[Closed] Bus driver stops cyclist hit and run driver.

Junkyard - I do know that stuff.

Again its simple point. You need to be recognised as a cyclist as soon as possible. Being in the central vision helps this. so riding out in the road helps drivers to recognise yo as a cyclist earlier thus giving them more time to avoid you.

You are also more likely not get be missed amongst roadsie clutter. ( in the general case)

Research and bollocks in place of common sense, the cars behind cannot see the cyclist only the primary car at the front of the line, cyclist in middle of road = knowhere for car to go but up cyclists ass = BAD IDEA!

SAVVE!

This is the real world people and you have to therefore be realistic, spouting bollocks and believing in it, will not stop a car from hitting you!

If the argument is that driving in the middle of the road is safer, then explain what happend in that video, becasue more than one car had to avoid that cyclist anyone that did could have been a collision.

Bad situation all round but in those circumstances riding in the middle of the road was a bad idea and the outcome speaks for it's self in relation to that fact.

central vision is not a fixed point when driving or , as i repeat again without answer, a driver would not notice pedestrians at zebra crossing , traffic lights etc.
It only helps if they can see through the car blocking their view of you if you are occluded you are occluded.
your safest position depends
No I wont draw it 😉

If the argument is that driving in the middle of the road is safer, then explain what happend in that video, becasue more than one car had to avoid that cyclist anyone that did could have been a collision.

But potentially, it could have been worse if the cyclist was tucked in by the wall.

All the video suggests is that cycling in itself is not safe.

Cyclist got rear-ended, I don't see how it could have been worse if he was closer to the kerb, but I'm not an expert in collisions like this.

Interestingly the by-law quoted above mentions overtaking with 4' clearance...which I think the cyclist himself made impossible at times due to his road positioning.

 Draw it out and have a look at the angles.

 If yo cannot understand this try drawing it out on a it of paper. You might be suprised.

You might need to draw this on apiece of paper if you cannot visualise this.

I suggest you draw it out on a bit of paper as you seem unable to visualise it

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.

.
TJ has now reached the stage known as

[b]"Repeat the same thing until people get bored give up.

Then claim Victory"[/b]

.
Resistance is futile.

Cyclist got rear-ended, I don't see how it could have been worse if he was closer to the kerb, but I'm not an expert in collisions like this.

There is no curb. There's a wall. Sandwiching yourself between two very solid objects is not a very good idea. Just like you wouldn't squeeze between two buses.

Interestingly the by-law quoted above mentions overtaking with 4' clearance...which I think the cyclist himself made impossible at times due to his road positioning.

He was riding in the position advised to him by the signs! And a position that would be advised by most cycling organisations.

Neal - perhaps the people who think the rider would be more visible riding to the side would realise this was wrong if they actually drew it out and looked at the angles involved.

The whole field of vision thing is ridiculous as well. I suppose the cyclist should have stopped before crossing the bridge. Got out a sketch pad and drew every possible scenario, analysing what position he would be best seen in before continuing?

butcher - Member
There is no curb. There's a wall. Sandwiching yourself between two very solid objects is not a very good idea. Just like you wouldn't squeeze between two buses.

He was riding in the position advised to him by the signs

Where did I say "Sandwiching yourself between two very solid objects"?

I saw him go well beyond the centre position.

in the circumstances riding slightly further to the right would (possibly) allow a driver further back in a line of traffic to catch an earlier glimpse of the cyclist - this very much assumes the driver is looking for cyclists (or other obstructions)- to someone driving in a safe and observant way the position of the cyclist in the lane wouldn't matter - would be thinking "wonder why that bus changed lane - maybe i should hold back and see whats happening"

personally i would just keep clear of what i think someone earlier described as the "**** big concrete wall"

perhaps the people who think the rider would be more visible riding to the side would realise this was wrong if they actually drew it out and looked at the angles involved.

.
Oh I see.......

You want people to draw it on paper......

I hadnt realised.......You should have said something earlier if that's what you wanted 🙄

.

Where did I say "Sandwiching yourself between two very solid objects"?

You either take primary position, or invite traffic to pass....sandwiching yourself between them and the wall.

OK, the guy deviated a little, but that's half the reason for taking primary in the first place. Maybe he was avoiding potholes? He was only slightly over the halfway mark though. It makes absolutely no difference to the other traffic, so is completely insignificant.

It is as likely as you explaining why we see traffic lights and pedestrian crossings which are not in our "central vision" but at the side? Only you stick to universal and absolutes and then ignore evidence that does not fit it

You have not even commented on the traffic lights or zebra crossings despite me repeating it. I think I will have to actually give u discussing with you as it is just watching you repeat a position and ignore anything that counters it.

Ps should pedestrians walking in the road , where there is no footpath, be in the middle of the road to increase visibility? how to drivers manage to miss these hidden walkers not in their central vision ETC.

anti gee you are wrong JUST DRAW IT 🙄

If I draw it will I realsie that I'm wrong? 😉

*crosses self and joins in*

I, err, ... well, I agree with TJ (though not with his drawings and other explanations).

I think a very plausible alernative scenario that was possibly half a second from happening would be that the black car gets level with the bus, which then "can't" pull out.

The bus [b]has[/b] seen the bike, we pretty much know this. As a result, the bus will have to brake - maybe hard - to avoid hitting the bike.

Alternatively, if bike is not riding in TJs pimary position, the bus may try to pass the bike whilst being overtaken by the black car.

Anyone fancy being the cyclist now ?

As it actually happened, he walked away with a bent bike. I suspect that most cyclists who're killed by vehicles going in the same direction as them are hit glancing blows rather than full on. I don't think it's sighting or recognition - it's poor risk assessment and no consideration for vulnerable parties

For those suggesting that the cyclist would have been better off riding further to the right, I suggest you check out the video again. See the position of the car when it has stopped after hitting the cyclist? Is there actually space between the car and the wall for a bicycle? As for the vision thing - it appears in this instance that the car had just overtaken another car and then pulled in, in which case riding further to the left means the driver should be able to see the cyclist significantly earlier.

OK so the cyclist still got hit - in this case the driver is clearly completely useless and should never be allowed on the roads again, but in most instances riding in the middle of the lane does improve your chances.

The driver did not stop and the bus driver deserves a medal for stopping that car. I must agree the cyclist seems to have little common sense though, your asking for trouble riding in the middle of the road!

Junkyard - I am not ignoring things that counter my position. You want to compare apples with pears. Equally you refuse to do the one thing that shows that riding to the side does not increase the visibility.

groundhog day

If I draw it will I realsie that I'm wrong?

Ok - a very crude drawing that shows that the bike does not become visible to the second car until the first car has either passed the bike or moved out of the lane. It might be visible a fraction earlier if right in the gutter

I am quite certain tho none of the non believers will accept this but will continue to go to any controtions of logic to attempt to prove me wrong

[url= http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7077/6914220416_e76e1443c4_b.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7077/6914220416_e76e1443c4_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/25846484@N04/6914220416/ ]Image2[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/25846484@N04/ ]TandemJeremy[/url], on Flickr

TJ- I like your drawing, but feel it would be more aesthetically pleasing were it to show cyclists riding two abreast.

You could pretend it did

Thanks TJ - I needed a laugh and I will no longer attempt any "[i]controtions of logic[/i]" 😆

Woody - you could be gracious and admit that riding on the side does not improve visibility as that diagramme clearly shows

If second car sits in lane while 1st car overtakes then it seems clear to me that the cyclist will be seen sooner by the 2nd car if the cyclist is nearer to the kerb.

I'm not advocating that the cyclist should do so, but just pointing out that the cyclist's visibility to the 2nd car driver cannot be as cut and dried as that diagram.

You want to compare apples with pears

as for your drawing unless i am very much mistaken it shows the car in the way of both cyclists..why not alter the scale/distance and see which comes into view first. I think we can all see which it is that you will see first unless of course you are now arguing we look through the car to see what they can see which is problematic to put it mildly. If the car was i would rather say that the drawing counters your argument but thanks for your efforts.

You could be gracious and admit that riding on the side does not improve visibility as that diagramme clearly shows

You could remember your argument which is that being in the centre means you are more likely to be seem in your diagram neither can be seen and the one in the gutter will be seen first.
FAIL

Junkyard - maybe you should actually read what I wrote? 2 separate points.

The general case is that riding in the centre of the lane increases your chance of being seen.

people were claiming that in this specific instance the cyclist would be more visible on the edge of the road not the centre - I said this was wrong and have now shown it with that diagramme

How predictable

I am quite certain tho none of the non believers will accept this but will continue to go to any contortions of logic to attempt to prove me wrong

Only because of your specific use of scale ,and whilst you will undoubtedly not accept this, everyone else can see which would come into view first and it is not the one in the middle

Are you rejecting your central vision argument yet or do i still need to argue we see objects at the side of the road such as pedestrians, traffic lights, road signs, speed cameras etc ? or is this still apples with pears

I still disagree and i think your drawing hinders rather than helps your argument though I dont expect you t see [ see what I did] this 😉

I am out it is futile to debate with you everyone knows this, well everyone but you and your logic, common sense and whatever else it is you wish to claim as your allies in these debates.

Safe riding out there , safe riding everyone.
Not every situation is as clear cut as just put your bike in the middle of the lane as this is always safer is my only view. i think your drawing proves that point as the gutter rider will be seen first.

I do not know who or what that quote is aimed at.

Junkyard -

it would be nice if you didn't continually distort waht I say.

What that diagramme counters is this position that many folk took.

Woody
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 ([b]and I'm not advocating cycling in the gutter but an appropriate distance from the kerb/wall[/b]) 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.

Are you now stating the safest place to ride is in the gutter? comprehensivly demolished by others onthis thread.

If second car sits in lane while 1st car overtakes then it seems clear to me that the cyclist will be seen sooner by the 2nd car if the cyclist is nearer to the kerb.

How about if the 2nd car overtakes the first car - as is the case in the original video (which is what we were at one point discussing). Will the driver of the 2nd car see the cyclist sooner if the cyclist is near the kerb or in the middle of the lane?

I dunno, I'd best draw a diagram.

Will the driver of the 2nd car see the cyclist sooner if the cyclist is near the kerb or in the middle of the lane?

depends on the does he/she care a toss factor* and is actually looking - suspect that has a way, way, way , way, way bigger impact than position

*or does care a toss but doesn't understand what is unobservant/bad driving

and I'm not advocating cycling in the gutter but an appropriate distance from the kerb/wall)

Are you now stating the safest place to ride is in the gutter? comprehensivly demolished by others onthis thread.

Interesting TJ. You appear to have as selective an understanding of English as you do to an opposing or alternative view in an argument.

Would you be good enough to point out where anyone has said the safest place to ride is in the gutter and also where this assertion has been 'comprehensively demolished'?

Your wasting your time woody.

Nobody has said that, but TJ "gives" that opinion to anyone who has a different opinion to his.

It makes them appear wrong even though that's not what they said at all.

Fight! fight! fight! fight!

I know that NG but sometimes it's just fun and we haven't seen the TJ goes into orbit tag for a little while 😆

+ I'm still waiting for Al's diagram
+ I'm right
+ I'm bored

Woody - in response to this

i think your drawing proves that point as [b]the gutter rider[/b] will be seen first.

also where this assertion has been 'comprehensively demolished'?

Its all thru the thread - if you had an open mind you could see it.

You have extrapolated from that statement that someone is advocating riding in the gutter?

Fascinating mindset.

Edit

Its all thru the thread - if you had an open mind you could see it.

FFS I used the ohrase guuter rider to parody your argument - read the thread.you cannt possible expect to use that as as evidence that I am advocating riding in the gutter.

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/bus-driver-stops-cyclist-hit-and-run-driver/page/2#post-3668138
your first mention of gutter riding

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.

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/bus-driver-stops-cyclist-hit-and-run-driver/page/2#post-3668191
your second
[b]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[/b]

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/bus-driver-stops-cyclist-hit-and-run-driver/page/2#post-3668619
My reply

TJ [b]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.
my retort[/b]
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.

I give up I really do

I cited everything to stop you accusing me of misrepresenting what you said when in fact you have misrepresented what I have said I used your phrase to parody you and now you use it as evidence we advocate gutter riding

Which is why I said

[b]Are you now[/b] stating the safest place to ride is in the gutter?

Note the question format.

Junkyard - woody is deliberatly attempting to stir up a row - best ignored

Yes, I'm known for that aren't I TJ. 8)

I just happen to disagree with you, as do several others, and the fact that you seem prepared to repeat the same argument ad nauseum, will do nothing to change that.

I live in Pennsylvania, but several hundred miles from Bethlehem, so I am not at all familiar with that particular bridge. It is apparent that it is less than ideal for cycling, as a cyclist was [url= http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/04/editorial_crash_on_bethlehems.html ]killed[/url] there last year. The bridge is at least 40 years old, and it's original design was further comprimised last year when an inspection found deteriorating structure beneath the sidewalk [url= http://bethlehem.patch.com/articles/penndot-closes-sidewalk-on-new-st-bridge ]news release[/url]. Since then, they have reestablished a pedestrian walkway at the expense of narrower traffic lanes [url= http://blogs.mcall.com/roadwarrior/2011/10/traffic-restrictions-start-tomorrow-on-bethlehems-fahy-bridge-.html ]work[/url] [url= http://www.car-free.org/wordpresspw/?p=1605 ]press rel[/url].

So, the bridge is definitely not the best place to cycle in the first place, and recent changes have made it even worse.

I'm not clairvoyant, so I have no idea what the cyclist should have done differently to avoid the accident, other than not cycling on the bridge. Sometimes, you can do everything right and still get into an accident. Hasn't everyone run a red light at least once while driving? If no one was in the intersection, then no big deal. Put a car/cyclist/pedestrian there and things are different, though. I was once sideswiped while stopped in my truck at a red light. I was properly stopped in the left turn lane. I was just at the wrong place at the wrong time!

Kudos to the bus driver!