Biggest Threats to Cyclists?

Cycrow

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

What about if the way you're riding covers them up? I've seen women with chunky high heels wedge the pedal into the gap between sole and heel.

i dont think the law actually states they need to be visible, just that they are there.

its the only law i break when on my bike because i use SPD's which dont have any space for reflectors. My shoes do have reflectors on them however.

MacMickster

As both a car user and a cyclist, I came across this thread and thought it worth repeating a post that I made on a thread about bad driving (with minor amendment).

Generally a bad driver/cyclist is anyone who sees faults in the driving of everyone else around them, but none in their own.

Cars/bikes are driven by people. You and everyone else are fallible and make mistakes. You and everyone else are effected by tiredness, illness emotional problems. Some people are !!!!heads.

Drive/ride in a way that you give yourself time and space to react to mistakes, whether by you or someone else.

There is only one good driver/cyclist on the road - ME (but refer to the first paragraph of my definition of a bad driver/cyclist).

The key part is to anticipate and give yourself time to react to mistakes or bad driving/cycling by others. This is far more important when cycling as you are far more vulnerable. I doubt that being self-righteous that a collision was not your fault is much consolation if you are seriously injured or worse.

Its all very well ranting about bad drivers and cyclists, but at the end of the day the majority of them are still going to be out there on the roads, so YOU should drive/ride in a way that makes it less likely that you will end up as their victim.

Altarf

Cycrow wrote: »

Thats actually a stupid rule.

as the law says the reflector must be on the pedals themselves, so you could have them on shoes or legs or anything, even thou the end result is the same

It is quite a sensible rule because it means that the bike will have suitable reflectors whoever is riding it and irrespective of what they are wearing.

But for a law to enforced, who cares. If people choose to tamper with their own bike to remove a safety feature that makes them more visible, then so be it. They are not causing anyone else any harm, only increasing their own risk of death.

Kite2010

This goes out to the cyclist riding along a main NSL road at 5:20 this evening, no lights on the bike, and wearing dark clothing...

...do you have a death wish or something?

Cycrow

Altarf wrote: »

It is quite a sensible rule because it means that the bike will have suitable reflectors whoever is riding it and irrespective of what they are wearing.

But for a law to enforced, who cares. If people choose to tamper with their own bike to remove a safety feature that makes them more visible, then so be it. They are not causing anyone else any harm, only increasing their own risk of death.

its stupid because it makes no allowances for different situations.
what should it matter where the reflectors are attached to as long as they are there ?

say you have 2 cyclists, one has pedal reflectors, but are not very visible because they are obscured by thier shoes, and a 2nd who uses SPD's and thier shoes have very visible reflectors on.

clearly, the 2nd cyclist would be more visible and therefore safer, but the law favours the first, less safe cyclist, which is why it makes no sense. Surely the law should be about safety.

and if you have SPD's you will be riding the bike with SPD shoes on, so you will have reflectors anyways.

plus the fact that the law is not enforced at all, so why have a law if its never going to be enforced.

moving the reflectors from the pedals to the shoes does not make them less safe

Avoriaz

I saw a cyclist last night with a very bright rear light.

It was just a shame that his coat covered it up. :rotfl:

I could see the bright red glow from the front reflected off the lining of his coat but he was more or less invisible from the rear.

sdavies13

Avoriaz wrote: »

I saw a cyclist last night with a very bright rear light.

It was just a shame that his coat covered it up. :rotfl:

I could see the bright red glow from the front reflected off the lining of his coat but he was more or less invisible from the rear.

Hmmm, I rode home (hopefully only a small part of the way) with no rear lights the other night.

I had started out with two rear lights attached but somewhere along the way the batteries in my old light had gone flat and my new light had managed to fall off the bike (Exposure Flare, assume the rubber bungie cord which attaches it had come undone).

I still had a reflector on my mud guard and reflective strips on my jacket, tights and shoes.

Just annoyed about the Flare, they are not cheap lights...

gazza_d

Read though this thread and the biggest threat to cyclists... is impatient/ignorant/careless/arrogant drivers, some of whom think they own the road.

Luckily I don't encounter arrogance much, but do get people pull out on me despite looking straight at me all the time. I get a mad number of passes by drivers who clearly do not know what safe passing distance is ( you should allow a cars width actually). I have had drivers argue that I should not be on the road. Drivers who seem determined not to slow or stop and don't want to lose any momentum at all are also a threat.

I understand why some people who walk get surprised by cyclists. On a shared path, when I come up behind people I either ring my bell from a distance or shout excuse me, often followed by which side I will pass on. This is not out of arrogance but to try not to surprise them and to give warning. Occasionally if I cycle the footway beside a road because it is safer than the road, I will always give way to pedestrians. I have never yet had an argument with a pedestrian.

As for registration, taxation, testing - That has all really stopped all the vehicle collisions and speeding. red light jumping, mobile phone use, all of which are very prevalent and getting more common.

Training is good, and should be compulsory as part of school education, and as part of the driving licence requirement as cycling gives a much more intimate and immersive road using experience.

helmets and hiviz campaigns are usually just to try and push the onus of responsibility onto the vulnerable, as an excuse for not having drivers look. If they are THAT crucial to road safety then why aren't cars hi-viz? Actually plenty of drivers fail to see ambulances, and roadworks vehicles etc in plenty of time.

Helmets are simply not designed for protection against road collisions. They are hardly used in places like The Netherlands and Denmark where cycling is a normal activity by the masses.

DCFC79

Biggest threat to cyclists is themselves, I continually see a few early mornings with no lights, hi viz and they expect other drivers to see them on the road.

armyknife

DCFC79 wrote: »

Biggest threat to cyclists is themselves, I continually see a few early mornings with no lights, hi viz and they expect other drivers to see them on the road.

What a load of tosh.