Visibility, predictability, anticipation, driver error

Lumen

I was reminded this morning that visibility is no substitute for predictability and anticipation, and no defence against driver error.

At 7.45ish this morning I was cycling down the centre hatch section at the bottom of Phoenix park at about 35kph. It was half-light and the road was wet. A young lad in the static traffic queue decided (with no warning or indication) to execute a half u-turn across the road, about 10m in front of me.

Brakes on full, bike slews sideways, I came to rest about an inch from the side of his car.

We had a pleasant exchange about the importance of mirror-signal-manoeuvre, and went on our way. I probably would have been angry had the skid not been so entertaining.

The fact that I was highly visible (monster torch on full beam) made absolutely no difference, as he didn't look before starting the u-turn. He didn't look because he didn't expect me to be there (his inexperience and my unpredictability). If I'd anticipated his potential ineptitude, I'd have been going slower.

Still, my brakes and tyres (Gatorskins) performed well in the wet. If I'd had any less grip, the near-miss would have been an accident.

I probably need to practice emergency braking, but don't really want to risk scratching my bike/self in the process. Maybe I could do it by sticking some old pedals and saddle on, wrap the bike in pipe cladding, and wear some tough clothes and an old helmet.

Anyway, just sharing...

Canis Lupus

I had a car turn sharply left the other night as I trailed behind it. Lock up and fishtailing bike ensued but I held it and stopped a cm from flying into the arse of him.

Makes me grumble when cars make unexpected turns, you know when the indicator goes on literally as they make the manoeuvre.

EDIT: Glad to hear you lived tho.

Howitzer

Good account and glad it went well.

I've come to the conclusion it takes 2 to have an accident ("If I'd anticipated his potential ineptitude, I'd have been going slower.") It's a good quality to have insight like this when you're cycling. It helps you to do your best to remove yourself from the equation!

I worry about encountering a manoeuvre like this when I'm on the outside lane passing static traffic.

Turbulent Bill

Howitzer wrote: »

I worry about encountering a manoeuvre like this when I'm on the outside lane passing static traffic.

If I get an inkling that something like this is going to happen, I keep an eye on the front-right wheel of the car - usually the wheels are turned before the car starts to move. It's a bit chicken-and-egg, though, as you need to be aware that something might happen.

I don't think it's practical to examine every car, but it might be useful when your sixth sense kicks in.

Draupnir

Lumen wrote: »

At 7.45ish this morning I was cycling down the centre hatch section at the bottom of Phoenix park at about 35kph.

Central hatch sections (or any hatch section) should be treated by all road users as though they are islands in the road. i.e. DO NOT CYCLE on hatch sections.

If you had been cycling in a legal position on the road then you wouldn't have had this problem. Granted the motorist should have seen you cycling at 35kph (which is illegal on that road also I believe if it's the one I am thinking of which is a 30kph zone) and not pulled out.

Harrybelafonte

Glad to see you're okay Lumen. Sounds like a typical 2 way accident. Anytime this happens me I for some start to wonder if cyclists could invent some sort of "bike drifting". If the GP guys can do it?

People not checking behind them before turning seems to be a weakness across all the modes of transport. Cyclist started to turn right this morning as I was overtaking him. Very close.

Lumen

Draupnir wrote: »

Central hatch sections (or any hatch section) should be treated by all road users as though they are islands in the road. i.e. DO NOT CYCLE on hatch sections.

You're right. I knew that (and actually it was the first thing I said to him - "I shouldn't really be on the hatched section, especially at that speed, but....").

However, the only practical alternative is to pass on the inside and risk getting twatted by a car door (as the nice car driver in front pointed out).

Similarly, cars are not permitted to execute u-turns on hatched sections, so we were both in the wrong (which I think I drew attention to in my OP).

Draupnir

Lumen wrote: »

You're right. I knew that (and actually it was the first thing I said to him - "I shouldn't really be on the hatched section, especially at that speed, but....").

However, the only practical alternative is to pass on the inside and risk getting twatted by a car door (as the nice car driver in front pointed out).

Similarly, cars are not permitted to execute u-turns on hatched sections, so we were both in the wrong (which I think I drew attention to in my OP).

Bang on, glad you didn't get hurt by the way.

rp

Draupnir wrote: »

Central hatch sections (or any hatch section) should be treated by all road users as though they are islands in the road.

...but only if they have a solid white line border

311

Great to hear your ok ,this reminds me of the pat kenny show yesterday on the radio.
They basically made out everyone(cyclists) they interviewed had no lights and they were the cause of traffic accidents. Was a really bad representation of cyclists ,I thought.

Goes to show ,if someone is half asleep they're not going to be looking for lights.

Draupnir

rp wrote: »

...but only if they have a solid white line border

I have to admit that I haven't seen (or maybe not noticed) any without a solid border. Is a broken border indicative of a hatched section that can be driven/rode across?

Redjeep!

I had a friend once who went into the side of a 40 foot truck that did a similar U turn across the road without checking properly. On this occassion it was the main road out from the port in Rosslare.

My friend was also driving a truck...and hit the other truck side on at about 80km/hr. Both trucks ended up upside down in field. Luckily nobody was seriously injured.

My point is what chance do we have on bikes when people don't even see you in a fu&king huge truck ?

Only this morning I had somebody in white van who almost ran into the side of me (in my car) as he drove straight across a roundabout that I was already on.

72hundred

Draupnir wrote: »

cycling at 35kph (which is illegal on that road also I believe if it's the one I am thinking of which is a 30kph zone) and not pulled out.

Can I see the legislation that accounts pedalled bicycles having to stick to a speed limit.

AstraMonti

72hundred wrote: »

Can I see the legislation that accounts pedalled bicycles having to stick to a speed limit.

I think that any moving vehicle (doesnt matter if its being moved by petrol or blood) has to obey the speed limits. But its just a think, no official records here

John_C

AstraMonti wrote: »

I think that any moving vehicle (doesnt matter if its being moved by petrol or blood) has to obey the speed limits. But its just a think, no official records here

I used to work on the roads in the Co. Council and the documents we had said the opposite but that was a road design manual rather than a law.

Chips Lovell

AstraMonti wrote: »

I think that any moving vehicle (doesnt matter if its being moved by petrol or blood) has to obey the speed limits. But its just a think, no official records here

I used to think that too, but it cropped up here before and speed limits don't apply to bikes.

Road Traffic Act 1968

"General speed limit.

44A (1) The Minister may make regulations limit prescribing, in respect of all public roads, or all public roads with such exceptions as may be specified in the regulations, a speed limit (which shall be known as a general speed limit) for all mechanically propelled vehicles.

(2) Regulations under this section prescribing a general speed limit may except any class of vehicles from the limit and may restrict the limit to a particular period or to particular periods."

Road Traffic Act 1961

"mechanically propelled vehicle" means, subject to subsection (2) of this section, a vehicle intended or adapted for propulsion by mechanical means, including—

( a ) a bicycle or tricycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power, whether or not the attachment is being used,

( b ) a vehicle the means of propulsion of which is electrical or partly electrical and partly mechanical,

but not including a tramcar or other vehicle running on permanent rails;

Draupnir

el tonto wrote: »

I used to think that too, but it cropped up here before and speed limits don't apply to bikes.

This, I have to admit, takes me be surprise and completely blows me away. Would a bike going 35kph not do a serious amount of damage to say, a 2 year old child or an 80 year old lady?

Any vehicle on the road should have to obey the speed limit in my opinion, mechanically powered or man powered. Just when you think you've heard it all, you learn something like this!

Chips Lovell

Draupnir wrote: »

This, I have to admit, takes me be surprise and completely blows me away. Would a bike going 35kph not do a serious amount of damage to say, a 2 year old child or an 80 year old lady?

Any vehicle on the road should have to obey the speed limit in my opinion, mechanically powered or man powered. Just when you think you've heard it all, you learn something like this!

I'm not sure if its as big an issue as that. First of all, it isn't often that you will find yourself breaking the speed limit on a bike. Secondly, the braking distance on a bike is much shorter than a car. Thirdly, I don't think the absence of speed limits are an excuse for cycling irresponsibly. Anyone who's milling along at 50kph in an area where a kid or an elderly person is at risk of stepping out in front of them is a fool.

Lumen

Draupnir wrote: »

This, I have to admit, takes me be surprise and completely blows me away. Would a bike going 35kph not do a serious amount of damage to say, a 2 year old child or an 80 year old lady?

Any vehicle on the road should have to obey the speed limit in my opinion, mechanically powered or man powered. Just when you think you've heard it all, you learn something like this!

Your reaction demonstrates precisely why speed limits do not make for safe roads. :P

The "safe speed" is dependent on conditions which vary from moment to moment, and may be under or over the posted limit. It's not a target speed.

You can be prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving well below the speed limit. I imagine there is some sort of general reckless endangerment offence which would apply to cyclists too.

Speed limits are just a very broad-brush risk-mitigation measure.

Draupnir

el tonto wrote: »

I'm not sure if its as big an issue as that. First of all, it isn't often that you will find yourself breaking the speed limit on a bike. Secondly, the braking distance on a bike is much shorter than a car. Thirdly, I don't think the absence of speed limits are an excuse for cycling irresponsibly. Anyone who's milling along at 50kph in an area where a kid or an elderly person is at risk of stepping out in front of them is a fool.

Granted they are a fool and it's a fair point, but really the same can be said of a motorist. When thinking of these things, I prefer to think of the idiot motorist or cyclist in the situation rather than the responsible, capable one!

The other point is, what kind of damage is a cyclist going to do to themselves in a crash travelling at those kind of speeds where it is considered unsafe for a car to do so?

Draupnir

Lumen wrote: »

Your reaction demonstrates precisely why speed limits do not make for safe roads. :P

The "safe speed" is dependent on conditions which vary from moment to moment, and may be under or over the posted limit. It's not a target speed.

You can be prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving well below the speed limit. I imagine there is some sort of general reckless endangerment offence which would apply to cyclists too.

Speed limits are just a very broad-brush risk-mitigation measure.

I agree with everything you have said, I like to think that I practice a safe speed mentality myself which even includes breaking the speed limit on rare occasions where it is safer to do so than to adhere to the limit.

I just don't see any valid reason why the limits don't apply to bicycles?

Lumen

Draupnir wrote: »

I just don't see any valid reason why the limits don't apply to bicycles?

Speed limits are most accurately viewed as a license condition. Cycling doesn't require a license.

The confusion arises because we share the roads with motorists, who do require a license.

Usain Bolt could probably break a 30kph limit. He'd probably do quite a lot of damage to a small child at this speed - have you seen the size of him?

Draupnir

Lumen wrote: »

Speed limits are most accurately viewed as a license condition. Cycling doesn't require a license.

The confusion arises because we share the roads with motorists, who do require a license.

Usain Bolt could probably break a 30kph limit. He'd probably do quite a lot of damage to a small child at this speed - have you seen the size of him?

Yeah I guess I can see your point, I still don't agree with it though. Bolt is a big guy alright, he would do damage to more than a small child I am sure

Chips Lovell

Draupnir wrote: »

I just don't see any valid reason why the limits don't apply to bicycles?

Well, in principle, yes. Bikes are regarded as vehicles in most aspects of road traffic law and cyclists expected to be treated as equals on the road, which means we should probably have to abide by the rules other road users are held to.

However, in practice, I seriously doubt the utility in introducing another piece of traffic law that is either unenforceable or unenforced. There's a whole raft things that aren't policed at all and cyclists speeding would be very low down the list of priorities.

I can't see speeding regulations for cyclists having any effect on behaviour. What's more, there are precious few cases to warrant it to be honest, and of the one fatality I'm aware of, as far as I can recall, the guy was prosecuted.

SetOverSet

According to the Road Traffic Act 1961 as amended, the speed limit only applies specifically to a 'mechanically propelled vehicle' rather than vehicles generally. Under the 1961 Act a mechanically propelled vehicle is defined as:

"a vehicle intended or adapted for propulsion by mechanical means, including
(a) a bicycle or tricycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power, whether or not the attachment is being used,
(b) a vehicle the means of propulsion of which is electrical or partly electrical and partly mechanical,
but not including a tramcar or other vehicle running on permanent rails."

uberwolf

I had the same thing happen as the OP. I'd watched Dude where's my car a week earlier and myself and the lads had spent saying DUDE at every opportunity. Fast forward to car pulling U-turn and me shouting Dude in the open window saved my skin. Dude saved my life.

bealbocht

Cars pulling out like this is how accidents happen..
A collegue of mine(on foot) was once hit by a car that pulled out to pass another car.
The kind of "I'll just nip around here, if I do it quickly I'll .. wallop.."

Also, if a cyclist is moving down the outside of the lane, it is quite likely that they will be in car mirror blind spots..

with regard to the speed limit and bikes...
I dont think anyone would stand a chance in hell standing before a judge trying to explain "the laws dont apply to me"

Also... I would be very reluctant to relie on a "1961" road traffic act, that someone cut and paste on an internet forum, as an excuse for arguing "the law does not apply to me" ....

BostonB

I got knocked off by a taxi who did a U-turn from the kerb after letting a passenger out, he'd have to cross 3 lanes and solid single line in the center. I was lit up like a Xmas tree but he never looked.

Lesson, assume they just don't see you. So cycling near any car, vehicle especially in a queue, is high risk so slow down.

Limestone1

Draupnir wrote: »

This, I have to admit, takes me be surprise and completely blows me away. Would a bike going 35kph not do a serious amount of damage to say, a 2 year old child or an 80 year old lady?

The road is never a safe place for a 2 year old child or an 80 year old lady !

Draupnir

Limestone1 wrote: »

The road is never a safe place for a 2 year old child or an 80 year old lady !

Say that to my 84 year old grandmother and expect a clout!

By the sound of the posts in this thread, the road is rarely a safe place for cyclists of any age!

rp

Draupnir wrote: »

This, I have to admit, takes me be surprise and completely blows me away. Would a bike going 35kph not do a serious amount of damage to say, a 2 year old child or an 80 year old lady?

That is true, but on the other hand, the impact energy of a bike at 35kph is the same as a car at less than 8kph - leaving out the fact that the car has a better chance of hitting cuz of its size and has lots more nasty sharp and hard things to complicate injuries.

So yeah, I'd be all for limiting bike speed in shared areas with vulnerable users, commensurate with the risks, so set that at 30kph for bikes and 6.5kph for cars, as that would give the same impact energy of 3.2x10^3 joules (~0.8g TNT) for a 2000kg SUV and a 90kg bike and rider.

Lumen

rp wrote: »

That is true, but on the other hand, the impact energy of a bike at 35kph is the same as a car at less than 8kph - leaving out the fact that the car has a better chance of hitting cuz of its size and has lots more nasty sharp and hard things to complicate injuries.

If I had to choose, I'd take the two tonne SUV at walking pace over the bike at 35kph, thanks.

In fact, I'll let you drive my car at me at 8kph first if I can then hit you at 35kph with your bike.

Your physics is somewhat problematic.

rp

Lumen wrote: »

I'll let you drive my car at me at 8kph first if I can then hit you at 35kph with your bike.

Dodging allowed?

Your physics is somewhat problematic.

could be teecher, i did it like this:

double impactEnergy (double massKg, double speedKph)
{
    double velocity = ((speedKph * 1000.0) / 60.0 / 60.0);
    return 0.5 * massKg * Math.pow ( velocity, 2);
}

Lumen

rp wrote: »

Dodging allowed?

could be teecher, i did it like this:

double impactEnergy (double massKg, double speedKph)
{
    double velocity = ((speedKph * 1000.0) / 60.0 / 60.0);
    return 0.5 * massKg * Math.pow ( velocity, 2);
}

Your maths assumes that all kinetic energy of the vehicle is dissipated into the victim.

In other words, that after the collision the vehicle will be at rest.

This is not the case, since momentum must also be conserved. You do the maths

rp

Lumen wrote: »

This is not the case, since momentum must also be conserved. You do the maths

Ah, I see what you mean: wee granny won't absorb all the energy of the car, she'll also be catapulted across the road, under the wheels of the number 10 bus.

Lumen

rp wrote: »

Ah, I see what you mean: wee granny won't absorb all the energy of the car, she'll also be catapulted across the road, under the wheels of the number 10 bus.

No, no, no.

If you hit an object at rest with another object travelling at 8kph, the absolute worst collision outcome (or best, if you're trying to kill them) is that they get catapulted off at 8kph.

Consider that from a classical mechanics perspective there is no difference between you hitting a wall and the wall hitting you. i.e. if you want to know what it's like being hit by a car at 8kph, just run into a stationary car at that speed. It won't hurt much.

Raam

Lumen wrote: »

if you want to know what it's like being hit by a car at 8kph, just run into a stationary car at that speed. It won't hurt much.

I'd like to hear the outcome of this experiment, so report back to us.

DirkVoodoo

Its a bit of a wild oversimplification alright, maybe true of particles in a vacuum, but you are neglecting a lot of real world variables that would render such a hyopthesis null and void.

dub_skav

Lumen wrote: »

No, no, no.

If you hit an object at rest with another object travelling at 8kph, the absolute worst collision outcome (or best, if you're trying to kill them) is that they get catapulted off at 8kph.

Consider that from a classical mechanics perspective there is no difference between you hitting a wall and the wall hitting you. i.e. if you want to know what it's like being hit by a car at 8kph, just run into a stationary car at that speed. It won't hurt much.

Ah but you're using Classical Mechanics. Using quantum mechanics it is clear that you cannot know the position and momentum of the car at the same instant.
So, if you know the momentum of the car precisely then you cannot know the position, therefore the car may or may not be on that road at all and might or might not make any contact at all.

311

If a bike hits me when I'm unaware ,the most that would happen is I'd be badly brused.

If a car hits me at 8kmph unawares ,the force could well shatter a lower leg bone.

Civilian_Target

311 wrote: »

If a bike hits me when I'm unaware ,the most that would happen is I'd be badly brused.

I dunno about that... if a bike hits you at 35kmph you will end up in hospital...

But what are the odds... most cyclists going at 35 kmph have the wind in their faces and are extremely alert. Any collision is likely to be preceded by a decent panic brake. A motorist going at 35kmph is quite likely to be drinking coffee, adjusting makeup, talking on the phone, shushing the kids, whatever, in a lovely warm car, and probably has nothing close to the same reaction time.

All this aside... it's funny this thread came up today. I ran into the side of a guy changing lanes in traffic this morning. No indicator, nothing, he just decided he wanted into the other lane 4m in front of me. Managed to take it from about 25-30kmph to almost stopped, and went shoulder first into the side of his Twingo. He got one hell of a shock!