Was this bus driver bad?

[BentMikey]

Oops, sorry, thought you meant on buses.

So DRL on bikes leads to more accidents? How does that work then?

Yes, I was a bit surprised by that too. I think they speculated it was due to lights being harder to judge for speed and distance than the motorbike alone, and that the lights "hid" the motorbike.

 

[BentMikey]

Its the interaction zone you mention im having problems with BM? Where does it start from, as soon as your seen,or is there a distance you have in mind?As far as im concerned,the sooner i know whats around me,or ahead,the better.

There's no point in knowing about traffic much before it reaches your interaction zone. By interaction zone I mean where a vehicle is likely to need to interact with you (and v. versa) in some way. This may mean enough time to plan an overtake, to negotiate at a junction, or even just to communicate with the other driver/rider. When someone is outside this zone, then they may as well not exist as far as you're concerned.

OK, I can think of one exception to that, and that's knowing about traffic problems such as queues, accidents, and road works, so you can plan to reroute around them, but since they are normally out of view as well as out of your interaction zone when you'd want to know about them, in terms of this hiviz debate they are out of scope.

 

[domtyler]

There's no point in knowing about traffic much before it reaches your interaction zone. By interaction zone I mean where a vehicle is likely to need to interact with you (and v. versa) in some way. This may mean enough time to plan an overtake, to negotiate at a junction, or even just to communicate with the other driver/rider. When someone is outside this zone, then they may as well not exist as far as you're concerned.

OK, I can think of one exception to that, and that's knowing about traffic problems such as queues, accidents, and road works, so you can plan to reroute around them, but since they are normally out of view as well as out of your interaction zone when you'd want to know about them, in terms of this hiviz debate they are out of scope.

I think I have an issue here, surely a good driver/road user could be described as one who looks far up the road, building a picture and anticipating any hazards along the way. Your logic suggests that it is okay to only look a very short distance up the road.

 

[tdr1nka]

The theory part of the modern driving test has a section called the Hazard Perception Test, this is used to guage a new drivers ability to foresee potential hazards on the road ahead.

I believe that it is expected of a driver to be scanning the road ahead for as far a distance as traffic and conditions allow.


T x

 

[col]

The theory part of the modern driving test has a section called the Hazard Perception Test, this is used to guage a new drivers ability to foresee potential hazards on the road ahead.

I believe that it is expected of a driver to be scanning the road ahead for as far a distance as traffic and conditions allow.


T x

It does,and it helps you see something that might transpire,due to something coming from another road,what may be ahead,and we are talking from somewhere in the distance too,its all about having the knowledge of something that doesnt effect you yet,but could possibly.


When someone is outside this zone, then they may as well not exist as far as you're concerned.


This is worrying,Having an idea of what is where,it doesnt matter how far away,if you can see it,it could effect you.

 

[tdr1nka]

In a bizarre twist of fate I started the process of obtaining my driving licence but gave up before I got any further than taking my theory test.
(I previously lived a precarious existance being a cage hating car mechanic without a driving licence.)
Even after having been a cyclist for years and thinking I read the road pretty well, I found the Hazard Percetion Test quite hard and a good eye opener.

T x

 

[Cab]

Whether primary is the right thing to do doesnt matter,but like it or not,when a cyclist is in the middle of the road,it does annoy drivers,they see it as unnecassary delay,and its that that causes reaction from drivers,not what we wear.

So you're just going to flat out ignore the TRL report that stated the contrary?

 

[Cab]

Cab,
I have actually read the relevent info regarding the differing attitudes of drivers to cyclists wearing helmets and hi-vi and to those who are not and my opinion is that I choose to be as visible as I can be.

Thats more like it.

Not an unreasonable position, considering the tangled data available to us.

 

[col]

So you're just going to flat out ignore the TRL report that stated the contrary?

No im not ignoring it,i havnt even read it yet ,to tell you the truth.But i think safety is a relative thing,what i may see as safe,you may not,but im happy to go on as i am,feeling that im doing what i can to make myself as safe as possible,and others too.

 

[Cab]

No im not ignoring it,i havnt even read it yet ,to tell you the truth.But i think safety is a relative thing,what i may see as safe,you may not,but im happy to go on as i am,feeling that im doing what i can to make myself as safe as possible,and others too.

You're not really doing a good job for your own safety if you don't consider the available evidence though. Like it or lump it, the standard road position you're taking is less safe than you need to be, and like it or lump it the perception of cyclists is not improved by us being more visibly 'different', and you should consider the evidence and balance your choice to use high-viz against other factors.

You say you ride a good secondary; how far from the edge of the gutter is your elbow?

 

[col]

You're not really doing a good job for your own safety if you don't consider the available evidence though. Like it or lump it, the standard road position you're taking is less safe than you need to be, and like it or lump it the perception of cyclists is not improved by us being more visibly 'different', and you should consider the evidence and balance your choice to use high-viz against other factors.

You say you ride a good secondary; how far from the edge of the gutter is your elbow?

Come on cab,lets not get into dissecting everything.Im no where near the kerb,unless i want to be,iv never been a near miss by a passing vehicle to the extent that i felt unsafe,i always look well ahead,and around at every opertunity,i let vehicles through or out or pass,because they are faster,and i see no reason to hold them up.If i need to go faster,i take the car,and when im driving the car/bus,i do exactly the same,or try to.If because i dont read a report that someone has compiled,makes me a bad driver,then so be it,but i think common sense,as well as defensive driving,has contributed to me not having any accidents,or run ins,with others,in a looong time.I dont intend changing to a different cycling style,and finding i get abuse and grief from other road users,because im exercising some rights,whjich in my opinion,cause more problems some of the time,than dont.

 

[Cab]

Come on cab,lets not get into dissecting everything.Im no where near the kerb,unless i want to be,iv never been a near miss by a passing vehicle to the extent that i felt unsafe,

Mmmh hm. Well, either you feel safe with unsafe close overtaking or you ride on a different road network to the one I know.

 

[col]

Mmmh hm. Well, either you feel safe with unsafe close overtaking or you ride on a different road network to the one I know.

I wouldnt say my road network is much different from anyones?What makes you say im happy with dangerous close overtaking?

 

[Cab]

I wouldnt say my road network is much different from anyones?What makes you say im happy with dangerous close overtaking?

Because to never have anyone ever pass closer than in comfortable either implies hardly ever cycling, an incredible lifelong spate of incredible luck, or extremely lenient definition of a safe overtaking distance.

 

[col]

Because to never have anyone ever pass closer than in comfortable either implies hardly ever cycling, an incredible lifelong spate of incredible luck, or extremely lenient definition of a safe overtaking distance.

I used to cycle all the time,since i was a nipper,till i was in my thirties,had a few years off it,then back on it,but now not that often granted.Luck can be a factor i suppose,but what is your definition of a safe distance for vehicles passing you?If it doesnt unsettle me,or shock the living daylights out of me,i dont see how it could have been too close?Im not saying iv never had close passing vehicles,i may have worded it wrong before,but definitely not to the extent that made me feel unsafe,or in danger.