerous. It's a very negative approach, that will in the long run, not improve anything for cyclists.

In reply to Shani:

Victim blamers do not support the criminal. What they do is use the crime against the victim to push their agenda. In the case of rape, the victim blamers are generally bigoted older men who were very uncomfortable with women's new found freedom in the 60s, and would much rather they were dressed plainly, cooking in the kitchen while they watched match of the day, hence the victim blaming.

So the analogy with cyclists, people who victim blame don't think all cyclists should be hit by a 7 ton truck, but I do think they believe their freedom on the roads should be restricted.

In reply to Quiddity:



I'd wager that the majority of cyclists on the road hold a driving license and so systematic training is probably not required. It might be more fruitful to force all motorists to undertake a commute by bicycle as a part of their driving test, to illustrate the vulnerability of cyclists.

But none of this precludes analysis of what steps (if any), could be taken by a cyclist to increase survivability of a journey.

In reply to BJP001:
You are very wide of the mark.

Falling off a bike hurts.

The faster you are going when you fall off the more it hurts.

You balance the risk. This is done unconsciously. The more unlikely it is that you think you are going to fall off, the faster you ride, this makes it more likely you will fall off and more likely you will hurt more when you do fall off.

It's one thing to say change all the infrastructure, but all you will do is encourage cyclists to ride even faster and their injuries (although there may well be less of them) will be more severe.

The extent of the injuries in this kind of accident are entirely down to the cyclist.
The cause of the injuries are down to the car driver.

You cannot eliminate all accidents.
You can mitigate the damage quite easily.

In reply to Scomuir:





You are reading too much in to this. I was responding with some reflection on what steps the cyclists may have taken. Whether the cyclists could have done anything in this instance is a moot point. Whether those same steps would have a benefit at a population level....well that is exactly the point.

To clarify, I am reflecting on the most expedient actions to improve safety. Not of this precludes 1-3 above, which I absolutely endorse. You can read what you want in to my OP but I have now added context that should leave you in no doubt.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Better infrastructure reduces the chance of you being hit by a truck, which hurts far more than just falling off your bike at any speed.

In reply to BJP001:



And so by this definition, I am NOT in any way a victim blamer as I do not believe cyclist's freedom on the roads should be restricted in any way.

In reply to Shani:

Well if that's what you actually believe, then for the love of god man stop victim blaming!

It's poisonous and fuels the fire of people who actually want to restrict cyclists, like this guy http://kspeat.wix.com/driversunion#!europe-cycling-myths/c22gr.

In reply to BJP001:


Well I've been accused by several on here of blaming the victim. I don't much care what you think I think but for your information you're a little way off the mark.

jk (A bigoted old man)