Cyclists should do a theory test!

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The merit or otherwise of this thread is entirely independent of the actions of motorists or pedestrians. You can start as thread on those issues if you wish.

Its not independent of the actions of motorists. It can't be. More often that not it is because of cyclists protecting themselves from bad drivers that they annoy motorists. It is the behaviour of motorists (eg. passing too close, not looking at their inside) that make me cycle at all times at least 2 feet away from the side of the road, normally more. That irritates the cr*p out of drivers, but if I did not, they would crowd me out - push me into the kerb. Which is scary and happens often (bus drivers are the worst). Making yourself big and visible keeps you safer, if at the expense of being hated by drivers. I'd rather be safe than popular.

There are idiots like the guy on this thread, who no-one defends - not even other cyclists. But my behaviour on the road, and that of many others, is to keep myself safe (pulling in front of the cars at red lights so that I get off first, riding out from the kerb so cars have to pull out into the adjoining lane to get past me) because there are some really really clueless drivers out there. I think that it is this kind of thing that leads to the constant irritation and undercurrent of tension between drivers and cyclists.

But that is not the cyclists fault.....it is the fault of the infrastructure

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Well yeah there's wishing up or learning from mistakes - both times I've been knocked off my bike have been from the rear, with the motorist overtaking me to turn left. Both times I've had extremely bright flashing led lights on my helmet and bike.

This thought me to ride more assertively - so if I get a sense someone is going to try pull the same stunt, I'll take the lane. Might p!ss off a few who have that sense of argent where I clearly don't matter, but what the hell

Mirrors are very useful, but for some reason cyclists seem to thing that looking behind is sufficient. I really learned about using mirrors from my motorcycling days, self preservation again and being fully aware of what's going on around you. Assertive is fine, but for those left turns I'll only take up two positions, ahead or behind, never abreast of a vehicle.

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Its not independent of the actions of motorists. It can't be. More often that not it is because of cyclists protecting themselves from bad drivers that they annoy motorists. It is the behaviour of motorists (eg. passing too close, not looking at their inside) that make me cycle at all times at least 2 feet away from the side of the road, normally more. That irritates the cr*p out of drivers, but if I did not, they would crowd me out - push me into the kerb. Which is scary and happens often (bus drivers are the worst). Making yourself big and visible keeps you safer, if at the expense of being hated by drivers. I'd rather be safe than popular.

There are idiots like the guy on this thread, who no-one defends - not even other cyclists. But my behaviour on the road, and that of many others, is to keep myself safe (pulling in front of the cars at red lights so that I get off first, riding out from the kerb so cars have to pull out into the adjoining lane to get past me) because there are some really really clueless drivers out there. I think that it is this kind of thing that leads to the constant irritation and undercurrent of tension between drivers and cyclists.

But that is not the cyclists fault.....it is the fault of the infrastructure[

+1............that goes right to the heart of the problem. Proper cycling infrastructure is what is required, not dulux cycle lanes either.

Pinch Flat

steamengine wrote: »

Mirrors are very useful, but for some reason cyclists seem to thing that looking behind is sufficient. I really learned about using mirrors from my motorcycling days, self preservation again and being fully aware of what's going on around you. Assertive is fine, but for those left turns I'll only take up two positions, ahead or behind, never abreast of a vehicle.

Yeah some cyclists use mirrors, you see some on the ends of handle bars or (rarely) helmet mounted - they have their uses but can be limited by range of vision and vibration on roads which will make them impossible to view.

You'll never get the range of vision from a mirror over turning your head - motorbike helmets prohibit this, whereas a cycling helmet doesn't restrict the vision or range of movement as much. I would look back extremely frequently when in traffic, over my right for other vehicles and (more increasingly) over my left for a cycling coming inside when I'm moving or turning left - a common problem.

beauf

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

As a law abiding motorist I welcome law enforcement and education measures for motorists who break the law.
One would expect that law abiding cyclists would welcome law enforcement and education measures for cyclists who break the law, but they mostly engage in whataboutery.

What law enforcement, and/or do you mean, that doesn't currently exist, and/or that has been proved to work in other countries?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0012274/

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The merit or otherwise of this thread is entirely independent of the actions of motorists or pedestrians. You can start as thread on those issues if you wish.

That depends on the reasons for cyclists breaking the rules, if you indeed believe that the cyclists who are drivers do not know the rules or the theory. Or that getting them to sit the same theory test they've ready passed, serves any value. Of indeed even for those who aren't drivers, if you had a theory test specifically for cycling, that included things like don't cycle on the pavement (unless parked as a cycle lane/shared use). Would that really see a dramatic change in behavior.

Perhaps a contra flow cycle lane might create a bigger reduction in some locations? Perhaps a dedicated segregated cycle lane might have cyclists choosing that over a crowded footpath or car lane.

steamengine wrote: »

Thanks for the link, Burning Bridges - here it is so everyone can read it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-450353/Women-cyclists-risk-death-dont-jump-red-lights.html

yeh, was going to comment in my previous post that London deaths are disproportionately women, who cycle more cautiously and are not seen as a result. It's not just jumping red lights (or at least anticipating their change). Its about getting to a red light and pushing past the cars to take up a position right in front of them so that they know you're there. And not getting squeezed against the side of the road by buses or vans

Burning Bridges wrote: »

So its a bit of a winge for motorists caught in traffic?

Cyclists make mistakes, motorists make mistakes, pedestrians make mistakes.

BTW cyclists who "break the law" are less likely to be killed , ironically.

I am not allowed to post a link.

Thanks for the link, here it is so everyone can take a look.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-450353/Women-cyclists-risk-death-dont-jump-red-lights.html

More recent link

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most-accidents

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Yeah some cyclists use mirrors, you see some on the ends of handle bars or (rarely) helmet mounted - they have their uses but can be limited by range of vision and vibration on roads which will make them impossible to view.

You'll never get the range of vision from a mirror over turning your head - motorbike helmets prohibit this, whereas a cycling helmet doesn't restrict the vision or range of movement as much. I would look back extremely frequently when in traffic, over my right for other vehicles and (more increasingly) over my left for a cycling coming inside when I'm moving or turning left - a common problem.

I disagree, you get a totally focused view to the rear, flicking your eyes to the front or rear is much faster than head rotation. Plus you still have peripheral vision to the front, whilst using the mirror. Vibration isn't a factor for my handle bar mounted mirror at all.

Link to the mirror I use.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86194485&postcount=41

beauf

One of the suggested practices is to make eye contact with the drivers around you. Make sure they've seen you. Turn your head and look at them.

beauf wrote: »

One of the suggested practices is to make eye contact with the drivers around you. Make sure they've seen you. Turn your head and look at them.

That's absolutely true. I make eye contact with drivers regularly on my London commute. And not just the cute lady ones

cython

steamengine wrote: »

I disagree, you get a totally focused view to the rear, flicking your eyes to the front or rear is much faster than head rotation. Plus you still have peripheral vision to the front, whilst using the mirror. Vibration isn't a factor for my handle bar mounted mirror at all.

Link to the mirror I use.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86194485&postcount=41

Your bike looks to have MTB tyres, and if there is any suspension in the fork then you are going to get much more damping of vibration than many cyclists on road bikes. As a result your mirror is probably more stable than a lot of cyclists could hope to get. I know on my bike on a lot of the roads around Dublin I'd nearly get motion sickness trying to look in a mirror at the end of that long an extension. Not to mention trying to focus on a vibrating mirror would take my focus from the rest of the traffic around me too much.

Just asked to pass his on:

On behalf of the secret league of cyclists, I would like to apologise for every slight you have ever perceived on the roads.

Much like Babe the movie, if you shout "Baa Ram Ewe" as we pass we will instantly stop and do anything you want as we are all sheep and in no way individuals.

Sincerely

Conor Faughnan
General Secretary of the secret league of cyclists

Shep_Dog

beauf wrote: »

One of the suggested practices is to make eye contact with the drivers around you. Make sure they've seen you. Turn your head and look at them.

+1 I find that when I turn my head look behind me before signalling a turn, drivers will often react and often back off and allow me to move out to make my lane change. Good drivers and cyclists read each others intentions. It's about negotiation.

There's a lot about common sense road usage not covered in the RoTR.

cython wrote: »

Your bike looks to have MTB tyres, and if there is any suspension in the fork then you are going to get much more damping of vibration than many cyclists on road bikes. As a result your mirror is probably more stable than a lot of cyclists could hope to get. I know on my bike on a lot of the roads around Dublin I'd nearly get motion sickness trying to look in a mirror at the end of that long an extension. Not to mention trying to focus on a vibrating mirror would take my focus from the rest of the traffic around me too much.

I don't have any suspension and tyres are pumped to 2 bar. I've never had any vibration problems - just a clear focused view to the rear, and as continuous as I want it to be.

Shep_Dog wrote: »

+1 I find that when I turn my head look behind me before signalling a turn, drivers will often react and often back off and allow me to move out to make my lane change. Good drivers and cyclists read each others intentions. It's about negotiation.

There's a lot about common sense road usage not covered in the RoTR.

Correct, and I've found by treating drivers courteously, quite a few will return the complement. A wave, a smile, a nod, whatever it takes. At left turns I will give a clear hand signal to indicate I am proceeding straight ahead, if I think the left turning driver hasn't read the situation. Should the scenario come to pass where a driver turns to the left across me, then I will turn left also to avoid a collision.

+1 indicate, make eye contact, it's rare you are not given space, thumbs up or shout of thank you, job done.

cython

steamengine wrote: »

I don't have any suspension and tyres are pumped to 2 bar. I've never had any vibration problems - just a clear focused view to the rear, and as continuous as I want it to be.

At 2 bar you don't need any suspension

My tyres are (and need to be!) typically pumped to 4x that, which means they transmit a lot more vibration. Not to mention that as mentioned, looking over your shoulder to check your surroundings communicates a lot more about your potential intentions to other road users around you than an imperceptible movement to look in your mirror.

cython wrote: »

At 2 bar you don't need any suspension My tyres are (and need to be!) typically pumped to 4x that, which means they transmit a lot more vibration. Not to mention that as mentioned, looking over your shoulder to check your surroundings communicates a lot more about your potential intentions to other road users around you than an imperceptible movement to look in your mirror.

That brings us to another point, how suitable from a safety point of view is your bicycle for ordinary road use ? Those tyre pressures indicate very narrow wheels to me, the type that can easily slot into a rut on the road ?

Before the Giro Italia last year, a lot of the ruts between the concrete slabs on the Clontarf Road were filled up, presumably for that reason.

That is one reason why I use an MTB for cycling as they are more suitable for cycling in normal road conditions. Dublin City bikes use a similar tyre width.

My experience of the mirrors available for bikes are that they provide a very limited view range. Looking around gives far more info. The blind spots on pedal bike mirrors are enormous and if that all you are using, you are just asking for an accident IMO. Even MCs and motorists use life savers and check over there shoulder for a range of manoeuvres.

CramCycle wrote: »

My experience of the mirrors available for bikes are that they provide a very limited view range. Looking around gives far more info. The blind spots on pedal bike mirrors are enormous and if that all you are using, you are just asking for an accident IMO. Even MCs and motorists use life savers and check over there shoulder for a range of manoeuvres.

It's not all I use, its a case of AND rather than OR. BTW I've never been in any sort of cycling accident in 60 years cycling, I've never even come off a bike on the road for any reason and i intend to continue on like that !

CramCycle wrote: »

My experience of the mirrors available for bikes are that they provide a very limited view range. Looking around gives far more info. The blind spots on pedal bike mirrors are enormous and if that all you are using, you are just asking for an accident IMO. Even MCs and motorists use life savers and check over there shoulder for a range of manoeuvres.

Having mirrors can't be a bad thing, as long as it doesn't mean that you look back over your shoulder any less. Cycling in London, being bold and looking around and making eye contact before you move is so important....using mirrors in place of that would be much more dangerous, but as an addition I don't see the harm

steamengine wrote: »

...........There are many ways to look after yourself on a bicycle, I use mirrors as I want to know what traffic is doing to my rear as well as to the front and sides. Just the other day, I noticed a bus to my rear wasn't going to give me sufficient room as I was overtaking some parked cars, so I abandoned it, braked and pulled into the left. Had one of the parked cars opened a door, then I could have potentially been killed.

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Having mirrors can't be a bad thing, as long as it doesn't mean that you look back over your shoulder any less. Cycling in London, being bold and looking around and making eye contact before you move is so important....using mirrors in place of that would be much more dangerous, but as an addition I don't see the harm

I picked up on the bus coming too close to me, in the mirror, the bus was constrained from moving out any further due to oncoming traffic. Split seconds - spotting the situation to ducking out of the way - thanks to the mirror. Co-incidentally that happened at the same spot where I took those photos of the mirror above.

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Having mirrors can't be a bad thing, as long as it doesn't mean that you look back over your shoulder any less. Cycling in London, being bold and looking around and making eye contact before you move is so important....using mirrors in place of that would be much more dangerous, but as an addition I don't see the harm

I had them for awhile and the range of view was too narrow, trying to use them was more of a distraction and the many I seen use them on the drummartin link. road tended not to look around as often as I thought was safe.

Just my point of view though.

At steamengine, not being in an accident means nothing, on a daily basis I see terrible road users get away Scot free I have seen motorists and cyclists hit as they took action to avoid the stupidity of others because they were good road users.

steamengine wrote: »

I picked up on the bus coming too close to me, in the mirror, the bus was constrained from moving out any further due to oncoming traffic. Split seconds - spotting the situation to ducking out of the way - thanks to the mirror. Co-incidentally that happened at the same spot where I took those photos of the mirror above.

But without a mirror you would have looked over your shoulder several times on approach, did you indicate that you were pulling out, did you make any contact with the bus driver. If you were close enough to be hit by a car door, you were to close IMO. I come across situations like this every day, never has a lack of a mirror been a hindrance. I would have noticed that I was coming to a pinch point, seen the bus, indicated, if the bus driver gave no obvious indication he was going to let me out then I would have stopped.

I have nothing against mirrors on bikes but I do think you are over exaggerating their importance when from my reading, looking over your shoulder would have been easier and safer. Bus drivers will generally take the approach you are pulling out, as all good road users would (expect the unexpected) as far as the driver was aware you just handed looked. 8 don't trust that they will hence I look 9 very my shoulder and indicate, makes it easier and safer for everyone involved.

CramCycle wrote: »

I had them for awhile and the range of view was too narrow, trying to use them was more of a distraction and the many I seen use them on the drummartin link. road tended not to look around as often as I thought was safe.

Just my point of view though.

At steamengine, not being in an accident means nothing, on a daily basis I see terrible road users get away Scot free I have seen motorists and cyclists hit as they took action to avoid the stupidity of others because they were good road users.

Well you know the old saying about pilots which can be paraphrased for cyclists - There are old cyclists and bold cyclists, but no old bold cyclists

Personally I wouldn't use them either....I'd find them a distraction. But I can see that others might want them as an extra thing. More important is keeping enough room for yourself so you can move a couple of feet to the left immediately if and when someone comes too close.

Steamengine credits them with not having had an accident. Well, I don't use them and I've never had an accident either in 15 years of cycling to work in Dublin and London (currently 10 miles each way). So I don't necessarily see the causality....

steamengine wrote: »

Well you know the old saying about pilots which can be paraphrased for cyclists - There are old cyclists and bold cyclists, but no old bold cyclists

I actually couldn't disagree more. Bold keeps you safe. And doesn't necessarily meant law-breaking.

Timid riders are disproportionately on the receiving end of accidents and is well documented in London