New Sub-species of Stealth Cyclist

JamJar wrote:

Some people really don't look, I was stopped at a red light on goodge
street,. W1 and a pedestrian crossing the road looking the other way for
oncoming traffic strolled straight into me. I think darwin has something to
say about people like that.

Eye contact is the secret. If you haven't made eye contact with them they
haven't seen you. With cars coming out of junctions or about to turn across
me I look at the driver. A) it tells me whether they've seen me and B) for
some curious reason people notice people looking at them. Ditto pedestrians,
the fact that you knew they were not looking in your direction should have
alerted you to the possibility of what they did. Yes you shouldn't have to
but its better to protect yourself from the mistakes of others rather than
become victim of them. Darwin has something to say about that as well.

Tony

"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...
This eye-contact thing has been debated a lot in the motorcycling
groups. As I recall the general consensus seemed to be that while
eye-contact did indicate that the motorist (aka "cager") had seen you,
and thus weeded out the "really truthfully didn't see you" category,
there remained the very important category of those who saw you but
simply didn't care, presuming that the inferior and more vulnerable
forms of road-life simply had to look out for themselves.

In other words, don't rely on eye contact to mean the driver isn't
going to cut you up.

I think that's true, and ISTR there being a similar discussion here not long
back. The point was put that eye contact is also not sufficient, there has
to be some objective corroborative evidence that they are actually going to
give way - visibly slowing down, a dip of the bonnet, brake lights, a flash
of lights or a waved hand - whatever may be appropriate to the situation and
road positions - and preferably more than just one of the above - something
more than just eye contact.

Rich

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:14:26 +0000 (UTC), (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:

This eye-contact thing has been debated a lot in the motorcycling
groups. As I recall the general consensus seemed to be that while
eye-contact did indicate that the motorist (aka "cager") had seen you,
and thus weeded out the "really truthfully didn't see you" category,
there remained the very important category of those who saw you but
simply didn't care, presuming that the inferior and more vulnerable
forms of road-life simply had to look out for themselves.

In other words, don't rely on eye contact to mean the driver isn't
going to cut you up.

When you've made eye contact you know the driver has seen you, but he
also knows you've seen him and that you will probably take avoiding
action if he simply pulls out in front of you. I've been experimenting
with deliberately avoiding eye contact recently. While keeping the car
in my peripheral vision I'll look resolutely ahead or even over my
shoulder. I'm aware of the car and ready to avoid him, but the driver
doesn't know that and is unwilling to take the risk. I'm sure I get
fewer cars pulling out when I avoid eye contact than when I
deliberately establish it.

As far as pedestrians are concerned I've never found that establishing
eye contact was particularly useful. They seem to wander out in front
of me just the same. The eye contact establishes me as another person
but they don't seem to register me as a vehicle. The Air Zound on the
other hand is quite effective even if the ped has his back to you at
the time.

--
Dave...

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 22:46:01 -0000, "Richard Goodman"
wrote:

I don't think there is any such thing as "aggressive" anti-speed
campaigning. Speeding is illegal, and if you do it you may well get
nicked, possibly by plod, possibly by a camera. Message over.

Hmm, I don't think that's the message. 'Everyone' knows it's illegal, but
the statistics and practical experience seem to show a high percentage of
drivers, if not the majority at some time and in some place or another,
don't really care - at least until it hits their wallet.

Compare and contrast: cyclist is doored and told it's his fault
because he was not wearing a helmet. Effect of helmet campaigning.
Driver is flashed and is commiserated with on the grounds that cameras
are terribly unfair. Effect of speed campaigning. There is a strong
relationship between speed and crashing. Of course if everybody were
taught to choose a safe speed, and they did so, there would be fewer
crashes. On the other hand, speed limits and enforcement exist
precisely because they don't.

No, the message is 'Speed
Kills', and it seems to me to be almost the only road safety message we ever
hear.

Apart from drink-driving. But in what way does speed not kill? The
probability of fatality in a crash increases with the fourth power of
speed. Probabilioty of crashing and of being injured or killed both
reduce when the speed on a given road is reduced. It's always a trade
off between going faster and going safer; the problem is that when
considering the balance the majority of drivers and their advocaes
(ABD, RAC and so on) never consider anyone's risk other than that of
the driver himself.

True, but that's such an old message now. When campaigning first started
about this, it may well have been that it appeared to reduce road safety to
the single issue of whether you were ****ed or not.

Every year there are at least two drink-driving campaigns.

Maybe the
same thing will happen to anti-speed campaigning - by keeping on at it, it
will finally sink into general consciousness that it's undesirable,
anti-social, etc, and other campaigns will get more focus.

I hope so. You should also know that when drink-drive laws were
introduced very similar objections were raised as are currently raised
to speed enforcement. Remember, too, that the AA was formed to watch
for speed traps. It has been going on for a long time.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 12:02:48 +0000 (UTC), (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:

The misunderstanding that SMIDSY *is* a conspicuity problem is what is
fuelling the lighting wars, with more and more folk fitting more and
more powerful lights and using them more often in the attempt to *be*
seen. The lighting wars are now causing so much dazzle and glare that
pedestrians and cyclists, who haven't the electrical power to compete,
are being put more at risk.

Excellent point. Johnny Foglight driving along with full beams,
foggies and all sorts (usually blue-tinged, I note these days) is
generally still only driving within the distance he can't see to be
occupied, rather than the distance he can see to be clear.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 14:36:28 -0000, "Tony Raven"
wrote:

Eye contact is the secret. If you haven't made eye contact with them they
haven't seen you.

I have twice been injured on roundabouts, once seriously, by drivers
who were looking straight into my eyes at the time. Bike is not
perceived as a threat.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

Simon Brooke wrote:

The roads
would probably be a lot safer is there was quite a low cap to the
maximum candlepower it was legal to use on a vehicle in a built up
area - the real problem in urban situations in difficult weather is
glare, dazzle and visual clutter, not lack of light.

Very true indeed, just out of interest how powerfull are car headlights ?

On unlit cycle path, I feel safe to go up to about 20 mph with 27W of
lumicycles. To get similar illumination to 1 & 1/2 times the distance (for
30 mph, to give a similar reaction time, but with better brakes) would take
2.25 times as much power, which is about 60W. How do car lights compare with
this?

On a lit street I don't need lights to see, I can see reflective signs over
1/4 of a mile away, I assume people could see me, if not dazzled by other
lights, over a similar distance.

Are we, cyclists and motorists, in a lighting arms race?


--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK


Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 22:46:01 -0000, "Richard Goodman"
wrote:

Compare and contrast: cyclist is doored and told it's his fault
because he was not wearing a helmet. Effect of helmet campaigning.
Driver is flashed and is commiserated with on the grounds that cameras
are terribly unfair. Effect of speed campaigning. There is a strong
relationship between speed and crashing. Of course if everybody were
taught to choose a safe speed, and they did so, there would be fewer
crashes. On the other hand, speed limits and enforcement exist
precisely because they don't.

snip remainder

I could agree with everything you say, but it sort of misses my point which
was not really about the merits of one campaign vs another but about what
people notice. Between speed and drink-driving campaigns, I scarcely even
notice the drink driving ones. Maybe it's because I don't drink.... But
maybe it's not just me, and anyway speed issues have a far, far higher
profile these days, almost if not completely to the exclusion of all else.
They don't just arise out of DoT campaigns, the issue gets a lot of news
exposure. You see it everywhere you go through cameras and speed bumps. It
comes in pompous ministerial announcements about 'zero tolerance', or
another minister saying how eager she was to plead guilty to a charge or in
despising a despicable former MP and his wife getting off because they can't
remember who dun it.

I don't 'see' or remember seeing any other campaigns except a rather
short-lived 'now you see him' motorcyclist lying in the road. If the only
thing you're noticing is messages about speed then you get the impression
that road safety is being reduced to that single issue. I wouldn't deny
that it is an issue, but I think I'd rather see something around the idea of
"FFS _LOOK_!" I mean, in another part of this thread there's a whole other
SMIDSY discussion going on, and for me, personally, from bitter personal
experience, SMIDSY is more of an issue than speed.

Well, having said that I now know, having looked, that the DoT actually
supposedly introduced a "Think!" campaign covering all-round road safety in
summer 2000, but what happened to it?

Rich

"Richard Goodman" wrote in message
...

Between speed and drink-driving campaigns, I scarcely even
notice the drink driving ones. Maybe it's because I don't drink....

Maybe it is. I don't see speeding campaigns, but then I don't count yellow
boxes at the side of the road as part of some publicity drive.

despising a despicable former MP and his wife getting off because they
can't
remember who dun it.

There was a specific reason there. Recent cases have seen killers get off
by blaming each other, so claiming the ability to do so as some sort of
victory for the "downtrodden motorist" (read "biggest killer of children in
the UK") is particularly unacceptable for someone with a place in public
life. It would have lowered Hamilton in my estimation, if only he weren't
already at rock bottom...

I don't 'see' or remember seeing any other campaigns except a rather
short-lived 'now you see him' motorcyclist lying in the road.

That was part of a fairly extensive campaign proposing that the solution to
drivers not looking was for motorcyclists to ride more carefully. I think
it was cut short because of objections to its victim-blaming nature, but
ICBW.

Well, having said that I now know, having looked, that the DoT actually
supposedly introduced a "Think!" campaign covering all-round road safety
in
summer 2000, but what happened to it?

It has its own website and it's the brand for most DfT road safety
campaigning at the moment.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

"Danny Colyer" wrote in message
...

And I realised it's just someone with absolutely no sense of irony. Not
American, are you, Michael?

It's nice to know that urc is so free of prejudice.
___
Michael MacClancy