Would these five changes actually help cyclists? **Mod warning in OP**

Johnnio13

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29894590

Lights - check
Helmet - Check
Hi-Vis - Check
No headphones- Check
Should cyclists ride in the middle of the lane? - Not a chance...

Thoughts on this article?
I for one witness daily, other cyclists that don't tick any of the boxes and seem to be happily oblivious to any danger. So does wearing helmet, hi-vis etc give a false sense of safety?

Mod warning - see post 15

Beasty wrote: »

Can we keep any discussion of usefulness or otherwise of helmets and hi-viz in the relevant megathreads - no point in posters trying to repeat any of that stuff here, and those threads were set up to cater for all discussion on those topics

Any questions PM me - do not respond in-thread

Thanks

Beasty

quozl

Johnnio13 wrote: »

Lights - check
Helmet - Check
Hi-Vis - Check
No headphones- Check
Should cyclists ride in the middle of the lane? - Not a chance...

I for one witness daily, other cyclists that don't tick any of the boxes and seem to be happily oblivious to any danger.

Funnily enough the one you discount out of hand is the one that will probably do the most to keep you safe during daylight cycling.

Kind of ironic

Eamonnator

Each of these five points has been done to death on this forum, and not in the distant past either.

Please be gentle with each other.

07Lapierre

Johnnio13 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29894590

Lights - check
Helmet - Check
Hi-Vis - Check
No headphones- Check
Should cyclists ride in the middle of the lane? - Not a chance...

Thoughts on this article?
I for one witness daily, other cyclists that don't tick any of the boxes and seem to be happily oblivious to any danger. So does wearing helmet, hi-vis etc give a false sense of safety?

Lights - check (When Its Dark)
Helmet - Check (Personal choice- wearing one won't prevent an accident)
Hi-Vis - Check ( No need during daylight. No need at night if you have lights )
No headphones- irrelevant..unless your listening to Iron maiden at full volume..you can still hear what's happening around you.
Should cyclists ride in the middle of the lane? - Definitely yes when the situation demands it.

smacl

Johnnio13 wrote: »

Should cyclists ride in the middle of the lane? - Not a chance...

The article quotes John Franklin, author of Cycle Craft, who is one of the most respected authorities on safe cycling in the UK, and promotes taking the lane in many contexts. Well worth a read if you get a chance.

tunney

Some 44% of fatal cycling accidents are caused by drivers failing to look properly,

Next sentence

So it would appear to make sense for cyclists to be as visible as possible.

They'll see me in the middle of the lane, fvck the rest of the stupid ideas. Just an attempt at making people thing cycling can be made safe while also treating cyclists as second class road users.

seamus

A piece of styrofoam on your head will not make you safer - it will not stop you from taking risks and it will not stop large metal boxes from shattering your body. It's so obvious that I'm still exasperated that people can't see this. Helmets do not make cycling safer. That's a fact.

Lights are a weird one. Being on the bike, I can't say that a flashing front light is more effective than a steady one. There seems to be a subset of idiots who just can't see it either way. However, the intensity of the front light is all-important and having a high-intensity front light (150L+) always beats a flashing crappy LED one, especially on a busy city street.

As a driver, I find flashing lights better to see, but that's a sample of one and I would additionally aware of cyclists anyway.

Ride in the middle of the lane, absolutely. It's the difference between being in control of the situation and being subject to the whims of other traffic.

I ride with earphones all the time. I can honestly say that I notice zero difference with or without them. I have never been in an incident which could have been avoided if I hadn't been wearing earphones.

Johnnio13

quozl wrote: »

Funnily enough the one you discount out of hand is the one that will probably do the most to keep you safe during daylight cycling.

Kind of ironic

I used to try this but got clipped a few times by over zealous drivers trying to get through non-existent gaps. Now I usually cycle closer to kerb. Once bitten etc.

Leroy42

Johnnio13 wrote: »

I used to try this but got clipped a few times by over zealous drivers trying to get through non-existent gaps. Now I usually cycle closer to kerb. Once bitten etc.

You are more likely to get clipped cycling close to the kerb as the gap appears bigger. (well it is bigger but the oppurtunity to pass appears even better and so more likely to be attempted) If they are the type of driver to try to squuse their metal box moving at 30 mph past an unprotected cyclist then moving intowards the kerb will actually increase the likelyhood

Dermot Illogical

Johnnio13 wrote: »

I used to try this but got clipped a few times by over zealous drivers trying to get through non-existent gaps. Now I usually cycle closer to kerb. Once bitten etc.

The middle is further to your right in that case.

Alanstrainor

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

The middle is further to your right in that case.

+1

Johnnio13 wrote: »

I used to try this but got clipped a few times by over zealous drivers trying to get through non-existent gaps. Now I usually cycle closer to kerb. Once bitten etc.

I've been doing this for years, and have never been clipped. You're not moving out enough is the issue here. I will tend to look at the driver if needs be, to let them know I can see them, and raise a hand to say thanks also. Very rarely do I have anyone try and force past me.

MugMugs

Lights, Hi Vis and Helmet are a given.

I ride Solo pretty much 99% of the time and do so with earphones much to the disgust of my friends.

I ride for fitness, I use my music as a means of motiviation. I don't have it blaring and I never ride with on to such a level that I don't know when I've got traffic on my rear. I'm an avid Kayaker and rule of thumb for group paddling is that you always watch your back (to ensure that those behind you are okay) Keeping an eye on my rear is a habit that serves me very well.

Leroy42

^when people say headphones, they are taking about one ear only I assume. On solo rides I would wear one in the left ear, so my right ear can take in upcoming traffic etc. (Not sure of the exact science behind that exists but having it in the left ear alway means the driver can't see it)

Hmmzis

Not convinced by the hivis usefulnes, helmets can reduce severity of brain injuries but would be more relevant in group riding and racing. Lights are a must for the dark hours. Hugging the kerb has never done me any favours so taking the lane where appropriate is a given.

Beasty

Can we keep any discussion of usefulness or otherwise of helmets and hi-viz in the relevant megathreads - no point in posters trying to repeat any of that stuff here, and those threads were set up to cater for all discussion on those topics

Any questions PM me - do not respond in-thread

Thanks

Beasty

seamus

Leroy42 wrote: »

^when people say headphones, they are taking about one ear only I assume. On solo rides I would wear one in the left ear, so my right ear can take in upcoming traffic etc. (Not sure of the exact science behind that exists but having it in the left ear alway means the driver can't see it)

Nope, earbuds, both ears, all the time here.

Although really only when commuting, I rarely wear them when out for a spin, and never when in a group.

del_boy13

Lights yes
Hi vis - maybe sometimes but you can always just leave your lights on
Helmet - personal preference (I wear one but its a personal choice)
No headphones - personal preference I used don't use them regularly now but sometimes on a long spin it helps
Middle of the road - too bloody right sometimes the only way to keep the car, bus, taxi, etc from squeezing past a narrow gap. I try not to stay there any longer than necessary because that just pi55es everyone off.

Wishbone Ash

seamus wrote: »

...I ride with earphones all the time...

seamus wrote: »

.... I rarely wear them when out for a spin, and never when in a group.

I think sound is one of the more useful ways of anticipating other road users when on a bike so no headphones for me.

That said I could see the argument for it on a solo spin up the mountains or somewhere quiet.

seamus

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Ah you know, "All the time" as in "regularly" . 99% of my mileage is commuting, so I have them in all of that time, more or less.

Danjamin1

del_boy13 wrote: »

Lights yes
Hi vis - maybe sometimes but you can always just leave your lights on
Helmet - personal preference (I wear one but its a personal choice)
No headphones - personal preference I used don't use them regularly now but sometimes on a long spin it helps
Middle of the road - too bloody right sometimes the only way to keep the car, bus, taxi, etc from squeezing past a narrow gap. I try not to stay there any longer than necessary because that just pi55es everyone off.

Agreed on taking the lane only as long as necessary, even when doing this you're still likely to get someone come right up to you honking their horn.

As for the article, I'd consider all but the lights as optional precautions.

I personally prefer a helmet but don't generally opt for hi-vis. Ear bud in the left ear, volume at an appropriate level. Flashing light in urban environment, solid in poorly lit areas. Take the lane when necessary.

niceonetom

Rubberchikken

if cyclists just had lights back and front i'd be a happy bunny.

drive in cork city a lot, in the dark. the amount of cyclists in dark clothing, with no lights is very high.
maybe they can see everyone else, but i sure as heck can't see them.
it's even difficult when walking and they appear as if out of nowhere.

light up lads:D

Beasty

Rubberchikken wrote: »

light up lads:D

I suspect you are pretty much preaching to the converted here;)

DaithiMC

ok

JBokeh

Rubberchikken wrote: »

light up lads:D

The cyclists that don't have lights tend to not be the cycling types that would visit a forum,they're generally the type that have the seat slammed down onto the seat tube with their knees pointed in every direction! Bike owners rather than enthusiasts

I cycled in the Cork city for the first time ever on Monday,because the weather was nice and I'm too cheap to pay for parking. Had my helmet,flashy lights,no headphones,and even one of them hi-vis mesh tabard things with the reflective stripes on it stretched over me and my backpack. Didn't try that cycling in the middle of the lane craic because I didn't feel the need,everyone seemed courteous. Probably looked like a bit of a nob dressed like that commuting on a pretty decent spec MTB, but no harm. Got "ah jaysus"ed by one cyclist when I stopped at the light by the bus station(he was just jealous of my jogging tabard),and near crapped myself when a bus honked at a woman stopped in the bus stop on St. Patricks street on my way back.

Went from little island to the Mercy and back,thankfully the Dunkettle was fairly clogged so it wasn't as sketchy as I thought it would be,wouldn't do that part again though.

Probably should be in a different thread,it's my first view of cycling in the city and what goes on,but i'm delighted with myself

Johnnio13

Rubberchikken wrote: »

light up lads:D

As Beasty mentioned probably preaching to the converted.

I am going to take the advice of the boardies here and test out that lane theory again for the remainder of the week.
I suppose the main purpose of adding the thread was to see if attitudes to safety had changed out there.
From the few posts here it appears it has but only to a degree and I am wondering if the change the has been adopted in the non-road racer/team biker crew has been brought about by the BTW scheme.

Danjamin1

Johnnio13 wrote: »

As Beasty mentioned probably preaching to the converted.

I am going to take the advice of the boardies here and test out that lane theory again for the remainder of the week.
I suppose the main purpose of adding the thread was to see if attitudes to safety had changed out there.
From the few posts here it appears it has but only to a degree and I am wondering if the change the has been adopted in the non-road racer/team biker crew has been brought about by the BTW scheme.

As I said, be prepared for the odd lunatic honking their horn sitting on your rear wheel. Most people seem to be willing to wait patiently but there's always one impatient c*** on the road. Mostly Bus Eireann, Aircoach & taxi drivers in my experience. Not to generalise of course.

quozl

Also try to remember in that situation that they're the impatient person that would otherwise be skimming past you at 40+ kph

chicorytip

1) Wearing a helmet ought to be compulsory for cyclists.The effects of serious head and brain injury are far more profound than those to other body parts.
2) Cyclists should not wear headphones.It's useful to be able to hear what's coming behind you.
3) Wear a hi-vis jacket. Day and night. Those who wear dark clothing on unlit cycles can oftentimes be difficult to notice even in daylight.

cdaly_

Lights - Yes, day and night.
Hi-vis - No but I do have reflecty bits on various cycling garments (particularly heels of shoes and backs of gloves)
Helmet - Yes. Keeps my head warm and is handy to mount a light to.
Headphones - Yes. Cuts wind noise making it easier to hear surroundings and I need my music. Not on group rides though, have to be able to chat.
Middle of the road - Yep. I choose a position that lets me control what goes on around me.

Incidentally, in the course of a big spin on UK roads, the English riders tended to ride single file. While riding with them, I experienced many, many close passes in the face of oncoming traffic. When some of us rode two-abreast, the passes were much better: more space given and drivers waited for proper overtaking opportunities.

CramCycle

chicorytip wrote: »

1) Wearing a helmet ought to be compulsory for cyclists.The effects of serious head and brain injury are far more profound than those to other body parts.
3) Wear a hi-vis jacket. Day and night. Those who wear dark clothing on unlit cycles can oftentimes be difficult to notice even in daylight.

MOD VOICE: As per previous mod warning, keep discussion of helmets and hi vis to their relative mega threads, in future posts will be carded.

NeedMoreGears

Lights - Yes when visibiilty is poor
Hi-vis - No but I do have reflecty bits on various cycling garments (particularly heels of shoes and backs of gloves)*
Helmet - Yes - more for anti-stitches than anti-death reasons.
Headphones - No for commuting. Sometimes for longer spins
Middle of the road - Yes as necessary but try to stay left mostly

*credit to cdaly for "reflecty"

micar

Lights - sun up, sun down and at night.
Hi-vis - No but I do have reflecty bits on various cycling garments, tights, jacket, overshoes and gloves.
Helmet - Yes. always. would be lost and worried if I did not cycle with one.
Headphones - Yes. left ear only. I can still hear the traffic on my right.
Middle of the road - I change my road position to give cars behind me an indication of which direction I am travelling.

coppinger

I use the rule of invisibility when I ride in traffic - Motorists cannot see you - always assume they cannot see you, I use lights, hi-vis etc, forget about it, you are harry potter wearing the cloak of invisibility on a bike - if you "command" the lane you are not in control - legally yes, you have the rights and you will win in court, but you will lose if you bring a bike to a car fight. I personally hate having any traffic on my six, I cant see them even if I turn my head, so I hug the kerb , my thinking is, if they see you at the last minute they have some chance of swerving around you, none if you're in the middle of the lane. yes there is more chance of them trying to squeeze past and getting hit, but the dangerous one is when they don't see you until your over the bonnet (happened twice)

CramCycle

coppinger wrote: »

so I hug the kerb

My thinking is if they swerve doing an overtake you have nowhere to go, if you hit a pothole or drain cover (located often near the kerb), you could either hit the kerb and crash or swerve into traffic if you don't come off immediately. It's where road debris collects, more chance of a puncture.

I am not saying you should hold the centre line bu thugging the kerb is, IMO, and in the opinion of several others (for example the author of cyclecraft), terribly bad practice.

BoardsMember

Interesting reading on Middle of the Road. I think a few have pointed out to me what seems a reasonable approach to this...to take the lane for as long as is necessary.

There are definitely what I would describe as more militant types of cyclists around, on the road, on here. I accept that we cyclists should not be considered or treated as second class road users. But there is a balance between taking the lane when needed, and cycling in the middle of the lane all the time, just because. The latter is OTT for me.

I have started cycling in groups with a club recently, and it is quite informative to see the different types of leaders. Some have very much an "us versus them" attitude, "fu#k them, let them wait" approach rather than going single file for a while and when safe, to let miles long queues ease. I'm not condoning risky behaviour to appease motorists, it's just a question of being considerate to other road users.

arybvtcw0eolkf

For me wearing a helmet is second nature, if I'm not cycling I'm on my motorbike and I won't ride either without a helmet.

I've always a hi-viz top, plus a flashing light on my seat post and bag.

Tbh I ride to the left of the lane and I've found over the years that drivers are more inclined to overtake quicker and a lot more dangerous (probably out of frustration) when I ride in the middle of the lane.

Headphones, like Seamus I'm almost exclusively headphones. The few times I couldn't have music I've lost the will to cycle.

My cycling is 50/50 commute/training.

tomasrojo

That's not a bad article at all.

Here's a very recent, considered blog post about earphones:
http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/the-sounds-of-science/

For my part:
Lights - Dusk, dawn and at night. Wrist lights at night.
Hi-vis - A hi-vis elastic belt that goes around my satchel, and reflective wrist cuffs during the day, dawn and dusk. They don't make much difference, but they go on in a second and fit in a pocket.
Helmet - Never, though I did for a few years until I read the research. I completely understand that others feel differently, and interpret the evidence differently.
Headphones - Almost never, but I really don't care whether others do.
Middle of the road - Pinch points and before changing lane. I probably do it less than Cyclecraft advises,

petethedrummer

In the period Jan-December 2013 there were 181 fatal collisions resulting in 190 fatalities on Irish roads. This represents 29 more collisions and 28 more deaths compared to the same period in 2012; and overall a 17% increase in deaths compared to 2012.

Of the 190 fatalities, there were 31 pedestrians killed, 95 Drivers, 32 Passengers, 27 Motorcyclists and 5 Pedal Cyclists.


There was an increase in pedestrian fatalities (up from 29 to 32) and motorcyclist fatalities (up from 16 to 27), but a decline in pedal cyclist deaths from 8 to 5.

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Deaths-injuries-on-Irish-roads/

petethedrummer

http://irishcycle.com/2014/01/01/cyclists-deaths-on-irish-roads-at-joint-low-in-2013/

tomasrojo

Leaked! The BBC running order for Bicycle Safety Week:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/carltonreid/15532400338/

UDP

With regards the middle of the lane, this is probably the most important thing when entering a roundabout as a cyclist. Always take the position of a car when approaching a roundabout and complete the manoeuvre in the same fashion as a car would. Do not just follow around the edge of the roundabout lanes.

CramCycle

BoardsMember wrote: »

There are definitely what I would describe as more militant types of cyclists around, on the road, on here. I accept that we cyclists should not be considered or treated as second class road users. But there is a balance between taking the lane when needed, and cycling in the middle of the lane all the time, just because. The latter is OTT for me.

I should point out that I am not in the middle all the time, only when it is required IMO, I am also never in at the gutter as its harder to balance, has more shrapnel and my perception that falling there has more risks for hitting things. I certainly don't block traffic because I think I am entitled too. On roads where the cycle track is on the road/ in the bus lane, I generally use it.

Some have very much an "us versus them" attitude

never understood this most of us are drivers, those that aren't most likely have friends and family who are drivers, it is very simple, it reminds me of the manic motorist cartoon I seen over on the motors forum, how some of us are different people when we get into a specific mode of transport.

"fu#k them, let them wait"

Wouldn't be like this either as my time for cycling through Angelsea road should attest too. I am of the opinon that I won't put my own life in danger to convenience someone but I won't hold someone up for the craic either

approach rather than going single file for a while and when safe, to let miles long queues ease. I'm not condoning risky behaviour to appease motorists, it's just a question of being considerate to other road users.

Two abreast is quicker to overtake, it is half the distance, it is more a matter of perception. Single file in a large group encourages overtaking in scenarios where it might not be particularly safe. I have been out with groups who go to single file without thinking, those who go when the road is clear as a signal that the road is clear and those who flat out refuse. have to say the middle group are the only ones I fully trust, the rest I might just break off on my own for a bit.

smacl

tomasrojo wrote: »

Here's a very recent, considered blog post about earphones:
http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/the-sounds-of-science/

Interesting article, though my reading of it was that it had a clear bias in favour of the argument in favour of headphone usage. He talks about making some (objective) sense out of the arguments for and against, then criticises what little research he could find (largely against headphone usage) with his own subjective opinion. He then qualifies the whole piece based on his own experience, which again is anecdotal. I also suspect the comparison of available of audio cues to motorists and cyclists is a straw man, as their relative value is not examined. Motor noise to a cyclist is an indicator of approaching traffic from behind, where cars tend to use mirrors for this purpose.

Doesn't progress the argument much either way, and while it might be titled "the sound of science", IMHO it is more of an opinion piece that struggles to find any scientific merit.

CramCycle

smacl wrote: »

Motor noise to a cyclist is an indicator of approaching traffic from behind, where cars tend to use mirrors for this purpose.

I only find it useful when there is limited other traffic or the car has an overly loud engine, alot of modern engines are quite quiet in comparison to their ancestors. When I did wear headphones cycling, it seemed to make little difference but that's anecdoetal and I don't do it anymore.

Nothing will beat looking around, hearing helps but in the city, particularly modern cars, I am not sure how much by.

petethedrummer

Deaths are up this year.

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/Provisional_Review_of_Road_Fatalities_July_31st.pdf

dave_o_brien

Lights - Dusk, dawn and at night.
Hi-vis - Nope.
Helmet - When training, yes. When commuting, no.
Headphones - Nope.
Middle of the road - I don't ride around in the centre of the lane, but will take it when I feel it's necessary to make me more visible. Accompanied by looking around, letting the motorist know you're being alert, generally not being a pr*ck about it and not taking the central position for longer than necessary tends to result in very little conflict.

tomasrojo

smacl wrote: »

Interesting article, though my reading of it was that it had a clear bias in favour of the argument in favour of headphone usage. He talks about making some (objective) sense out of the arguments for and against, then criticises what little research he could find (largely against headphone usage) with his own subjective opinion.

It certainly wouldn't pass peer review for a scientific publication, no, that's true. It's a superior opinion piece, I think, that's all, which is the most you usually expect from a blog. It isn't an area that's been investigated much anyway, partly because people think they already know the answer, I suppose.

It's a fairly clear issue in one sense (your hearing is at least somewhat compromised by the use of earphones), and not in another (does that matter enough to take action against their use).

His argument against conflating the use of radio/mp3 players and phones is valid, I think.

smacl

tomasrojo wrote: »

His argument against conflating the use of radio/mp3 players and phones is valid, I think.

Seems reasonable. Personally, I don't use either, but that is purely habit. For me location plays a big part, in that on small rural roads, you hear traffic before you see it, whereas in the city surrounded by traffic it doesn't make much difference.

I do think his comparison on the value of sound to a car driver to a cyclist is bogus for a number of reasons, not least that getting rear ended by a car is rather more traumatic to a cyclist than a car driver. The comment below struck a chord;

…the new family of meerkats arrives at the zoo only to discover no meerkat enclosure has been built so they have to move in with the lions, much to their concern.

Of course the lions are very dangerous and accordingly they have strict rules regarding their supervision etc. And since the meerkats will be sharing (albeit against their will) they will have to obey the same strict rules. The meerkats feel this adds insult to potential injury – the rules are because of the lions, not them!

And to make matters worse, the lions have the benefit of being big enough to defend themselves, but the meerkats aren’t (against the lions) so in practice the meerkats end up having even harsher standards applied to them.

tomasrojo

Besides, there are other options:



I already have two trailers. Time for a third.