Is commuting worth the risk anymore?

Awavey wrote:

yeah I have had similar thoughts for sure, especially following some appalling close passes Ive had lately,though most are still in the daylight fwiw, one car last week only missed knocking me off because their wing mirror was already folded back, but part of me feels like Im letting people like that win if they bully me off the road

I agree with this - I tend to get overtaken better in the dark. It's as if the drivers give more room because they can't see exactly how wide you are, and overcompensate. I have far more close passes in broad daylight.

Conversely, on wednesday when I went out for an afternoon spin (having been, and still being in the middle of a debilitating cold/chest infection), I had a close pass by a 4x4 coming at me from the opposite direction. The moron decided to overtake another car as I was approaching, and they were in mid overtake as they passed me. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a worrying indicment of the frequency of this type of thing, but my reaction was to just put a sarcastic thumbs-up at the driver (who was looking directly at me!) and carry on. Perhaps it was because I saw it coming that I didn't even feel that scared, it just seemed like water off a ducks back.

Awavey wrote:

yeah I have had similar thoughts for sure, especially following some appalling close passes Ive had lately,though most are still in the daylight fwiw, one car last week only missed knocking me off because their wing mirror was already folded back, but part of me feels like Im letting people like that win if they bully me off the road

I recommend 'Freakonomics'.  Everything is incentive.  We do things (or refrain from doing things) for pleasure (or pain).  As long as there is no incentive not to act dangerously around cyclists - and a clear incentive in doing so, because the more they do it, the more they frighten cyclists and the fewer cyclists are likely to venture abroad - then car drivers will continue to act dangerously around cyclists. 

The only question is: are you prepared to give them an incentive not to act that way around you?

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Awavey wrote:

yeah I have had similar thoughts for sure, especially following some appalling close passes Ive had lately,though most are still in the daylight fwiw, one car last week only missed knocking me off because their wing mirror was already folded back, but part of me feels like Im letting people like that win if they bully me off the road

I recommend 'Freakonomics'.  Everything is incentive.  We do things (or refrain from doing things) for pleasure (or pain).  As long as there is no incentive not to act dangerously around cyclists - and a clear incentive in doing so, because the more they do it, the more they frighten cyclists and the fewer cyclists are likely to venture abroad - then car drivers will continue to act dangerously around cyclists. 

The only question is: are you prepared to give them an incentive not to act that way around you?

Can we follow this through - genuinely - because you often espouse the angry response sort of stuff. I relate to it because I can be an angry twat too - particularly when my heart rate is up and I've just been skimmed by a berk in a couple of tons of metal.

I agree broadly with your incentives model (economics), but it applies to populations, just like it says in Freakonomics. I might be doing srchar a disservice here, but he hasn't struck me as a population.

Genuine question, because if there is some sort of consensus on here, we might be onto something useful*. How, without getting arrested, is srchar supposed to incentivise enough drivers on his commute in order to make any sort of difference?

* Personally, I think the single biggest change in incentives would be a liability law, you know, like all our more civilised European neighbours have. I have evidence-based (I think) rants about it on various channels and to various people in various levels of politics whenever I get the chance. But if we all started doing something that became noticed - would that have an effect?

davel wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Awavey wrote:

yeah I have had similar thoughts for sure, especially following some appalling close passes Ive had lately,though most are still in the daylight fwiw, one car last week only missed knocking me off because their wing mirror was already folded back, but part of me feels like Im letting people like that win if they bully me off the road

I recommend 'Freakonomics'.  Everything is incentive.  We do things (or refrain from doing things) for pleasure (or pain).  As long as there is no incentive not to act dangerously around cyclists - and a clear incentive in doing so, because the more they do it, the more they frighten cyclists and the fewer cyclists are likely to venture abroad - then car drivers will continue to act dangerously around cyclists. 

The only question is: are you prepared to give them an incentive not to act that way around you?

Can we follow this through - genuinely - because you often espouse the angry response sort of stuff. I relate to it because I can be an angry twat too - particularly when my heart rate is up and I've just been skimmed by a berk in a couple of tons of metal.

I agree broadly with your incentives model (economics), but it applies to populations, just like it says in Freakonomics. I might be doing srchar a disservice here, but he hasn't struck me as a population.

Genuine question, because if there is some sort of consensus on here, we might be onto something useful*. How, without getting arrested, is srchar supposed to incentivise enough drivers on his commute in order to make any sort of difference?

 

* Personally, I think the single biggest change in incentives would be a liability law, you know, like all our more civilised European neighbours have. I have evidence-based (I think) rants about it on various channels and to various people in various levels of politics whenever I get the chance. But if we all started doing something that became noticed - would that have an effect?

I'm more of a fan of using cameras to discourage poor drivers. It takes more effort to submit videos to the police, but I think that having a warning letter from the police drop onto your doormat probably has more of an effect than just getting into a shouting match.

The other advantage of using cameras is that it works better if you don't retaliate or get angry (i.e. the police are more likely to agree with you) and by trying to do that, it can improve your disposition. I can certainly relate to getting angry with close passes and I used to try to catch up with the drivers to give them my opinion or desperately try to overtake them to "prove my point".

I also like to think that there's a "herd immunity" effect with cyclists using cameras. The more drivers that are caught out by cyclist cams, the more drivers that take care around cyclists (hopefully).

HawkinsPeter wrote:

davel wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Awavey wrote:

yeah I have had similar thoughts for sure, especially following some appalling close passes Ive had lately,though most are still in the daylight fwiw, one car last week only missed knocking me off because their wing mirror was already folded back, but part of me feels like Im letting people like that win if they bully me off the road

I recommend 'Freakonomics'.  Everything is incentive.  We do things (or refrain from doing things) for pleasure (or pain).  As long as there is no incentive not to act dangerously around cyclists - and a clear incentive in doing so, because the more they do it, the more they frighten cyclists and the fewer cyclists are likely to venture abroad - then car drivers will continue to act dangerously around cyclists. 

The only question is: are you prepared to give them an incentive not to act that way around you?

Can we follow this through - genuinely - because you often espouse the angry response sort of stuff. I relate to it because I can be an angry twat too - particularly when my heart rate is up and I've just been skimmed by a berk in a couple of tons of metal.

I agree broadly with your incentives model (economics), but it applies to populations, just like it says in Freakonomics. I might be doing srchar a disservice here, but he hasn't struck me as a population.

Genuine question, because if there is some sort of consensus on here, we might be onto something useful*. How, without getting arrested, is srchar supposed to incentivise enough drivers on his commute in order to make any sort of difference?

 

* Personally, I think the single biggest change in incentives would be a liability law, you know, like all our more civilised European neighbours have. I have evidence-based (I think) rants about it on various channels and to various people in various levels of politics whenever I get the chance. But if we all started doing something that became noticed - would that have an effect?

I'm more of a fan of using cameras to discourage poor drivers. It takes more effort to submit videos to the police, but I think that having a warning letter from the police drop onto your doormat probably has more of an effect than just getting into a shouting match.

The other advantage of using cameras is that it works better if you don't retaliate or get angry (i.e. the police are more likely to agree with you) and by trying to do that, it can improve your disposition. I can certainly relate to getting angry with close passes and I used to try to catch up with the drivers to give them my opinion or desperately try to overtake them to "prove my point".

I also like to think that there's a "herd immunity" effect with cyclists using cameras. The more drivers that are caught out by cyclist cams, the more drivers that take care around cyclists (hopefully).

Really good shout.

I don't use cameras, but have seen repeated reference to them on here in relation to diffusing situations. That could prevent my (occasional, but it does happen) red mist too - and it's all on the right side of the law.

It seems more police forces seem willing to act on footage now?

davel wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Awavey wrote:

yeah I have had similar thoughts for sure, especially following some appalling close passes Ive had lately,though most are still in the daylight fwiw, one car last week only missed knocking me off because their wing mirror was already folded back, but part of me feels like Im letting people like that win if they bully me off the road

I recommend 'Freakonomics'.  Everything is incentive.  We do things (or refrain from doing things) for pleasure (or pain).  As long as there is no incentive not to act dangerously around cyclists - and a clear incentive in doing so, because the more they do it, the more they frighten cyclists and the fewer cyclists are likely to venture abroad - then car drivers will continue to act dangerously around cyclists. 

The only question is: are you prepared to give them an incentive not to act that way around you?

Can we follow this through - genuinely - because you often espouse the angry response sort of stuff. I relate to it because I can be an angry twat too - particularly when my heart rate is up and I've just been skimmed by a berk in a couple of tons of metal.

I agree broadly with your incentives model (economics), but it applies to populations, just like it says in Freakonomics. I might be doing srchar a disservice here, but he hasn't struck me as a population.

Genuine question, because if there is some sort of consensus on here, we might be onto something useful*. How, without getting arrested, is srchar supposed to incentivise enough drivers on his commute in order to make any sort of difference?

 

* Personally, I think the single biggest change in incentives would be a liability law, you know, like all our more civilised European neighbours have. I have evidence-based (I think) rants about it on various channels and to various people in various levels of politics whenever I get the chance. But if we all started doing something that became noticed - would that have an effect?

I genuinely don't think I espouse an 'angry' response.  I just refuse to be a punchbag for some cunt who thinks that he's got more right than I have, to use the road.  

I don't start arguments, and my response to almost being wiped out, is generally a glare.  Maybe that's too much?  Possibly.   Certainly in the psychopath-infested road environment that is London, looking the wrong way at someone can often get you stabbed to death.  

The trick - well, one of the tricks, is never to start a fight that you can't finish.  And remember 'reasonable force' is all that you're allowed to use.