How to Overtake a Cyclist

[drew]

Pedestrians stand more chance of getting killed or injured by mile travelled. Should they wear helmets and carry lights?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...37436/rrcgb-main-results-2014-infographic.pdf

The attached would seem, without delving deeply, to debunk your statement. 446 pedestrians killed against 113 cyclists. There are considerably more pedestrians than cyclists so even taking into account that most cycle journeys are longer than most pedestrians walk I can't see that your statement holds water.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Busy Mid Sussex roads sometimes seem to be awash at twilight with dark-clothed cyclists riding with no lights. If one of those muppets gets flattened I would feel sorry for (a) the family, (B) the driver and (C) the rider. In that order. Dayglo clothing and permanent running lights for cyclists should be obligatory. Drivers are forced to look after themselves with seatbelts and motorcyclists with helmets - what makes cyclists so special?

And my humour isn't helped by some daft old bat in an oncoming Honda Jazz practically wiping me out by swerving dramatically on to my side of the road in order to give a pedalist a 3m clearance.

 

[Stat Brother]

Busy Mid Sussex roads sometimes seem to be awash at twilight with dark-clothed cyclists riding with no lights. If one of those muppets gets flattened I would feel sorry for (a) the family, (B) the driver and (C) the rider. In that order. Dayglo clothing and permanent running lights for cyclists should be obligatory. Drivers are forced to look after themselves with seatbelts and motorcyclists with helmets - what makes cyclists so special?

And my humour isn't helped by some daft old bat in an oncoming Honda Jazz practically wiping me out by swerving dramatically on to my side of the road in order to give a pedalist a 3m clearance.

Wot you mean this isn't acceptable, fascist!:-




When cycling I don't want any cars behind me.
I can't 'control' them, I'm not comfortable with them there.
I ride accordingly.

I wave cars through when bends are clear.
I wave them through if I can open up the road by taking space from an approaching left turn.
I hug the white line as my last resort.

Yet occasionally there's a snake of irritable drivers behind me because someone daft old bat in a Honda Jazz has no idea how wide her car is.

I've had Fiat 500's unable to pass, and when they were finally able to 'squeeze' past they've been followed by transits, land rovers pulling horse boxes, flat backs, you name it, all comfortably getting by me.

 

[Woodchip]

Busy Mid Sussex roads sometimes seem to be awash at twilight with dark-clothed cyclists riding with no lights. If one of those muppets gets flattened I would feel sorry for (a) the family, (B) the driver and (C) the rider. In that order. Dayglo clothing and permanent running lights for cyclists should be obligatory. Drivers are forced to look after themselves with seatbelts and motorcyclists with helmets - what makes cyclists so special?

And my humour isn't helped by some daft old bat in an oncoming Honda Jazz practically wiping me out by swerving dramatically on to my side of the road in order to give a pedalist a 3m clearance.

I'll put my purchase of this on hold then


To be honest I mostly wear something with several different colours on it to provide every chance of being seen possible. I also ride with a flashing rear light and static front light all the time.

 

[sten_super]

So you think everyone that has come off a bike and hit their head did so because it was their choice?

An extract from http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts-figures/

Head injuries, ranging from fatal skull fractures and brain damage to minor concussion and cuts, are very common injuries to cyclists. Hospital data shows that over 40% of cyclists, and 45% of child cyclists, suffer head injuries. A study of 116 fatal cyclist accidents in London and rural areas found over 70% of the cyclist fatalities in London had moderate or serious head injuries in London, and over 80% of those killed in collisions on rural roads.

There have been numerous studies, and on balance there's no evidence that forcing people to wear helmets has any net benefits. The evidence goes something like this (numbers are completely made up);

With mandatory helmet laws, a few people cycle. They cycle a bit more aggressively (because they have a helmet protecting them), and are not given as much space by passing motor vehicles. However if they are involved in an accident, their helmet gives them a bit of protection from head injuries. The remaining people that don't cycle have some health problems associated with inactivity.

Without those helmet laws, more people cycle (some with helmets some without), and fewer people have health problems due to inactivity. Those without helmets cycle less aggressively (even allowing for the fact that the nature of the person and their trip is likely to be different, i.e. milf popping to the shops on her dutch bicycle rather than mamil on his £8k carbon superbike) and are given more space by motor vehicles. If they have an accident and hit their head, the outcomes are typically worse.

So while, for a given individual who has had a crash, the better outcome always comes from wearing a helmet, the chances of that individual having an accident are affected by the state of the law and their own decision on whether or not to wear a helmet. Then if you look at a society, rather than individual level, more cycling is better, so measures which reduce cycling levels are bad.

 

[Notters]

Don't think I've ever seen a cyclist got through a red light. Usually a student or a hipster on a bike.

Oh sorry [MENTION=12486]Husty[/MENTION], I forgot you'd been in possession of my eyes for the last 32 years.

 

[Triggaaar]

This is quite an interesting take on the habits of cyclists.

http://www.motoring.co.uk/car-news/cyclists-why-do-they-ride-in-the-middle-of-the-road-_62617

All car drivers should read that.

 

[Nibble]

Blaine. Wow, what an interesting guy.

 

[fat old seagull]

Oh sorry [MENTION=12486]Husty[/MENTION], I forgot you'd been in possession of my eyes for the last 32 years.

My Mrs has had Stevie Wonders for longer than that !

 

[Bry Nylon]

When cycling I don't want any cars behind me.
I can't 'control' them, I'm not comfortable with them there.
I ride accordingly.

I wave cars through when bends are clear.
I wave them through if I can open up the road by taking space from an approaching left turn.
I hug the white line as my last resort.

Crap poem. Doesn't even rhyme.

 

[symyjym]

I overtake them in a way they don’t feel their life is threatened. Generally around town like Western and Church Road if I am behind a bike and can see ahead lots of cars parked narrowing the road, cars crossing the or joining the road, pedestrians crossing and other cyclist randomly ahead, with a guarantee of hitting a red light, I probably wouldn’t be inclined to bother overtaking because they will no doubt undertake me shortly after if I did I overtake them.

So it’s about the considering the appropriate road conditions ahead and the speed of the cyclist. I will treat a parent with child cyclists with ultra caution, but ultimately I want cyclists to enjoy their journey.

 

[perseus]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...37436/rrcgb-main-results-2014-infographic.pdf

The attached would seem, without delving deeply, to debunk your statement. 446 pedestrians killed against 113 cyclists. There are considerably more pedestrians than cyclists so even taking into account that most cycle journeys are longer than most pedestrians walk I can't see that your statement holds water.

You have to read the statement carefully: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel#Travel_safety

It stll figures: why take the cycle helmet off when getting off the bike. Do you? For the safety conscious it is not advised. The distraction level and because 75% of serious cycle accidents occur at junctions.

I find cycling safer even for short journeys because a cylist will go with the flow of the traffic rather than as a tangent with frequent walking journeys. Only safer if you cycle 55/22 quicker. Roughly if the journey takes a half an hour walking and ten minutes cycling it is about the same risk.

The government stats say about 67% of serious cycle accidents are caused by the fault of the motorist. That does not mean the others are cyclist faults though. I think the figure is a bit high of all cycle accidents. I reckon it is about 54% caused by motorists and about 11% by cyclists (up to 16% if you include faulty bikes or clothing, and maybe 20% if you include cycles left in silly places) and the rest a hotch of potch of reasons, including debris, potholes and bad road surfaces, pedestrians causing accidents.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/risks_of_travel.htm (same as above)

 

[perseus]

Updated since I last researched this throughly.

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

This concurs with my findings. The whole article gives an accurate picture.

The data, which was analysed by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), showed that more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike.

This means that about three-quarters of accidents did not occur when the car ran into the back of the cyclist on an open road. But that is only in towns not narrow windy country lanes

 

[looney]

Any saftey Video should be fronted with Jeremy Clarkson and the Jaws theme playing in the back ground. Its a pecking order thing, you pays your money so you knows your place.

I know I'm ****ing dangerous on a bike, thats why I take care not to kill or maim others. I follow the rules as if I'm calling someone a koont i'm making sure I am not one. I dont wear a helmet, its not going to matter a fig when I prang.

 

[drew]

You have to read the statement carefully: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel#Travel_safety

It stll figures: why take the cycle helmet off when getting off the bike. Do you? For the safety conscious it is not advised. The distraction level and because 75% of serious cycle accidents occur at junctions.

I find cycling safer even for short journeys because a cylist will go with the flow of the traffic rather than as a tangent with frequent walking journeys. Only safer if you cycle 55/22 quicker. Roughly if the journey takes a half an hour walking and ten minutes cycling it is about the same risk.

The government stats say about 67% of serious cycle accidents are caused by the fault of the motorist. That does not mean the others are cyclist faults though. I think the figure is a bit high of all cycle accidents. I reckon it is about 54% caused by motorists and about 11% by cyclists (up to 16% if you include faulty bikes or clothing, and maybe 20% if you include cycles left in silly places) and the rest a hotch of potch of reasons, including debris, potholes and bad road surfaces, pedestrians causing accidents.

You would also need to extrapolate from the statistics how many cycling deaths were the result of head injuries and how many of the pedestrian accidents were.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/risks_of_travel.htm (same as above)

Have to say I'm confused by what exactly you are trying to point out. You refer to a statement on a wiki page but exactly which one are we supposed to be reading carefully.

Secondly, you refer to the numberwatch link and presumably this is where the suggestion comes from that walking per km is more dangerous than cycling. That data is 15 years old! That said, as the author points out, people quote statistics to suit their agenda. Of the three categories, Km, Hrs and Journeys, walking is safer in two of them by some margin. You then question government figures but give no indication as to the basis of you challenging them which suggests it is just supposition.

Pedal cycle deaths have decreased virtually year on year despite the increase in the number participating. Could there be a link to the reduction in fatalities with the an increase in the usage of helmets?

 

[ferring seagull]

That's a poor video, and I speak as a cyclist and car driver.
Why is an 'advanced driving instructor' showing us an overtaking manoeuvre on a brow of a hill!?
I'd prefer to see more videos educating cyclists to 'take the lane' rather than making themselves more vulnerable by riding in the gutter. This above all else helps motorists overtake you in a safe way.

Edit: Just read that link. Now that's more like it . Also makes the point of how considerate club cyclists file back into single file when appropriate too, out of courtesy to other road users. That's exactly my own experience of how club cycling works in the short time I've been riding with a club.

Yeah but No but sadly that is not very often the reality and it is very frustrating when cyclists have no consideration for motorists by continuing to cycle next to their mates, and xxxx you motorists, even when it would not be too difficult to adopt single file.

That, I imagine is precisely one of the situations when accidents happen !

 

[1066familyman]

Yeah but No but sadly that is not very often the reality and it is very frustrating when cyclists have no consideration for motorists by continuing to cycle next to their mates, and xxxx you motorists, even when it would not be too difficult to adopt single file.

That, I imagine is precisely one of the situations when accidents happen !

The club I occasionally ride with have two very simple calls in this case:

1) " Car back! " = when a car is coming up behind and we're riding two abreast. At this point we'll go back to single file if it's safe to do so.

2) " Car up! " = when a car is approaching on the other side of the road and we need to get back into single for our own safety.

Bear in mind that most club rides will endeavour to avoid busy main roads wherever possible. Whenever we do venture out onto them it's usually for a short distance when the route requires it to get onto the next quite country road.

Rule 66 of the highway code does of course permit cyclists to ride two abreast, where appropriate to do so. But you'll find most club cyclists go out of their way to be polite and courteous to other road users as no one wants to wind up someone in control of a vehicle quite capable of killing you if the driver does something silly.

Anyway, enough from me. I'm not keen on these us v them debates as there's twats on bikes as well as in cars, and most people of bikes happen to drive a car as well anyway. I only commented because I thought the video was a poor one in terms of trying to teach motorists - 'How to overtake a Cyclist'.

 

[Brighton Mod]

I have had just one big bike accident. Over the handlebars at speed. Put my arms out to save me and bend my left elbow backwards. Next thing to hit the earth was my helmet, still doing about 25mph. I scratch the outer shell up pretty bad, cracked the polystyrene and broke the visor on it. Without that protection I'd have, at best, lost a lot of skin of my face and scalp and at worst have suffered a fractured skull as well as a broken elbow.

I'm on the side that always wears a helmet (even when I was in the UK and it wasn't the law).

My daughter came off the bike at 15 mph when about 13.The helmet fractured, the visor came apart and se grazed her face. But that was it and because of the helmet she had no issues in getting back on the bike a week or s later. We spoke with the supplier and sent the old one back with a thanking letter and they supplied another FOC.

 

[ferring seagull]

The club I occasionally ride with have two very simple calls in this case:

1) " Car back! " = when a car is coming up behind and we're riding two abreast. At this point we'll go back to single file if it's safe to do so.

2) " Car up! " = when a car is approaching on the other side of the road and we need to get back into single for our own safety.

Bear in mind that most club rides will endeavour to avoid busy main roads wherever possible. Whenever we do venture out onto them it's usually for a short distance when the route requires it to get onto the next quite country road.

Rule 66 of the highway code does of course permit cyclists to ride two abreast, where appropriate to do so. But you'll find most club cyclists go out of their way to be polite and courteous to other road users as no one wants to wind up someone in control of a vehicle quite capable of killing you if the driver does something silly.

Anyway, enough from me. I'm not keen on these us v them debates as there's twats on bikes as well as in cars, and most people of bikes happen to drive a car as well anyway. I only commented because I thought the video was a poor one in terms of trying to teach motorists - 'How to overtake a Cyclist'.

As you say and for the point I too am a cyclist. cheers

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

No. I will always wear the best that I think that I can buy, but should I have to? No. Unless we outlaw anything that may be dangerous.

It's a difficult one. Whilst I do not like nanny states and support personal freedom etc I would feel uncomfortable knowing that some people might not be in a position to make a fully informed decision. Take a 16 year old moped rider. I'd feel pretty shit if I the helmet law was reversed and shortly after a teen's brains were being scraped off the road. There's a line to be drawn and for me motorcycle helmets are one side and cyclist helmets are on the other.