To think in many cases the problem is that Motorists don't look for cyclists, rather than not seeing them?

[BoysofMelody]

Went out for a bike ride and with crushing predictably, I had a near miss thanks to errant motorists.

First one, reversed from a parking space at high speed onto the road I was traveling along missing me by a fraction. Similarly about 15 miles into the ride another, motorist swung across my path to get into their drive way, without indicating or looking around them.

At the time, conditions were clear and not overly sunny, I was wearing a hi Viz orange jersey and had flashing auxilary lights front and rear.

Given that I was riding at a sensible speed and in a defensive manner and there was little else I could reasonably do to make myself more visible to motorists, that the problem more often than not is that Motorists don't look for, rather than not seeing cyclists? Bike lights after dark are a legal requirement and absolutely essential, but why are cyclists and cyclists alone held expected to dress up in all sorts of garish shades to protect themselves from motorists' inattention? If a cyclist gets runs over, the all too predictable cry of 'why weren't they wearing hi Viz and a helmet goesup'' in a similar case where a HGV totals a car, no one would castigate the driver for having a dark grey car that was difficult to see at dusk would they?

[prettybird]

Similarly, I've lost count of the number of times I have seen cars going through traffic lights after they've turned red (I've even started to wonder if they are phased incorrectly as it happens so often but no, it's just drivers not wanting to wait a few minutes after the light has turned orange), car drivers on mobile phones, car drivers speeding - just about everywhere (my cat was killed by a car doing about 60 mph so fast that the witness couldn't get its number plate in a 30mph zone, outside a nursery and where there is a lollipop lady crossing who also witnessed it at 8-45am; ds used to cross that road with the help of the lollipop lady on his bike going to primary school ), cars double parking, cars stopping ahead of the stop line at traffic lights (as a cyclist it is the one rule that I sometimes break, as at some traffic lights, it's not safe for cyclists to wait anywhere else but I still wait for the light ), cars parking on junctions, cars causing other drivers to brake/move out the way (I remember being told by my driving instructor that that would be an automatic fail), cars stopping at bus stops, cars driving to close to the car in front ......

Infractions are wrong whoever does them. It's no justification, saying "some" cyclists do X. We all have a duty to be aware and to follow the rules - both cyclists and drivers. And I say that as someone who has in the past got a speeding ticket (over 10 years ago).

[FreeNiki]

My own sister does 40mph in a 20mph zone, fiddles with the radio & cds non stop, looks back at her kids in the back seat to sing along with them and laugh to the stupid cds and has her phone in her lap to text at stop lights.

If I tell her off she tells me to fuck off. I dont think she realises at 40mph she will ki anyone who steps out in front of her when the speed limit is 20mph.

[FreeNiki]

*kill anyone

[Spudlet]

I used to have:
Two lights on the back of the bike (one flashing, one steady, both bright)
Three lights on the front, again both flashing and steady, and all good strength
Lights on the wheels that were visible side on
A bright yellow jacket, reflective ankle bands, and a rucksack cover

I still nearly got sideswiped by some twat pulling out from a side street as I came past on the main road (in a town)!

Short of phoning all the drivers in advance to warn them that I was popping into the supermarket, I'm not honestly sure what more I could have done to be visible . But none of that does any good if the driver isn't looking in the first place. YANBU, op.

[ShotsFired]

I would like to invent a simulator where you have a 360degree completely immersive experience of being on a bicycle, complete with sounds of traffic/revving/horns coming up behind you, and the whoosh of air smacking you as a larger vehicle passes you - if they could somehow manage the graphics to represent the way it looks to have a "wall" of metal inches from your eyeball too, even better. Throw in some verbal abuse for good measure too.

Abuse aside, I do try and tell myself it is ignorance before malice, and that the majority of drivers just don't know what it is like to ride a bike on the road. Education has to help, surely?

[BoysofMelody]

Abuse aside, I do try and tell myself it is ignorance before malice, and that the majority of drivers just don't know what it is like to ride a bike on the road. Education has to help, surely?

If I had my way I'd make all those who weren't prevented from riding by disability from having to ride the test route on a bike before getting their licence.

Yes, I can count on one hand the number of times someone has deliberately tried to injure me in 20 years plus of riding, there's a few more that I couldn't say if they were malicious or just draw droppingly careless. But on the whole, I would say it was inattention and lack of understanding, but it makes no difference to me whether I end up with broken bones as a result of a cyclist hating nutcase or someone like Nikki's sister who is busy texting whilst driving.

[runloganrun101]

I once saw a cyclist get killed in a crash with a lorry because she thought it'd be a good idea to skip a red light at a roundabout.

One of my colleagues broke his hip because the idiot was texting while cycling and drifted right into the path of a car on a busy dual carriageway.

I'm always seeing cyclists clip motorists and pedestrians alike in London because they seem to not care about the rules of the road or traffic lights.

I think the government should make insurance and cycling tests mandatory for cyclists.

[ShotsFired]

runloganrun I am glad to see that the standards of driving are now so impeccable in London that you only ever see bad cycling by a minority of morons who would also be morons in a car, on a horse, in a tractor or on foot

Anyway, also popped in as I just got this link which was nice and timely for everyone asking why people don't use cycle lanes: totalwomenscycling.com/commuting/27-shocking-cycle-lanes-cant-believe-exist

[ShotsFired]

runloganrun10 Also on this point: I think the government should make insurance and cycling tests mandatory for cyclists.

Many of us DO have insurance because both our bikes and bodies are valuable assets; and I wonder why people think otherwise? It seems like one of the holy trinity of fallacies (insurance, registration and road tax) that comes out every time.

But as for making it mandatory,:
(a) the premiums would be so low, given our actuarial risk that it would cost insurers money to administer. When did you last see an insurance company doing something that didn't make them profits?

(b) we [the government] can't manage to test people who drive cars properly - cf the calls for ten-yearly car licence re-tests which would instantly overwhelm test centres. How are you going to test every man, woman and child on a bicycle? How often? For what? When would you start this regime of testing (as toddlers?) How would you police it? Who pays for the shortfall when the income from testing is dwarfed by the cost of running the scheme?

I'm all for a reasonable debate but these kneejerk comments about a minority of a subset of road users don't take reality into account.

[runloganrun101]

@shotsfired - I've never seen a car skip a red light in Central London, or mount a kerb (and knock into pedestrians) as a short cut. Presumably because if they did the cctv would automatically find and make the person responsible pay. And cyclists aren't actually a low actuarial risk - most cyclists actually don't take out any insurance. If insurance became mandatory the actual risk would then come out.

[BoysofMelody]

I wondered how long it would be before the insurance/tax/test chestnut came up. Well we got to page three so pretty good going!

[EmilyBiscuit]

I think some drivers just don't look at all. Cyclists often bear the brunt because they are more vulnerable.

Some cyclists are knobs, but so are many drivers. I can't think of the last time I saw a cyclist on the phone. Cyclists tend to watch the road. They may make stupid decisions and put themselves at risk, but (in my area at least) they don't (generally) endanger others with carelessness. Some drivers on the other hand...

FWIW I'm a driver, never cycled on the road because I'm too scared

[BoysofMelody]

Run if you've never seen bad/inconsiderate/aggresive or downright dangerous driving in central London, you must be wilfully blind to it.

[ShotsFired]

runloganrun10 @shotsfired - I've never seen a car skip a red light in Central London, or mount a kerb (and knock into pedestrians) as a short cut

Are you kidding me? You have never seen a car skip a red light in London (maybe traffic cameras makes a truer selective statement in London than other un-camera'd places?) and you don't see drivers doing dangerous things every day? Why are so many hundreds (thousands?) more people killed by vehicles than bikes then?

Whatever the anecdata, it remains a fact that more non-car drivers are killed by car drivers than the other way round - and many of those on the pavements too. Why are people not outraged at that?
(I drive tens of thousands more miles than I cycle each year, so don't think I am particularly militant either.)

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/uk_accident_statistics_for_pedes
www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/pedestrians
www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts-figures/
etc etc

And cyclists aren't actually a low actuarial risk
most cyclists actually don't take out any insurance
I would (genuinely) be interested in the data/stats that backs these two comments up.

[carefreeeee]

I think you are right OP - in street lit areas at night most drivers can see me fine with no lights and a black coat.

The number that drive as if they haven't seen me is no different to if I have bright clothes/lights/it's daylight.

This is of course different if there are no streetlights when I will be dressing up in full reflective gear because without it I will be genuinely difficult to see. Mostly I'm in towns though so this rarely applies.

I agree with others that flashing lights are much less visible than constant lights.

Too few drivers take responsibility for their choice of driving a tonne of metal and blame it on vulnerable road users if they endanger someone.

Interestingly the CTC initially campaigned against it being compulsory for cyclists to have lights at night - because they thought drivers should allow for cyclists not having lights and drive more carefully

[supermoon100]

Cyclists are great!
www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bikehugger.com/posts/cycling_can_save_world/amp/

[juneau]

Cyclists (and motor bikes) can be very hard to spot. I went on a speed awareness course a few years ago and the police instructors said it's because motorists aren't actually looking for them - they're looking for larger vehicles like cars, lorries, vans, etc. In other words, their brains aren't attuned to a profile of a smaller vehicle, such as a bike. Since that bit of info was given to me I've been much more aware of 'looking' for bikes/motor bikes.

Plus, there is the unpredictably of speed issue - some cyclists tootle long very slowly, but every now and again you have one bombing along fast and that often catches motorists unawares. I do think though that there should be more awareness of cyclists, more focus on looking for out for cyclists, and maybe a national campaign similar to the 'Think Bike' campaign that tries to alert motorists to bikers on the road.

[ShatnersWig]

I don't think the insurance comment is an old chestnut at all.

I have a small sailing dinghy I sail on rivers. I don't go out to sea. I have to pay a fee to British Waterways for pooting up and down the river Severn. I have to insure my dinghy. Costs me just over £100 per year.

A cyclist is far more likely to receive a serious or life changing injury or have their bike damaged than I am. I have also known people injured by cyclists knocking them flying when they were cycling where they shouldn't have been.

This isn't to say there are lots of good cyclists (although every day I see a many bad ones) but I don't see why they shouldn't have insurance as I do for my boat. As someone who used to work in insurance, I don't agree with Shots about risk and premiums.

[ShatnersWig]

Shots We could all produce photos of some silly cycle lanes. But there are many very good cycle lanes that money have been spent on. Every morning I drive beside a cycle lane, a good one, a wide one, set back about three feet from a road with a grass verge in between. Just two drives crossing it in a distance of some 1.5 miles. Never see a cyclist on it. They're all on the road. Where there are loads of potholes, sunken patches around drains, bus stops etc.

[ShotsFired]

@ShatnersWig Every morning I drive beside a cycle lane, a good one, a wide one, set back about three feet from a road with a grass verge in between. Just two drives crossing it in a distance of some 1.5 miles. Never see a cyclist on it. They're all on the road. Where there are loads of potholes, sunken patches around drains, bus stops etc.

So clearly there is a reason it is not being used - I doubt it is a collective bout of sheer bloody mindedness Why do you think it is? Would you be willing to share a maps link? If it is only 1.5miles long, that might be the reason itself.

Genuinely keen to understand, as smooth off road tarmac is a joy to ride on!

(And c'mon, some of those cycle paths are just silly/funny, no? )

[BoysofMelody]

Interestingly the CTC initially campaigned against it being compulsory for cyclists to have lights at night - because they thought drivers should allow for cyclists not having lights and drive more carefully

Interestingly they were also militantly opposed to cycle paths (because of the fear the cyclists would be forced off the roads) even now they're lukewarm on them.

[whatsthecomingoverthehill]

People have a go at "cyclists" (collectively) because of the actions of a few, and somehow use it as justification for drivers being dangerous. An analogy might be seeing someone playing russian roulette, and then thinking that because they're OK chancing it, it's OK if you hold the gun to their head and have a go too.

[Sarcomere]

I can't agree more with PPs and OP. My DP was killed 8 years ago by a motorist when he was out on his Sunday bike ride. Went to the spot where he was killed and it was a long straight stretch - about a mile, calculate average speed and the driver would have had 45 sec at least to see him and move over, AND it was a four lane highway and there were no other cars in the lane next to him (witness statement). DP was wearing a bright orange jersey (I fixated on that for a long time, it was SO visible). Didn't have lights because it was daytime, took it off his bike when he left, I asked why, he said no one would see it because it was daytime (now when I see cyclist using a light in daytime it kills me because it IS visible - so use the light!). Guess what his life was worth to a jury (I'm in the US)? A $500 ticket, not even reckless driving! The fact that it even went to trial was unusual.
Why? Well apart from being dumbfuck rural morons, all those other cyclists that run through red lights, ride in the middle of the road, do stupid stuff that piss off drivers had to have played into that decision. Not only do drivers just not see cyclists, even when they have ample opportunity, their experiences of arrogant cyclists mean they just don't care. Worst case scenario they target the cyclists. Another story; a friend of mine was out on a group ride. A motorist came close to the group and one of the cyclists sent a rude gesture his way. Guy went home, changed vehicle to a, what is called in the US a "truck" (we called it a Ute growing up in home country - basically big-assed vehicle), came back, found the group and ran them off the road. Thank goodness noone was seriously hurt. No matter how much a dumbass driver pisses us off, we're always going to lose in car vs bike. Swallow the rage, ride harder, and make it so that that driver doesn't have a negative experience with a cyclist and takes it out on the rest until the end of time. It's not taking the higher road, it's self-preservation.
That's the sensible part. I also think that everyone should have to commute on a bike for 2 years before being allowed to get a drivers license, which would also go a long way to solving the obesity problem...
I don't ride on the road anymore. Haven't for 8 years.

[BoysofMelody]

Sarcomere so sorry to hear about your husband and the paltry fine the person who killed him got.

[ShotsFired]

What BoysofMelody said to Sarcomere. Awful. Just awful.

Why? Well apart from being dumbfuck rural morons, all those other cyclists that run through red lights, ride in the middle of the road, do stupid stuff that piss off drivers had to have played into that decision. Not only do drivers just not see cyclists, even when they have ample opportunity, their experiences of arrogant cyclists mean they just don't care. Worst case scenario they target the cyclists.

I think you are spot on with this concept of "revenge".