Cycling: issues/noticeboard

[Laddy Muck]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So drivers shouldn't put their lights on in urban

> areas because everyone else does it?

Ahem Loz! As far as I am aware, it is a legal requirement that drivers use their vehicle lights. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I don't believe that cyclists are under a similar statutory duty to wear - e.g. - a fluorescent vest.

Whilst I am pretty certain that high visibility clothes make cyclists more conspicuous, such garments cannot take the place of competent cycling and driving. As alluded to earlier, I wear the whole kit and kaboodle (high viz vest, ruck sack cover, waist band, and ankle/wrist strips - though not necessarily all at once), but as DC suggests, lights (as required by law) should be sufficient.

[karter]

I would still recommend wearing the whole kit when possible too.

[Loz]

Legal issue aside, I disagree. I really like it when cyclists wear hi-viz stuff; I can see them from a distance and I know what they are and can react accordingly to their generally slower speed. Those little lights, especially the ones that don't flash, really just fade into the background with every other light on the streets of London, especially when it's raining.

Take it from a driver - hi-viz vests make *lots* of difference.

[Applespider]

Ah ha - a driver who likes the lights that flash. I've now taken to using two lights at night - one that is solidly on at rack level and the other that flashes on my helmet. Apparently, the flashing ones get spotted easier and the solid ones help people judge distance/speed more effectively.

I wear a high-viz vest most of the time when cycling but there are days where it's particularly hot when it would be nice to think that the bright red or blue top I'm wearing should be sufficient if I'm cycling as I should (i.e. obeying the rules of the road) and drivers are as observant as they should be. The only time I don't have one on is if I hop on a Boris bike when I wasn't intending to travel by bike since it's not something I'd carry around. That's also the only time that I don't wear a helmet.

I'm not sure I'd like it to be a law though since it does then add to the perception that cycling is more dangerous than it really is and takes the onus off drivers to be doing what they should be doing anyhow. SMIDSY shouldn't be an excuse in any instance where the cyclist has been acting lawfully and predictably regardless of high-vis. And if you go to countries where there is more urban cycling (Berlin/Copenhagen as well as the more often cited Amsterdam), there's very little fluorescent clothing on cyclists but fewer accidents. That's probably because of their strict liability that the less vulnerable road user is accountable if there is an accident so drivers take more care. If a law was going to be passed, that's the one I'd prefer.

I believe that statistically more pedestrians are hit on roads by drivers than cyclists are but there's no campaign to make them wear hi-viz and helmets... although hmmmm, now I think on it... ;-)

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

While high viz is good for other road users to spot the cyclist, research has been done that wearing high viz/helmet, etc gives the rider a feeling of invulnerability and they do not ride as carefully/defensively as they should.

I will try and find the research but it was some years ago that I was looking into it when my daughter first started cycling on roads.

[Loz]

Applespider Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I believe that statistically more pedestrians are

> hit on roads by drivers than cyclists are but

> there's no campaign to make them wear hi-viz and

> helmets... although hmmmm, now I think on it...

> ;-)

Is that in absolute numbers or as a percentage. I suspect the former.

[Laddy Muck]

Applespider Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ah ha - a driver who likes the lights that flash.

Yes, I smiled with intrigue when I read your comment Loz, because, until recently, the legal position was that the bike had to be equipped with back and front "static" lights at night. The implication was that it was illegal to ride with intermittent lighting. I like flashing lights as I feel they attract more attention. However, surveys at the time showed that drivers thought they were not as effective as static lights from a distance. I always got around this uncertainty in the law by using one static light at both back and front coupled with additional (flashing) lighting at the rear.

What makes Loz's observation doubly interesting is the fact that legislation has relatively recently been amended to allow cyclists to use intermittent lighting at the rear, so - clearly - there must have been other like-minded souls with Loz's view.

Fascinating stuff this!

[Laddy Muck]

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> While high viz is good for other road users to

> spot the cyclist, research has been done that

> wearing high viz/helmet, etc gives the rider a

> feeling of invulnerability and they do not ride as

> carefully/defensively as they should.

I, too, recall reading something along those lines, except that the research I read was specific to helmets only (though that doesn't mean to say that there wasn't separate research on high-viz clothing). If I recall correctly, the results suggested that cyclists who wore a helmet had more chance of being hit. This was because drivers tended to give helmet wearers less room than helmetless riders. I think the implication there was that drivers felt that the helmetless cyclists appeared more vulnerable than the helmet-wearing ones.

[helpmeoutnow]

Just stop cycling and value your life, roads,cars,cyclists do not mix

[katie1997]

I agree.

I suggest all you yoghurt and puy lentil/hand-rolled Palestinian cous cous loving cyclists do yourselves a favour and go purchase a ten-litre Range Rooney. Immediately.

[Loz]

The eyes/brain tends to notice changes, be they movement or flashing, and 'turn off' anything that doesn't change. It's why if you shine a torch in your eye you often suddenly see the veins in your eye - they light causes them to 'move' as far as the retina is concerned.

A static light on a bike travelling in the same direction as you tends to leave your concentration. That's why ambulances, fire engines, etc. have flashing lights - to get your attention.

And in the rain and in the dark, there are lights and reflections all over the place in the urban areas. Even if you don't wear your hi-viz jacket at any other time, wear it on rainy nights.

[david_carnell]

I don't cycle in the rain if I can help it - not much fun to be had in an otherwise enjoyable mode of transport.

But thanks for the advice.

[Laddy Muck]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But thanks for the advice.

*bursts out laughing*

[Laddy Muck]

So, moving on from high viz garments to those which - allegedly - are deemed too distracting for drivers? Blimey.:-S

[Alan Medic]

Anyone who has visited Borough High Street recently will know that you cannot go south for a part from London Bridge, due to road works. In spite of signs telling cyclists to dismount they still ignore them and tear down the part of the road sectioned off, riding between cones and pedestrians. I'm developing a complete lack of respect for them. They don't seem to respect anything.

[Laddy Muck]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Anyone who has visited Borough High Street

> recently will know that you cannot go south for a

> part from London Bridge, due to road works. In

> spite of signs telling cyclists to dismount they

> still ignore them and tear down the part of the

> road sectioned off, riding between cones and

> pedestrians. I'm developing a complete lack of

> respect for them. They don't seem to respect

> anything.

What do you think of the Leicestershire Constabulary's approach to such a problem?

Observing cyclists flout the law is not only irritating to drivers, but to law-abiding cyclists too; mainly because those who automatically abide by the law tend to get tarred with the same brush as those who disregard it.

[womanofdulwich]

managed to have my bicycle pinched-ggrr- but will borrow my sons for a while-can anyone recommned a particular ladies saddle? I think its fair to say I have a fair amount of matural padding anyway, butI need to cycle 45 miles one day in Septemebr, and need to be able to function the next day. My previous saddle was a huge squashy gel one, but I had been told that was doing me no favours.

[Laddy Muck]

My advice, WOD, would be to visit Decathlon. A short trek, I know - but they have a MASSIVE bike section, with plenty of choice and advice. Prices are reasonable too. Otherwise, try BCBikes (I've never used them myself, but they come highly recommended on here).

[womanofdulwich]

thanks Laddymuck- but the main issue is the ladies saddle- i have a fair amount of natural padding anyway- but I have always found it difficult to sit on a saddle for more than 45 mins. More of a ladies question really.gel? vents/ brands? any recommendations? Decathlon do not have experienced women cyclists on hand-

Thanks

[Laddy Muck]

Looking back, I think my post might have appeared a little dismissive WOD: twasn't meant to (apologies if so). I recommended a visit to Decathlon (a) because I know squat about saddles and (b) because I have always found them extremely knowledgeable and helpful (though - to be fair - I have never sought to purchase a saddle there). However, I should have mentioned a couple of other things:

(a) you can have the best saddle in the world, but, if the bike is not a good fit for you (and I notice you are thinking of borrowing your son's) then you are, in all likelihood, going to suffer some discomfort. Little things like adjusting the handlebars and ensuring the saddle is set at the correct height make an enormous difference to your riding experience.

(b) ditto unsuitable clothing. I remember wearing jeans whilst cycling in Asturias. I didn't quite do 45 miles in one day, but, suffice to say that those thick seams caused many an...ahem...iritation. Sore fanny for days :-$.

Good luck. And sorry about your bike being stolen too.

[binary_star]

As far as saddles go, the best one I've had is a Brooke's ladies B17. But it needed a hell of a breaking in! Now it is though, it's perfectly...er formed.

[Applespider]

I believe if you buy it from Evans, you can try it out for 28 days to see if you like it. And get some good miles in on it before your 45 mile excursion - and it might be worth trying padded shorts. They don't work for me personally - I find they make me go a little numb at the front - but I have friends who swear my them.

Squashy saddles aren't a good thing. I've got a second-hand Selle Italia SLK on mine which looks pretty flat but I've done 40 miles on it without aching. The most important thing is getting one that's the right width for your seatbones. If it's too wide/narrow, then you won't get the right support.

[womanofdulwich]

i think your right = partner is a cycle coach so size is sorted, but men dont really get women's anatomy- its all well and good him saying get it from wiggle but I think I have to try some out first- I always find cycle shops staffed by either ignorant but well meaning or techy type men and feel embarrassed to ask about womens saddles- I see a Selle Italia is quite pricey- but what price comfort- any other recommendations?

[Laddy Muck]

Applespider Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I believe if you buy it from Evans, you can try it

> out for 28 days to see if you like it.

Didn't know that Applespider. Useful to know though. But what happens to all those returned saddles?

[????]

600