You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Ossum work from the bus driver !
Yay. Nice bus driver for a change.
Top stuff.
Why was the guy cycling down the middle of, what seems quite a wide, lane?
Well done that man.
I thought that, I guess he has the right to use the whole lane, but that seemed like taking the mick.
Still was good observation from the bus driver to spot it in his rear view mirrors
I guess he was tryng to prevent being smeared up the big ****off concrete wall to his right as some arse tried to overtake without leaving enough space, though I admit it ddin't quite go to plan - what with some arse trying to overtake without changing course at all 😉
Why was the guy cycling down the middle of, what seems quite a wide, lane?
Because it's safer.
Why would it be so much effort to move into the other lane to overtake?
[i]Why was the guy cycling down the middle of, what seems quite a wide, lane?[/i]
Because its not wide enough for cars to pass safely, so you ride in the middle to make them change lanes properly, rather than squeeze past alongside other traffic. Its the same technique you should use at pinch points/traffic islands to avoid been squeezed. Also, from the end of the video it would appear the signs encourage cyclists to do this on the bridge.
It looks like the black car overtook the silver car in front, and then when the bus pulled out round the cyclist, the black car swerved back into the inside lane and booted it to undertake the bus, but being close to the bus would have obscured his view. The car was alongside the bus at impact so the bus probably only stopped when he realised the driver was leaving the scene.
I don't see how it is safer. Looked like it wasn't for him...
Why was the guy cycling down the middle of, what seems quite a wide, lane?
seemed like taking the mick
so he didn't get squeezed into the high concrete walls?
lane isn't wide enough for cars to safely pass without changing lane
Why was the guy cycling down the middle of, what seems quite a wide, lane?
Watch the end of the vid and a sign comes up to say cyclists can use full lane 🙂
The car would have hit him wherever he was in the lane, at least in the middle he is more visible.
It appears the video has been edited to miss out the last few seconds, I wonder if the bus cut up the car (who was accelerating in the previous view) causing it to swerve into the nearside lane.
Obviously this would turn the bus driver from hero into a possible antagonising factor, although he still did well by stopping the car.
It appears the video has been edited to miss out the last few seconds, I wonder if the bus cut up the car (who was accelerating in the previous view) causing it to swerve into the nearside lane.
I wondered about that too
As you can't see the bike's position from the "zoomed-in backwards shot" it's not clear whether the bus moved out really late or not (wasn't indicating as it passed out of shot though, I don't think)
My guess is that car went to undertake, and that's good enough for a hangin' , surely ?
What is glaringly obvious is the late lane changes and shit observation of the cars that were in the 1st shot 🙄
[i]My guess is that car went to undertake, and that's good enough for a hangin' , surely ?[/i]
I'm not sure if its a general rule in all states, and whether its just freeways, but you can pass on both sides in the USA.
Why was the guy cycling down the middle of, what seems quite a wide, lane?
[img]
[/img]Jeez and I thought this was a [b]CYCLING[/b] forum.
spooky, that certainly appears to be general "rule" in california
regardless, weaving at late notice (if that's what it was) is 🙄
My guess is that car went to undertake, and that's good enough for a hangin' , surely ?
possible i couldn't quite work out what happened at that point
undertaking is the norm in US - not sure what rule would be on a 2 lane highway but on multilane is positively encouraged
Why not stop it with the arrogance Graham?
I am guessing you will advocate his cycling well beyond the half way point of the lane?
Uh oh. [b]Bold[/b], CAPITALS and an amusing meme. I am in trouble.
I am guessing you will advocate his cycling well beyond the half way point of the lane?
I don't understand what difference it makes where he is in the lane when there's a whole other lane, which is exactly where you should be overtaking regardless of the cyclists position?
Especially when there's signs explicitly advising cyclists to take the middle of the lane.
I do.
I am guessing you will advocate his cycling well beyond the half way point of the lane?
yes he drifts off centre of lane a bit - its a bridge could be windy or could be he got what he deserved
Al, he's not even flirting - never mind proposingcynic-al - Member
I do
cynic-al - MemberI don't see how it is safer. Looked like it wasn't for him...
thats right. Despite it being explained to you many times you don't see it.
1) you are more visible in the centre of the lane - you are in the central part of the drivers vision not the periphery
2) a car driver has to overtake properly - they cannot attempt to squeeze past you without changing lanes
3) it gives you room to escape to the inside if someone does come too close.
4) it keeps you out of the dirt and rubble in the gutter
Why not stop it with the arrogance Graham?
Here is a fellow cyclist being run down by a impaitent ****t in a car,
and it seems the main drift is "how dare this man impeed the progress of the great God car, how dare he use the road".
Shrugs and walks off, shaking head..
Walks off from thread too...let him argue to himself 😆
Cycle on the pavement or choose the dual-carriageway between 2 concrete walls?
Having driven a lot in the States and seen the (lack of) quality of their driving - I'd take the pavement.
May I suggest putting the speculation and handbags away just for a moment and reading the article, maybe?
It has little nuggets like...
The juvenile offender has been the first in Bethlehem, and perhaps the state, to be charged under a new section of Pennsylvania law that provides additional protection for cyclists on our roadways. The section took effect at 12:01 a.m. on the date of the crash. The section is, in pertinent part:§ 3303. Overtaking vehicle on the left.
(a) General rule.--The following rules shall govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction, subject to the limitations, exceptions and special rules stated in this chapter:
(3) The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking a pedalcycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of the pedalcycle within not less than four feet at a careful and prudent reduced speed.?In addition, the juvenile offender has been charged in Northampton County Juvenile Court with:
§ 3742(a) - Accidents Involving Death or Personal Injury (M2)
§ 3334(a) - Turning Movements and Required Signals
Then resume the debate with a smattering of "facts".
Pfft. You can prove "anything" with "facts".
...Pennsylvania...
...Bethlehem...
...Northampton...
Regardless, it was truly an international affair.
You can **** right off with your facts, the world needs more pointless arguments
forgot to say earlier
Jamie, 😉
Hey, I didn't quote it all! Or even repost the link!!! Wouldn't even dream of trying to be "definitive" on here 😉
TJ you are answering a point that I have not made. Please read my point and don't misrepresent me.
Graham, I think people here are ROAD USERS, most cyclists, many drivers...perhaps some are capable of reaching a balanced view?
If I were the cyclist, I think I'd have taken a look at the traffic, jumped off and pushed it down the pavement.
But the chap's allowed to use the road, so why shouldn't he? The law is there to protect that right. If we all looked at traffic like that and said "Nah, not today," we'd basically be forfeiting that right ourselves. Then we'd be pedestrians. Which I tried, and its ok, I don't want to insult any people who walk. Or people who can't either, if you can't walk that's fine too. Basically, walking or not walking is acceptable to me. I don't mean I tolerate it, I mean its not something that I make judgements of 'right' and 'wrong' against. If you're walking or not walking, then keep at it. Unless you decide to stop/start walking, respectively. I won't be found to be dismissive of people's rights to change their mind about how they choose to apply Newton's laws of motion.
I wonder if peeps would feel the same if it was the m25, motorist "a" pootling along in inside lane, car rear ends him and drives off, because car"a" wasnt going fast enough, al because car a was allowed to go slower than the other traffic and use the middle of the lane.
Which vehicle is playing the bus in this scenario?*
*Are buses allowed on motorways?
That situation was completely retarded, the law is giving these idiots a false sense of righteousness and security.
If you cycle in the middle of the lane the car directly behind you can see you yes, but when it swerves to avoid you the car behind then has you appear from knowhere.
That cyclist should never have been on that road, they should make the pedestrian walk way open to cyclists, far better to have a collision between a pedestrian and cyclist than a cyclist and a speeding car, I say this simply because of the speed that the cars are moving at on that road and how busy it is, when reality meets fantasy and delusionment, it doesn't give a **** about the law!
The motorist should indicate and move out past the cyclist, a following vehicle should be driving at a safe distance to be able to do likewise.
an easy method would be to create a new cycle lane on the right.
1) you are more visible in the centre of the lane - you are in the central part of the drivers vision not the periphery2) a car driver has to overtake properly - they cannot attempt to squeeze past you without changing lanes
3) it gives you room to escape to the inside if someone does come too close.
4) it keeps you out of the dirt and rubble in the gutter
the risk is a car will drive into the back of you who has not seen you and they have no room to squeeze past so you get rear ended.
When this happens the fat you can be better seen will have failed, they wont have time to overtake, you dont escape and the rubble is irrelevantI do this sometimes but that does not look like a place I would do it but I cant really tell how wide each lane is tbh
It all depends TJ and the fact they got hit would tend to suggest it did not work this time.
YMMV and every situation is different and I would do what is safest in that situation. I am not sure middle of the lane of a fast moving section of dual carriageway is the ideal place tbh even if I am allowed
If you cycle in the middle of the lane the car directly behind you can see you yes, but when it swerves to avoid you the car behind then has you appear from knowhere.
I didn't think the traffic looked like it was moving that fast. I encounter a lot of seriously fast traffic on semi-rural roads and that looked timid in comparison. But....half the drivers in that video looked blind. I don't get why they had to wait until they only had a few feet to spare before pulling out.
And for that reason I think I'd take the walkway too. But massive respect to anyone who takes on these roads. As pointed out above, whenever you step down, you're pretty much saying, 'you're right guys, cycling's a waste of time. We just get in your way and endanger ourselves. I'll start taking the bus from now on...'
That [s]cyclist[/s] driver should never [s]have been[/s] be allowed on that road again
FTFY - you seem to have got confused about who is at fault here.
The motorist should indicate and move out past the cyclist, a following vehicle should be driving at a safe distance to be able to do likewise.
That cyclist should never have been on that road
just down the road from me the sheffield council are putting a shared use cycle track on a less than 1.5m wide pavement presumably because cars need the two lanes adjacent to maintain speed and can't be trusted to observe other road users
in the video the footbridge is busy and narrow - a lot narrower than the 4 lanes given to vehicles
so a cyclist is obeying the law cycling on a road gets knocked down by a tailgating* driver who then tries to leave the scene of his crime
and the cyclist gets slagged off on here?
i think some people must be in a sulk because the easter bunny didnt leave them an choccy eggs?- either that or they are upset because that cyclist dont pay no road tax!
*imho tailgating is only carried out by fuktards
Kimbers - its typical on here. Nothing must get in the way of the great god car.
LOL.
Hardly anyone's slagged off the cyclist, enough to turn the forum into a petrol-head hot-bed. 🙄
I'd say the views expressed are quite balanced.
Why blindly support cyclists anyway? We are all ROAD USERS.
That is simply not true as kaesae has pointed out.1) you are more visible in the centre of the lane - you are in the central part of the drivers vision not the periphery
The car driver is at fault but I have to agree with some other posters that cycling on stretches of road like that is always going to be very hazardous because of muppets behind the wheel. The best defensive riding ie. self-preservation would be to avoid those circumstances altogether.
That is not excusing poor driving but you have to be realistic and being in the right but dead doesn't do anyone any good.
Woody - it is true tho. Its one of the main reasons for using the primary position. People only take notice of what is in the centre of their vision - you would still be hidden by the car just behind you if you were in the gutter and there still would be no room to pass safely.
However - I probably would not cycle over that bridge on the road - a very dangerous road design for cyclists.
wow, hit by a car and 1 minute later the police are there. That's better than here too!
Exactly! And by cycling in the middle of the lane you are precisely in the centre of vision and hidden by the car directly behind you. By cycling towards the right of the lane in this case (and I'm not advocating cycling in the gutter but an appropriate distance from the kerb/wall) the drivers 2 cars + behind have a better chance of seeing you in what is still the centre of their vision as you will be at least 30-50 yards ahead unless the car drivers are all tail-gating each other.People only take notice of what is in the centre of their vision
tj he is riding where you suggest and he got hit by a car...this would seem to negate your argument that
People only take notice of what is in the centre of their vision
- you would still be hidden by the car just behind you if you were in the gutter and there still would be no room to pass safely.
there is also more room than if you are in the middle of the lane where YOU WILL GET HIT IF THEY DONT SEE YOU they cannot swerve out of your way. Not saying I would like to be buzzed but I prefer it to being run over.
no one is saying the driver is not at fault nor are they saying the car is king all anyone seems to be doing is debating which riding technique is most likely to leave you not being hit. Disagreeing with your view is not praising the car , calling the cyclst or anything else you wish to tar those who disagree with you as.
Woody if you ride to the side you will still be obscured by a car in the same way and when you are not obscured you will be out of the central vision. Draw it out and have a look at the angles.
Junkyard - plenty of folk on this thread are blaming the cyclist.
Now you are being silly TJ. Have a read of some of the posts above and use your common sense regarding road positioning and safety, taking in all factors rather than being preoccupied with a spurious argument about 'field of vision'.
No woody - you are not understanding the issues. I do use my common sense and my understanding to know that using the primary position is the safest.
Its not a spurious argument - its absolutely central to remaining safe. You ride where you can both see and be seen most. Thats out in the road not cowering in the gutter.
By cycling towards the right of the lane in this case (and I'm not advocating cycling in the gutter but an appropriate distance from the kerb/wall) the drivers 2 cars + behind have a better chance of seeing you in what is still the centre of their vision as you will be at least 30-50 yards ahead unless the car drivers are all tail-gating each other.
Teh cyclist would still be obscured by teh car in the same way and they would not be in the central vision which is very narrow. If yo cannot understand this try drawing it out on a it of paper. You might be suprised.
I find this so frustrating on a cyclist forum the people do not understand the basic principles of defensive riding and want cyclists to cower in the gutter- what chance do we have of persuading the general public.
The general public ARE cyclists, that's why we have problems.
Watch all the video, then comment.
If you don't and then get pwned don't try and argue your way out... morons
You get hit by cars no matter where you ride in the road, shit will happen.
Sadly us cyclists don't know what's going on behind us when we ride on roads like that, so we have to put our trust in the motorist 😐
You could argue that in this case if the cyclist was hugging the kerb the motorist might have passed without incident.
Actually it reminds me of runners in country lanes. The ones that run on the left. They can't see cars coming up and rely on them being seen.
I find this so frustrating on a cyclist forum the people ... want cyclists to cower in the gutter
Where has anyone said that? Most people commenting on road position have specifically said they dont advocate riding in the gutter.
Put the soap box away, and realise that one-size-fits-all does not always work.
[i]That cyclist should never have been on that road, they should make the pedestrian walk way open to cyclists, far better to have a collision between a pedestrian and cyclist than a cyclist and a speeding car, I say this simply because of the speed that the cars are moving at on that road and how busy it is, when reality meets fantasy and delusionment, it doesn't give a **** about the law![/i]
Kaesae...its an urban bridge with a 35mph speed limit. The streets either side are in the middle of town. It wasn't even that busy...most roads around here would have had a big queue behind the cyclist. Did you see how busy and narrow the walkway was? In your eyes, cyclists are in cloud cuckoo land for cycling on any road with two lanes...
People only take notice of what is in the centre of their vision
Since when, TJ?
I know that I don't, but I assume from your assertion about 'people' that you do.
Maybe you should take some training to help with understanding how to scan and plan while using the road.
Arguably the car following the car would have seen the cyclist sooner if the cyclist had been further to the right.
I would have either used the pavement or have spent much of the time on that road section concentrating on what is approaching from behind and have ridden further towards the right. But the pavement would have been my preferred choice.
If he was riding two abreast it never would have happened. He should have ridden two abreast AND at 2 mph, because it is his right as a cyclist. The driver would have accepted his right as a cyclist and would have kept a safe distance, because the law says so. You're all missing the point.
Naranjada
Its been tested many times.
The cyclist would not have been any more visible to the car following the car if they had been further to the right. You might need to draw this on apiece of paper if you cannot visualise this.
Once again a cyclist doing the correct thing is being blamed for the failings of car drivers and you want them to ride in a more dangerous way
That's why he should have ridden two abreast.
I actually do understand the issues. That is not the same as not agreeing with you.No woody - you are not understanding the issues.
Where has anyone advocated 'cowering in the gutter' ?I find this so frustrating on a cyclist forum the people do not understand the basic principles of defensive riding and want cyclists to cower in the gutter
Anyway, pointless arguing with you TJ. I'll continue riding in the manner which I regard as safest for me and you can stick to your principals, even if it means you may end up as a bonnet mascot (see vid if you need your memory refreshed) 🙄
The cyclist would not have been any more visible to the car following the car if they had been further to the right. You might need to draw this on apiece of paper if you cannot visualise this.
Actually I've just watched it again and the car driver's view was unimpeded so nothing to do with his 'very narrow' forward vision or the cyclist's road position.
The car driver wasn't paying attention and was driving badly. He'd overtaken a car, was undertaking the bus and bam! hit the cyclist. In this scenario he'd have possibly seen the cyclist sooner or even have missed the cyclist altogether if the cyclist had been further right.
TJ I'm not wanting cyclists to ride in a more dangerous way, that is a ridiculous point to try and make and just argumentative.
And don't be so condescending.
Naranjada - you don't want to make statements like that! I mean it's common sense, realistic, uses basic principals of 'line of sight' and anticipation of natural reactions. Simply not on 😉In this scenario he'd have possibly seen the cyclist sooner or even have missed the cyclist altogether if the cyclist had been further right.
Woody, it's all gone quiet over there 😉
woody / Naranjada
I suggest you draw it out on a bit of paper as you seem unable to visualise it. being further to the right does not increase the riders visibility it decreases it.
I do use my common sense and my understanding to know that using the primary position is the safest.
Is this the position that just meant a car ran into him – is that one that is the safest? Does the getting hit bit does not make you questions it's utility in this scenario
Its not a spurious argument - its absolutely central to remaining safe. You ride where you can both see and be seen most. Thats out in the road not cowering in the gutter.
Why do you always have to use such colourful language to caricature and misrepresent those who disagree with you? Has anyone said we should all cower in the gutter? It makes it difficult to debate with you when you do this.
People [b]only[/b] take notice of what is in the centre of their vision
Well you are not a vision specialist are you. We literally pay no notice to anything else? Perhaps i could test this by throwing something soft at you from an angle off to one side and we can see if you react to it or if it just hits you as you don’t take any notice of it ? Why would we have peripheral vision if we don’t take any notice of it. Think about it. If you want an actual biological explanation re shape recognition, movement, rods and cones for example I am happy to wax lyrical to help you get it but you are just wrong.
The cyclist would not have been any more visible to the car following the car if they had been further to the right. You might need to draw this on apiece of paper if you cannot visualise this.
TJ it can clearly be drawn so any set of scenarios occur and I for one cannot be arsed doing the drawings to prove this point. Most of would agree it is easier to see round a car than through it but each situation will vary.
Once again a cyclist doing the correct thing is being blamed for the failings of car drivers and you want them to ride in a more dangerous way
More dangerous – they just got hit TJ how are we making this accident more likely to occur?
The cyclist is not to blame however as they have been run over by a car it is hardly unreasonable to look at other riding strategies that may have enabled this to be avoided......your middle lane strategy certainly wont [ as it did not] prevent that accident. Those of us who don’t like getting run over by cars are looking at other possible solutions than avoid getting hit. Your insistence on the safest position results in them being hit
We are not lording it up about how wonderful the car is whilst riding in the gutter we are discussing how to avoid getting hit
It is like filtering sometimes i do it down the outside sometimes the inside it just depends which is safest at that time. I do the same for my position in the road sometimes middle of the road is best sometimes the road is wide enough to be nearer the kerb to allow cars room to pass it just depends. No rule will be universal except in TJ land where , even when hit, it will still remain the safest.
re your draw it out and central vision thing. i know you will insist but I am not commenting further its is wrong re only attending to central stuff and the rest just depends. It would be more likely that you will be occluded in the middle than at the side as you cannot see through a car as easily as you can see round it or else that cyclist would not have been hit and every pedestrian at a zebra crossing would get run over.
how come I notice pedestrians not in my central vision approaching zebra crossings? Do I alone have special powers to notice these things
People only take notice of what is in the centre of their vision
Rods and cones; rods and cones TJ - and I thought you were in the medical business! Must try harder! Fast jet pilot training has been wrong all these years - they should have come to you for advice!
For the record I'm not sure road position had much to do with what happened here and the video edit makes the role of the bus in this difficult to assertain.
Junkyard - riding further to the right would not have prevented it either - thats the point.
If you cannot visualise why in this instance riding further to the right would not make him more visible then I suggest you draw it out on a piece of paper.
As for the vision thing - of course its not 100% but knowing how the mechanics of vision work and how the brain filters visual cues then yes it is true that the more central the object in your visual field the more likely you are to see it and react to it.
A lot of data on this if you want it.
but knowing how the mechanics of vision work and how the brain filters visual cues then yes it is true that the more central the object in your visual field the more likely you are to see it and react to it.
You clearly don't!
Is this the position that just meant a car ran into him – is that one that is the safest? Does the getting hit bit does not make you questions it's utility in this scenario
Because the cyclist was hit in this instance, it doesn't tell us that primary position isn't the safest option for this road. It merely tells us that the cyclist was unfortunate.
As explained above. It was a 35mph limit. It was reasonably quiet. If it were not for the driver's dangerous actions, it would never ave happened.
But of course, we've got to accept that there'll always be one or two dangerous drivers about.
So let's assume the cyclist was tucked into the wall. The lane isn't that wide when you have a look at it, but it would've left just about enough room for a car to pass. The driver sees the cyclist, attempts to squeeze through and smashes him head first against the wall...
And looking at the road design....and the signs....I'm making a guess, that this is something that as happened before and is the very reason for the signs.
Would that be safer?
I think we all agree it would be safer to walk. But what if this guy has a 20 mile commute? You can't just get off and walk every 5 minutes where it looks a bit sketchy. It'll take you all day. So what you would really be saying, is the humble bicycle isn't a viable means of transport, and if tat's what you use it for you should probably sell it and get a car instead. Which is a pretty mad and surprising opinion on a cycle forum.
Balanced. I heard someone say? I don't see what is balanced about saying cyclists should not be on the road. If it was the M25 you'd have a point. But that there, is not.
Convert - I do and have read research on this.
go on then - impress us!
And not some research article on cycling awareness - something proper, medical and meaty.
As I said above - my flight training must have got it badly wrong as we were instructed to physically orbit our heads partly to improve field of vision but mainly to bring our periferal vision into play in front of us where it's better detection of motion was rather important at 500kts!
Convert - the central vision is far higher resolution that the central and is crucial for object recognition. Peripheral is good for detection of relative motion.
In the case of the cyclist you need to be recognised as quickly as possible so you want to be in the central vision.
the central vision is far higher resolution that the central and is crucial for object recognition
task one in object avoidance - detect the object - peripheral vision is best at this. "high resolution" (not a good choice of words but I'll let that pass) is not necessary for this task and indeed can slow the mental processing - hence why peripheral is best.
task two in object avoidance - identify object and assess threat level - "higher resolution" central vision is good for this.
Bringing tasks one and two together is something we are rather good at - we naturally turn to focus on an object after detection to identify and clarify. But your initial statement was off the mark and misinformed.
[i]hit by a car and 1 minute later the police are there[/i]
Cyclist damaged a car didn't he. It's a serious crime.
TJ the correct term you are looking for is the fovea and anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of this subject would have used this term by now. they would have perhaps exlained about rods and cones and how they are located in the eye- they may even have mentioned the blinfd spot at the optical nerve or how we respind automatically to movement and are drawn to it to put the moving thing in our central vision. perhaps they would have said how attention and expectation also impact on vision.
Re "cental vision"
Drivers scan the road in the same way a rider scans the trial so they can notice multiple hazards/objects and respond. We dont just stare ahead or we would run over pedestrians at pelican crossing and fail to notice those traffic lights they always put in the gutter where we are not looking and cannot see 🙄
My foveal vision is the best but it is not a fixed point when driving like it is when i am sat at a computer screen or reading a book [ even then it is on the actual word being read rather than the whole page]. i do look around when driving and can only assume you do as well rather than drive with a thousand yard start type approach to driving.
We are way OTT and I am not having a vision debate with a nurse i have done this at Uni.