Safe Speed Forums

Cyclists have the same duty to take positive action against actual or anticipated stupidity on the part of any other road user as those of us who ride motorcycles. It's the only way to stay alive.

Unfortunately they'll let any pillock loose on the public highway on a push-bike without so much as a test of knowledge of the highway code, whereas the training for a motorcyclist is more comprehensive even than that of a car driver, even through DAS.

What results is cyclists who incorrectly view themselves as half-pedestrian, half-motorist and will do all sorts of unpredictable things, moreso than any motorist, whilst lacking any training in anticipation and self-preservation.

This chap was lucky that his failure to leave himself safe margins for others' errors left him fit enough to punch a hole in a window!

Get a grip mate.

Would you care to elaborate?

yes.. actually i thought the chosen quote was one of his more rational statements

take your pick:
either you've not explained yourself very well,
she's the world's fastest cyclist
or you've not safely overtaken her and are now blaming her for it.

Yes I would. You're assuming the cyclist tried to squeeze past her car on the inside, while she was trying to squeeze through the gap between the right turning vehicle and the kerb.

Thats about the stupidist thing anybody could ever do on a bike. Its extremely unlikely.

In my experience, its more often than not the case that the cyclist was already about to pass on the inside the vehicle turning right, that the cyclist already had right of way, and that the woman in the car thought it would be a good idea to not see the cyclist, and almost knock him off his bike in her haste to get through the gap.

My take on hairyben's scenario is this: Motorist is trundling along in urban traffic, probably not much faster - if at all - than a cyclist a few car lengths behind them, but has up till now always been ahead of them. Motorist slows and drifts left in order to pass a vehicle to their right and, in the process of slowing down, allows cyclist to catch up. Cyclist attempts to continue filtering down the nearside into the narrowing gap...

I've seen it happen to others, and in a similar incident I nearly had a cyclist embed themselves in my nearside door when, having indicated for several seconds that I was about to make a left turn and then slowing to begin negotiating the corner, the cyclist behind me decided they'd prefer to maintain their speed and attempt to filter up my nearside rather than expend any energy in steering to overtake on my right, or slowing down for the few seconds it'd have taken me to get out of their way

_________________
Chris

The number of cyclists I've seen down here in Livingstonia doing/attempting to do stupid things is a non-insignificant number, and the number seems to be rising at an increasing rate. It just seems to be going hand in hand with the general increase in the level of muppetry I see in all road users no matter how many wheels they're on.

_________________
Chris

Hmm.

OK - so I do not know the full story - only what is reported here.

However, if Olive failed to see the cyclist then it justifies why I consistently say that awreness of al COAST skills are vital to ALL road users.

Yes - Olive should have seen the cyclsit and held back behind him if she intended to turn left.

But .. regardless of the right or wrong of the situation and I have also been "cut up" by these drivers who see the larger hazard ahead in the form of a right turner, long vehicle .. but their glance fails to take in the left or near side.. as the larger "hazard" will appear more "obvious" to him or her.

She was not "speeding" as she was slowing to turn left. So "speed" was not the problem here by this newspaper account.

But a significant fail in skill or the COAST skills was the problem.. and one thing about COAST if taught properly - it's a very focused and systematic style of driving.

But the "suddenly and nowheres" do occur when driver attention focusses on the more "prominent" hazard and fails sweep the glance around the entire area. This gives some credence to some research chucked out for debate only by one Uni last year which theorised that we will take in just three salient facts thoroughly when driving or riding. The rest would be observed by the subconscious on auto-survival mode or not seen at all which leads to an incident.

However, if he had fallen - doubt very much he could have caught the car and smashed it. I have fallen of bikes.. believe me - you are winded, bit embarrassed at a fall and you have gravel rash and cuts. Legging after a "speeding car" and having the strength to smash a window as reported with "a fist"" does not seem very likely.

I hope he's caught and we hear his "side of the story" in the press...

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

I'm not assuming anything "mate".

My point is that more vulnerable road users such as motorcyclists and cyclists have to make allowances for those who's perception can become numbed by the safe metal cage they reside in if they want to live long healthy lives.

It's equally likely that car and bike approached the rear of car turning right, the woman slowed and did not initially change direction whilst the bike saw the gapand proceeded towards it; he was then caught unawares when the woman turned into it.

I'm not making an issue of blame here, but making the point that people do less than sensible or completely predictable things on the roads with alarming regularity, and if one's sense of self preservation is to keep oneself from falling foul of them, then a certain buffer must be allowed.

As an example, when filtering on a motorbike between two lanes of traffic, I can proceed quite confidently when the 4-wheelers are nose to tail, but if I see a gap opening in front of a vehicle then I will throttle back and cover my brakes in case anyone should try to use the space to switch lanes. See the opportunity for stupidity, assume someone is going to avail themselves of it and act accordingly, you can't go far wrong. It's your own life and you stand to gain nothing from blaming them if you're dead!

pretty much like said. something many cyclists keep doing is if you're doing 14mph in traffic and they're doing 14¼mph they will try to creep pass, rather than sit behind you out of the danger zone for a few moments until your speed either drops for them to pass safely or you speed up. when I started to brake she was probably a car or two behind, and has crept up the inside in the moments I've been lined the space up.

My "failing" is to have preoccupied momentarily so as not to account for her illegal idiotic & careless cycling, but here's a point- I do see that as a failing on my part, (not an admission of guilt, but something I could have done better) wheras she is content to scream abuse and blame, blame, blame, at least until she pulls the stunt on someone who squashes her flat. but hey, at least she'll make a healthy donor.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

I hate to be pedantic, but you did. You said he was lucky that 'his failure to...' - you assumed his failings contributed to the incident. Despite there being no evidence of any failings on his part whatsoever.

something many motorists keep doing is if you're doing 14mph in traffic and they're doing 14¼mph they will try to creep pass, rather than sit behind you out of the danger zone for a few moments until your speed either drops for them to pass safely or you speed up.... and then when they're 2 inches in front of you they'll swerve into the curb as though you don't exist.



illegal? No. Careless? Possibly - she should have noticed that yet another motorist was about to cut her up rather than wait a few seconds and hung back.

Every day on the road one or other happens like that to me .Even if I am as fast as the car in front .Going in the pirmary position does help, but not always

Every accident is the result of a chain of events, the person who is 'at fault' is not the only one capable of breaking a link in this chain and avoiding the accident. More vulnerable road users who live to be little old more vulnerable road users have to regularly make allowances for others to break the accident chain which would otherwise result in them coming out worse. This chap obviously didn't break the chain, since the event occurred.

Can your pedantry pick fault with that statement even with continued obtusity?

If you think that being free of 'blame' and 'fault' will keep you alive on the roads as a more vulnerable user then I suggest you go out and buy a chelsea tractor quick, before you get squished!

I think - I hope - I can bridge the gap between you two here. It's mainly a question of perspective.

When there's a crash between two road users, the typical situation is that one road user made a mistake and the other failed to avoid the first's mistake. 'Blame' may well not be shared, but responsibility usually is. It's a great shame that we're quick to calculate blame - if we weren't so quick then we would learn more about how to avoid the situation next time.

I think RobinXe's post which started the exchange is worded in such a way that misunderstandings were easy. I read it first and thought 'oh dear'. Then I read it again and understood the intention.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Quite easily. If you were cycling past a vehicle turning right, and somebody drove up behind you, on a busy road, and ducked in almost knocking you off, how would you deal with that?

Get in the middle of the gap? Been there, done that. No effect. Car just takes greater risks.

Cycle backwards?

Mount the kerb?

Stop suddenly?


Asking somebody in that position to 'break the chain' is ridiculous. Its like saying being rear-ended is always preventable.

yup, they sure do, and those motorists are called ****holes



illegal- yes, unless you can show me in the highway code where it's okay for a cyclist to a) undertake with b) about 6" clearance either side without c) the nessecary speed to pass safely. And careless- well perhaps not, in the view of the idiot variety of cyclist where all blame is on the motorist I guess I must have nearly "cut her up", it's not her responsibilty to read the road ahead and account for what motorists might do is it? Anyone can buy a bike and ride it without any kind of test, so therefore it's the motorists responsibility to look out for what they do.

which motorists do you blame when all those bikes fall over each other on the tour de france?

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or can you genuinely not see the issue here.

The cyclist in your above example would break the chain by not placing themselves into a situation where they were likely to find themself vying with a car for the same bit of space. Whats a 30 second wait compared to life as a vegetable?

Your list of options above are all last second, last ditch efforts once its all started going wrong, the chain could easily have been broken at a far earlier stage with sufficient observation and anticipation. Cyclists, like bikers, cannot afford to let events on the road 'happen to them', they have to work a little harder to become masters of their own destiny, and not put themselves at locations in space and time where accidents are more likely to occur, since they are likely to come off worse.

So what could our subject cyclist have done in this instance? Been aware of a car in close proximity to him, and anticipated that they would both be heading for the same gap, and dropped back, slowed down, given himself more time to build situational awareness. Whatever the law says, a car has right of way to a survivor, by virtue of the fact that it's big hard and heavy and can ruin your day. What else to do to make the chain less able to build? Use lights day and night, wear high-viz clothing whenever riding, and wear a helmet (which may not break the chain before the accident, but may well break it before death!). These are all things that are second nature to bikers, and once you've kissed that metal cage and departed from the saddle, the tarmac makes no distinction between what sort of vehicle you've just fallen off!

If you cycle regularly, and you genuinely cannot see what the cyclist in this, or pretty much any, accident could have done to increase his chances of dying of old age, then I think a very good idea would be to take some motorcycle training (if you can afford it) even if you never plan to ride one again, and even advanced training, to learn what skilled, safe riders go through to ensure they stay that way. Time, hassle, money you're thinking, why should I have to go out of my way to compensate for the shortcomings of others you might ask, well at the end of the day, it all comes down to what value you put on your life.

Which is a very valid point.

At my work we have long departed the 'blame culture' in order to promote maximum 'corporate learning' from each and every accident. 'Pilot error' is no longer a cause, but instead 'human factors', since it could normally happen to anyone. Every incident is widely publicised within all three services, to maximise the learning.

The only thing is, there is never any doubt who's paying for repairs/replacement, Auntie Beth always foots the bill as it were. In a road accident someone has to pay for the damages, and noone wants to, so open honest reporting can seldom take place in the way it does in the air, where most accounts of non-fatals are either written by, or include input from, the handling pilot.