Road safety - armour and seated positioning?

downfader

These two thoughts have been on my mind for a while. It all started back a couple of years ago when I began speaking to motorcyclists who used to cycle reguarly before taking up the motor.

One guy said he would often keep up with traffic in a 30 zone, no effort involved, and all on his racer cycle. When he got the motorbike he was riding for a couple of years and hit some deisel, iirc, and came off at around 30. It was then, he said, that he realised what damage he'd have done to his body with the cycle in the same circumstances - but that day the motorcycle armour took the brunt of it and he was fine.

The other thing that gets me is the seated position. I have always ridden upright but have thought about getting a proper racer and crouching down. The thing that always worries me is the "superman" position you're in. Are you as visible? Locally several of these riders have been knocked off, and it seems the driver cites the cyclists seating position as a factor. It all could be a ruse to get away with the fact they werent looking...

Just general musings really..

always_tyred

In my experience, you start to tumble at those speeds. Armour would reduce road rash for sure. But where do you stop?

The visibility thing sounds like nonsense to me. Perhaps the drivers where attempting to argue that the cyclist wasn't able to see ahead because they were crouched down? I've heard that before. You know - "although I drove into a cyclist, they were going too fast, even though they were going slower than all the cars, and weren't looking/couldn't see and so its their fault for not avoiding me driving into them."

Its no different from little children pointing to another and saying "he made me do it".

Its also not true. You can see just fine.

cntl

After thousands of miles, I gave up cyclo-commuting. It's too dangerous. I run everyday instead.

downfader

Running used to give me shin splints :oops: In my observation you need really good shoes to avoid the serious issue of impact related injuries and wear. And my being flat footed (well I almost havwe two flippers, lol) it makes it more an issue

Tyred, I agree with you.. its almost as funny as the people I met who thought that cycle brakes werent as good as car brakes... mainly because they are smaller (naturally the smaller vehicle seemed to have not crossed their mind)

Mike Healey

The slimy leagal weasel who defended the driver who killed the Scots international, Jason McIntyre, tried to use the same argument. This was slightly spoiled by the motorist who was behind the prat who claimed he must have been on the cycle path, by saying that he'd seeen Jason for at least 16 seconds before the collision.

The defence argument didn't cut any ice with the court. It's also ridiculous, since an adult, crouched cyclist is bigger than a child pedestrian and no one would dare use the argumetn that the child was too small to be seen in the event of a collision. (I hope)

coffeecup

Good point on the motorbike thing. I commute 10 miles each way, averaging 20mph. If I come off at 30 I'm gonna leave some meat on the road, but I prefer not to think about it. I think about it even less going down hill at 40...

On the crouch position - If a driver can't see a cyclist on a road bike, he ain't looking

Wearing some bright gear, maybe even a few reflective things stuck here and there and get decent lights for the winter

sc999cs

Mike Healey wrote:

The slimy leagal weasel who defended the driver who killed the Scots international, Jason McIntyre, tried to use the same argument. This was slightly spoiled by the motorist who was behind the prat who claimed he must have been on the cycle path, by saying that he'd seeen Jason for at least 16 seconds before the collision.

Do you have any links to this? The media seemed to lose interest in this story so it was never made clear. Was Jason McIntyre on the road after all?

downfader

sc999cs wrote:

Mike Healey wrote:

The slimy leagal weasel who defended the driver who killed the Scots international, Jason McIntyre, tried to use the same argument. This was slightly spoiled by the motorist who was behind the prat who claimed he must have been on the cycle path, by saying that he'd seeen Jason for at least 16 seconds before the collision.

Do you have any links to this? The media seemed to lose interest in this story so it was never made clear. Was Jason McIntyre on the road after all?

It was reported in the Scottish Sun (you can find their page through www.thesun.co.uk I think), the telegraph and the times. I read all reports from them online and saw the same c*** the driver said.

Found a LINK

feel

In built up areas many pedestrians look just for cars before crossing and can be almost oblivious to fast moving bicycles coming towards them. I have even encountered ones who just listen before crossing :shock: A powerful flashing LED which is used all the time and a decent bell are invaluable to me. I also believe the LED has reduced the cars pulling across me and pulling out in front of me (touchs wood)

downfader

Feel, theres a blind guy who lives on my road. It has crossed my mind when cycling past him that he may not hear me so I let my wheels freeride-click and I "blow" to catch my breath.

feel

downfader wrote:

Feel, theres a blind guy who lives on my road. It has crossed my mind when cycling past him that he may not hear me so I let my wheels freeride-click and I "blow" to catch my breath.

I try and whistle on occasion or if i can't manage that :oops: play with the bell

Mettan

downfader wrote:

but that day the motorcycle armour took the brunt of it and he was fine.

You can get lightweight Back protectors or similar (Downhill MTB) (if you don't want the shoulders) that could be used in Winter training rides (on road) - some would say they're too heavy (I don't buy that, frankly) - you'd barely notice it imho. Obviously, no use against a HGV, but for countless wet weather offs etc there might be a use.

Mettan

Mike Healey wrote:

The defence argument didn't cut any ice with the court. It's also ridiculous, since an adult, crouched cyclist is bigger than a child pedestrian and no one would dare use the argumetn that the child was too small to be seen in the event of a collision. (I hope)

Fully agree, Mike, good point - in a similar vein - when you've got parked cars either side of the road - a car enters at one end, you enter at the other (at the same time), and the driver seems to think that you've an "equivalent" non-vulnerable "vehicle" and proceeds to plow ahead without little or no concern for cyclists - disgraceful :evil: - if that was an old age pensioner or child at the other end the driver would be all considerate and cautious, but for some strange reason they seem to see cyclists as "equivalent" vehicles, which of course, is completely wrong - in many/most scenarios cyclists are just as vulnerable as old age pensioners and kids when it comes to being on the road - cyclists should be seen as "vulnerable" road users and given the space and courtesy that any other vulnerable group receives.

goldblendslurper

My advice is to ride defensively. I've spoken to people who say you should ride agressively, in the middle of your lane so that cars have to slow down to overtake you etc etc. I always listen when I'm on my bike. If you are out on open roads and a car is approaching from behind, listen to the engine revs. You can usually work out how the car is going to pass you. When riding in town or approaching junctions, have your fingers on the brakes ready. Hopefully you will never need to stop in an emergency but it's best to be ready incase you do. Make sure your tyres are in good condition and make sure your brakes work well and are properly adjusted, because that's what's going to effect your ability to stop.

biondino

Riding defensively very much does involve taking primary position when required, though. You should ride assertively, not aggressively, and I don't think anyone would disagree.

always_tyred

biondino wrote:

Riding defensively very much does involve taking primary position when required, though. You should ride assertively, not aggressively, and I don't think anyone would disagree.

I'm sure someone will manage.