Your bad driving encounters

[tom_e]

There's a cyclist I come across on my morning commute every now and again, nice big portable sun strapped to the front so you definitely can't miss them.
Unfortunately they've not considered where it's pointing so as they're cycling along the path coming towards you all you can see for a few seconds after they pass is the image burned into your retinas.

 

[Rroff]

There's a cyclist I come across on my morning commute every now and again, nice big portable sun strapped to the front so you definitely can't miss them.
Unfortunately they've not considered where it's pointing so as they're cycling along the path coming towards you all you can see for a few seconds after they pass is the image burned into your retinas.

Before I moved house I used to encounter one quite a bit, often on the same corner, with a powerful flashing light on the front which was directed right into your eyes meaning you were instantly dazzled making it more likely you'd hit the cyclist :s

Fortunately I now drive in/out from the opposite direction and don't encounter them.

 

[Trifid]

Personally I'd say the increased visibility outweighs that, the studies also seem to be based on people's image perception and trying to correlate that to observed behaviours rather than people's perception as a driver and what the actual drivers of those behaviours around cyclists actually are.

So do you advocate for anything other then the least effective method at improving safety (PPE)? Personally I'd like to see a bigger effort placed on the more effective steps above this (administrative controls and engineering controls).

 

[Rroff]

So do you advocate for anything other then the least effective method at improving safety (PPE)? Personally I'd like to see a bigger effort placed on the more effective steps above this (administrative controls and engineering controls).

Controls have to be robust top to bottom (as appropriate) for anything to work, but I work in an industry which relies on PPE working as intended and it does work - in the context of high vis someone or a hazard is identified around 2-3 seconds earlier in nominal conditions never mind the difference in the dark regardless of any other attitudes or controls. I think it a bit of a fallacy to see PPE being near the bottom of the hierarchy as being the least effective and that is all there is to it.

It drives me crazy regularly at work as for instance we have areas with fire shutters which are marked out with hazard stripes and yet a good number of people will lazily leave stuff in the way of them operating and even if you take them to task about it they'll go along with it for about 2 weeks before not bothering themselves about it any more. Attitudes need to change wholesale.

Personally I don't believe in all this high vis dehumanisation stuff - I think the dehumanisation is increasingly a product of society as a whole. Ultimately one of the big issues is that the roads these days are far too busy and populated far too much by larger vehicles for cyclists to be in the mix and we need to do something about that - but that would cost money and mean effort so it'll never happen.

 

[Trifid]

Personally I don't believe in all this high vis dehumanisation stuff - I think the dehumanisation is increasingly a product of society as a whole. Ultimately one of the big issues is that the roads these days are far too busy and populated far too much by larger vehicles for cyclists to be in the mix and we need to do something about that - but that would cost money and mean effort so it'll never happen.

And we end up with the lazy option of saying 'he should have been wearing high viz', completely ignoring the drivers not wearing glasses when they need it, racing around the roads like there will be no obstacles in their way, as it is their right to be on the road as they 'pay road tax'. And as you put it, the roads are too busy, and cars are getting too big, compounding the issue of too much traffic. I'd much rather see controls put in place to encourage cycling in towns and cities and make the roads less busy. There are many obstacles on the road that are not wearing high vis and people need to adjust their driving and not blindly crash into them.

 

[Resident]

There's a cyclist I come across on my morning commute every now and again, nice big portable sun strapped to the front so you definitely can't miss them.
Unfortunately they've not considered where it's pointing so as they're cycling along the path coming towards you all you can see for a few seconds after they pass is the image burned into your retinas.

Before I moved house I used to encounter one quite a bit, often on the same corner, with a powerful flashing light on the front which was directed right into your eyes meaning you were instantly dazzled making it more likely you'd hit the cyclist :s

Fortunately I now drive in/out from the opposite direction and don't encounter them.

Personally I think it's something that needs legislating.

I often encounter cyclists with lights flashing at rates I've not seen outside the Hacienda in the 90s.

Current laws around cyclists don't seem to have ever had an update yet motor vehicles have had update after update as new lighting tech has progressed.

It's time there were clear rules for lighting for cyclists.

- Static (except for indicators if fitted) lights,
- Bicycle mounted
- Beam pointed at the floor no more than 10metres ahead.

Those would be my choice.

 

[Rroff]

And we end up with the lazy option of saying 'he should have been wearing high viz', completely ignoring the drivers not wearing glasses when they need it, racing around the roads like there will be no obstacles in their way, as it is their right to be on the road as they 'pay road tax'. And as you put it, the roads are too busy, and cars are getting too big, compounding the issue of too much traffic. I'd much rather see controls put in place to encourage cycling in towns and cities and make the roads less busy. There are many obstacles on the road that are not wearing high vis and people need to adjust their driving and not blindly crash into them.

Sure there are a lot of people who use it to try and excuse their poor standards of driving but it shouldn't be seen as a lazy option - high vis does make a huge difference even to drivers who are paying attention, especially at night. And you can't really expect anything else to work if people are still arguing against high vis.

I don't see any realistic ways in this day and age to reduce traffic to an extent which would make cycling more attractive and safer - we shun things like working from home where possible, things like house pricing has forced people to live further away from where they work, where they shop, where their kids go to school, etc. the high streets are dead, public transport still mostly revolves around a 9-5 kind of life when fewer people live to those kind of patterns. Throwing up obstacles to make it difficult for people to try and reduce it that way is just backwards and stupid.

We've got someone at work who regularly cycles into work and sounds off quite a bit about how everyone else should be doing it - but the reality is for example ~20% of my team are women in their 60s who live about 3 miles away, another ~20% will never have a health and fitness level which would make walking or cycling to work a reality, I live a 30 minute drive away, etc.

 

[Trifid]

Sure there are a lot of people who use it to try and excuse their poor standards of driving but it shouldn't be seen as a lazy option - high vis does make a huge difference even to drivers who are paying attention, especially at night. And you can't really expect anything else to work if people are still arguing against high vis.

I don't see any realistic ways in this day and age to reduce traffic to an extent which would make cycling more attractive and safer - we shun things like working from home where possible, things like house pricing has forced people to live further away from where they work, where they shop, where their kids go to school, etc. the high streets are dead, public transport still mostly revolves around a 9-5 kind of life when fewer people live to those kind of patterns. Throwing up obstacles to make it difficult for people to try and reduce it that way is just backwards and stupid.

We've got someone at work who regularly cycles into work and sounds off quite a bit about how everyone else should be doing it - but the reality is for example ~20% of my team are women in their 60s who live about 3 miles away, another ~20% will never have a health and fitness level which would make walking or cycling to work a reality, I live a 30 minute drive away, etc.

You ignore the huge amount of progress that has happened in London, cycling is not just some strange oddity that only happens in Amsterdam. It is possible to get people cycling, but brave steps need to be made first to make it mainstream. It is lazy to just say just where high vis, it puts all the responsibility on the cyclist while ignoring the driver who is being reckless in a 2 tonne machine (and the whole point of this thread!).

Today is our formal work in the office day, it starts how every Wednesday starts with a rant about how busy the roads are. I cycled in which is all on shared paths or quiet streets and complete the return journey faster then it will take to drive it. People cling on to cars like their life depends on it and claim they could never cycle 3 miles. The reality is, they can't be bothered and would rather rant about the cyclist ahead of them slowing everyone down and not wearing high vis (but clearly saw them without it!). The reality is, everyone in their cars is slowing them down, and then one of them crashes and no one gets anywhere fast, which is what happened on Monday when we went to another site, I left my 500hp car on the driveway and jumped on the train as I always do for this site and everyone else complained about how it took over an hour to drive less then 10 miles in.

 

[Rroff]

You ignore the huge amount of progress that has happened in London, cycling is not just some strange oddity that only happens in Amsterdam. It is possible to get people cycling, but brave steps need to be made first to make it mainstream. It is lazy to just say just where high vis, it puts all the responsibility on the cyclist while ignoring the driver who is being reckless in a 2 tonne machine (and the whole point of this thread!).

Today is our formal work in the office day, it starts how every Wednesday starts with a rant about how busy the roads are. I cycled in which is all on shared paths or quiet streets and complete the return journey faster then it will take to drive it. People cling on to cars like their life depends on it and claim they could never cycle 3 miles. The reality is, they can't be bothered and would rather rant about the cyclist ahead of them slowing everyone down and not wearing high vis (but clearly saw them without it!). The reality is, everyone in their cars is slowing them down, and then one of them crashes and no one gets anywhere fast, which is what happened on Monday when we went to another site, I left my 500hp car on the driveway and jumped on the train as I always do for this site and everyone else complained about how it took over an hour to drive less then 10 miles in.

I'm not really ignoring it - it is just hard to replicate outside of London or other built up urban areas in the style more frequently found in places like the Netherlands.

 

[Trifid]

I'm not really ignoring it - it is just hard to replicate outside of London or other built up urban areas in the style more frequently found in places like the Netherlands.

And so you say, do the easy thing and just through a high vis vest at it and let cyclists fend for themselves while drivers get more frustrated pushing through traffic and race around the rat runs which cyclists are pushed towards too. Engineering separation would be a much more effective option. In my experience, the only effective lighting control is a really bright front light when it is dark. High visibility has not been effective, if anything all the frothing at the mouth about those who don't wear it proves drivers take more note without wearing it.

 

[Rroff]

Engineering separation would be a much more effective option.

Again though I don't know how you make that a reality, short of spending massive amounts on huge infrastructure changes and/or massive controlling of things like house prices and working practises, outside of areas like London and even there it is far from perfect. Throwing obstacles in front of people who have no realistic reasonable choices to try and force change is just stupid and backwards.

EDIT: It is an interesting comparison to the past where for example the town I grew up in the council bought up properties between the 50s and 60s and in the 70s they demolished a significant proportion of the town and built a dual-carriageway through it and other infrastructure updates to make the town work better - something you'd never see happen today https://www.yeovilhistory.info/queensway.htm

 

[Resident]

You ignore the huge amount of progress that has happened in London, cycling is not just some strange oddity that only happens in Amsterdam. It is possible to get people cycling, but brave steps need to be made first to make it mainstream. It is lazy to just say just where high vis, it puts all the responsibility on the cyclist while ignoring the driver who is being reckless in a 2 tonne machine (and the whole point of this thread!).

Today is our formal work in the office day, it starts how every Wednesday starts with a rant about how busy the roads are. I cycled in which is all on shared paths or quiet streets and complete the return journey faster then it will take to drive it. People cling on to cars like their life depends on it and claim they could never cycle 3 miles. The reality is, they can't be bothered and would rather rant about the cyclist ahead of them slowing everyone down and not wearing high vis (but clearly saw them without it!). The reality is, everyone in their cars is slowing them down, and then one of them crashes and no one gets anywhere fast, which is what happened on Monday when we went to another site, I left my 500hp car on the driveway and jumped on the train as I always do for this site and everyone else complained about how it took over an hour to drive less then 10 miles in.

For me, cycling to work and back isn't viable.

12 mile journey, 11 of those being a dual carriageway on which cycling is prohibited. To cycle would add a further 4 miles.

I travel to/from work often at 3am, in all weathers, in my work attire.

By car I'm safe, warm and clean and there inside 25 mins. Cycling would take over an hour according to Google & I'd arrive, needing to get changed.

Cycling would add over 2 hours to an already long day.

 

[Rroff]

For me, cycling to work and back isn't viable.

12 mile journey, 11 of those being a dual carriageway on which cycling is prohibited. To cycle would add a further 4 miles.

I travel to/from work often at 3am, in all weathers, in my work attire.

By car I'm safe, warm and clean and there inside 25 mins. Cycling would take over an hour according to Google & I'd arrive, needing to get changed.

Cycling would add over 2 hours to an already long day.

Similar for me - just over 12 mile journey, nominally around 30 minutes with normal traffic conditions, or an estimated 1 hour 27 minutes cycling - which with the hills I think is ambitious - never mind it would be taking my life in my hands due to the roads, road conditions and traffic :s I have no clue why anyone would ever cycle those roads given what those that do must experience - I'm frequently 1 of like 2-3 cars out of 10 who'll actually wait for a good place to pass and pass giving them proper space.