A lovely bit of cycling

[BentMikey]

This morning I moved from secondary to primary. I knew the car was overtaking (guess how? I'd heard it!), I knew how far away it was - by seeing it out of the corner of my eye. I neither shoulder-checked nor signalled: There was no need, because I knew the traffic situation. In primary I prevented the next car back overtaking before lights. I suspect he braked.

I'd love to see video of riding like this, because it's hard to interpret descriptions as accurately as seeing what actually happened. It certainly doesn't sound like best practice to me, and the kind of riding I think you're describing is that that unnecessarily stresses out drivers and takes chances, but I could be wrong.

 

[Mad at urage]

Precisely my point, descriptions are insufficient. TBH video is insufficient as it does not see all the human eye can see and importantly it does not build up the total picture that the human mind builds, of the surrounding environment. This is a picture that we (should) use all available information to keep up to date. Text and video give us the impression we understand what is going on but the picture is very incomplete (there used to be a public information film that made this point).

At another point this morning I made a full shoulder-check and signal to move from inner to outer lane (approaching a roundabout); I was still watching out of the corner of my eye, because I needed to understand the changing scene in front of me. Video would simply have looked at the field on my right.

Edit: What gets to me really, is the way descriptions are posted on here and there is a general cry of 'terrible cycling', when there is nothing to justify the condemnation in what is described: I'm sure the OP feels that the cyclist he saw was being careless, but I have no idea whether he could really judge her. Certainly no-one else here has enough information about here awareness of the surroundings at the time.

 

[Tynan]

Totally disagree, if you haven't looked then you haven't checked.

' hearing does work in the right circumstances and you can see a lot from the corner of your eye'

there's nothing to totally disagree with there, unless your english isn't up to that sentence

the secret of observation is to have a continual picture of what's around you or at least have it early rather than leaving everything to the last moment

 

[Arch]

Sorry to pull these two comments out of your post, but is this really the level of bull crap to be found in Cyclecraft, to use your hearing to determine traffic safety or sounds that warrant attention. Really?

Last time I checked it's pretty hard to hear a cyclist doing 10mph more than you as they over take or hear an electric car in traffic. And to reiterate the point, if you haven't looked then you haven't checked. This is basic safety and audible observation is never a replacement or really augmentation for visual observation.

"Rearward observation is usefully complemented by listening, especially in quieter traffic conditions"

You seem to have conveniently ignored the word I've bolded.

No one is suggesting listening only. It suggests learning to listen in order to provide a bigger picture, AS WELL AS looking. You say audible observation isn't even augmentation for visual observation? You really think it's of no value to hear engine notes behind you? Or to be aware of an approaching emergency siren well before it's in view at all? Or to be able to tell if a van parked up ahead has it's engine running and might be about to pull out?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

"Rearward observation is usefully complemented by listening, especially in quieter traffic conditions"

You seem to have conveniently ignored the word I've bolded.

No one is suggesting listening only. It suggests learning to listen in order to provide a bigger picture, AS WELL AS looking. You say audible observation isn't even augmentation for visual observation? You really think it's of no value to hear engine notes behind you? Or to be aware of an approaching emergency siren well before it's in view at all? Or to be able to tell if a van parked up ahead has it's engine running and might be about to pull out?

Well many think it fine to ride with headphones blaring so it would suggest they put little value on hearing.

 

[marzjennings]

' hearing does work in the right circumstances and you can see a lot from the corner of your eye'

there's nothing to totally disagree with there, unless your english isn't up to that sentence

the secret of observation is to have a continual picture of what's around you or at least have it early rather than leaving everything to the last moment

My english is fine, thanks.

The piece I'm disagreeing with is the opinion that hearing does work in the right circumstances and I'd love to know under which circumstances you would make a transition in the road based only on what you've heard? If your hearing alerts you to a danger you didn't see, then you didn't look carefully enough in the first place.

Continual observation is key to road safety, but visual observation not audible.

 

[marzjennings]

"Rearward observation is usefully complemented by listening, especially in quieter traffic conditions"

You seem to have conveniently ignored the word I've bolded.

No one is suggesting listening only. It suggests learning to listen in order to provide a bigger picture, AS WELL AS looking. You say audible observation isn't even augmentation for visual observation? You really think it's of no value to hear engine notes behind you? Or to be aware of an approaching emergency siren well before it's in view at all? Or to be able to tell if a van parked up ahead has it's engine running and might be about to pull out?

No I didn't ignore it, hence the comment the audible observation does not augment or even compliment visual observation. Which you seem to have missed.

Unfortunately most folks are distracted by loud noises, not supported in their observation of potential dangers. If you're going to look around every time you hear a loud engine noise in London your not spending enough time looking forward.

The ability to hear engine note behind you is dependent on two things, the vehicle behind has an engine you can hear and the vehicle behind actually has an engine. Same applies to the van. To be honest, in passing WVM, if you haven't checked the drivers mirror for a driver or given enough room incase they pull out/open a door, then you've already put yourself in potential danger.

I wonder if most folks ride assuming the road is clear and they check for other traffic, or whether most folks assume the road is busy and they check for a safe gap?

 

[Clive Atton]

The car behind is always at fault anyway. Not so great a consolation if you are under the wheels of it but you still have the moral high ground

I doubt this is true, if you deliberately move into the path of a legitimately overtaking vehicle I bet your argument would not stand up in court. The statement is correct if you stop suddenly and someone runs into the back of you, because in that situation they have not left sufficient room to stop so they are driving 'carelessly' (or something like that).


Re lifesavers, hearing is no substitute. I once nearly went under a trailer because I heard the car, let it pass then promptly moved out behind it. That shat me up big-time - never assume you can hear everything that is coming past you.

 

[Mad at urage]

No I didn't ignore it, hence the comment the audible observation does not augment or even compliment visual observation. Which you seem to have missed.

Unfortunately most folks are distracted by loud noises, not supported in their observation of potential dangers. If you're going to look around every time you hear a loud engine noise in London your not spending enough time looking forward.

The ability to hear engine note behind you is dependent on two things, the vehicle behind has an engine you can hear and the vehicle behind actually has an engine. Same applies to the van. To be honest, in passing WVM, if you haven't checked the drivers mirror for a driver or given enough room in case they pull out/open a door, then you've already put yourself in potential danger.

I wonder if most folks ride assuming the road is clear and they check for other traffic, or whether most folks assume the road is busy and they check for a safe gap?

I think this is an excellent example of people not training themselves to understand the sounds of the road. It is not about reacting to loud noises. The sound most motor vehicles make is not in fact their engine, but the tyre noise - if you are only listening for engine sounds, you will miss that. I (sometimes) drive a Prius and I can assure you it makes quite a lot of noise when running 'silently', you just have o understand what that noise is!

Of course paying educated attention to what you can hear complements paying attention to what you can see. You are not looking back constantly (I hope!) but you should (if you are able) add a constant appreciation of a changing situation by listening.

Assumptions either way are dangerous. Whether you know the road is clear or busy should be a constantly updated mental picture, using sight and sound. Do you ever ride along a country road? Could you hear whether a car is approaching from behind? CCers talk of hearing the scalp'd cyclist change down to chase, I'm sure then they can hear an approaching cyclist in the same circumstances if they pay attention to sounds.

 

[Arch]

My english is fine, thanks.

The piece I'm disagreeing with is the opinion that hearing does work in the right circumstances and I'd love to know under which circumstances you would make a transition in the road based only on what you've heard? If your hearing alerts you to a danger you didn't see, then you didn't look carefully enough in the first place.

Continual observation is key to road safety, but visual observation not audible.

I don't see how you think that bit from Cyclecraft in any way suggested only using your hearing. It said "complemented by listening". You look, AND you listen, just like the green cross code said. Things may be audible before they are in sight, just as they may be visible, but inaudible. No one said you shouldn't look as well.

That said, I frequently use my hearing to warn me of the approach of an emergency vehicle, invisible because it's either some way behind me on a road with bends in it, or approaching a junction where I can't see to the sides yet due to buildings. I hear the siren, I look round and try to locate the vehicle, and listen to try and work out the direction, and prepare to pull over - if only to avoid the drivers around me who won't hear it or see it until the last minute, due to being cocooned in boxes with the radio on, and who will most likely pull over suddenly without thinking about my presence.

 

[BentMikey]

I'm with marz - I'm very sceptical of those using their hearing to enhance their safety. The only way to be certain and to be safe is to look.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I'm with marz - I'm very sceptical of those using their hearing to enhance their safety. The only way to be certain and to be safe is to look.

To those blessed with it hearing is as vital as vision. As Arch said it gives advanced warning and a fuller picture of your suroundings. Try watching a film with your back to the TV by just looking over your shoulder. Now do the same with the sound off and see which makes more sense.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

I'm with marz - I'm very sceptical of those using their hearing to enhance their safety. The only way to be certain and to be safe is to look.

Huh? The way I read that is that you're happy with people to have iPods in and blaring then, as using sound to assist your riding is no good... is that what you meant?


No-one is (I don't think) suggesting that looking should be replaced by using your hearing, but that the latter is an extra tool to assist with getting a full picture of what's happening around you.

 

[BentMikey]

No, I just think that people should be looking, and looking properly. Once you start relying on your hearing you're almost certainly compromising your looking, and it's that second part that is super risky behaviour.

 

[Mad at urage]

No, I just think that people should be looking, and looking properly. Once you start relying on your hearing you're almost certainly compromising your looking, and it's that second part that is super risky behaviour.

Frankly BM that's a rather daft statement, unless you really believe that you cannot look and listen at the same time?

You cannot see behind you all the time and in the seconds since you last looked, things change. I've seen elsewhere that you recommend looking every 20 seconds: In the time between your visual checks, a car at 30mph will have moved some 880 feet - that's 268 metres for the younger folks. In a typical urban environment that is from out of sight to on top of you. By listening you can know that a car is there and (if necessary) look to see what it is doing. I find that I can tell to within a second, when a car I hear will pass me and usually have a good idea of how much distance it will give, this influences my riding plan.

By ignoring the sounds around you, you are trusting to luck all the time that you are not looking behind.