Video: Pro cyclist tells drivers: "I am so frightened just to do my job "

Skylark wrote:

Poor sugar still has a lot to learn about the perils of riding (be it in the peloton or out there on the road).  No driver is going to give you 10s. In fact always expect the worst. There ought to be more important things to worry about than this.

Wait, are we talking the same about the same "sugar" who is a three-time junior road champion, rode with Orica-AIS for two years before joining Wiggle, had a hit-and-run driver take her out when she was 18 (and come back for his mirror, ignoring her on the ground) having spent much of the previous 2 years recovering from multiple skull fractures, spinal damage and bruising to the brain due to a horrific pile-up during an under-19s champ race - that "sugar" ? She probably has much to learn in her career but I doubt it's going to be from you telling her about the "perils of riding".

Skylark wrote:

Poor sugar still has a lot to learn about the perils of riding (be it in the peloton or out there on the road).  No driver is going to give you 10s. In fact always expect the worst. There ought to be more important things to worry about than this.

I can't even begin to get my head around the backwardness and pompousness of this opinion, on a cycling website no less...

Skylark wrote:

Poor sugar still has a lot to learn about the perils of riding (be it in the peloton or out there on the road).  No driver is going to give you 10s. In fact always expect the worst. There ought to be more important things to worry about than this.

Cockus Wombulus

Skylark wrote:

Poor sugar still has a lot to learn about the perils of riding (be it in the peloton or out there on the road).  No driver is going to give you 10s. In fact always expect the worst. There ought to be more important things to worry about than this.

Yeah! Im certain that these trained professionals have a lot to learn from us keyboard warriors... 

Eejit.

aegisdesign wrote:

Two pages of irrelevant debate about headphones instead of idiot drivers scaring people off the roads. Well done people.

Not all of us...

but, like, thanks for your contribution.

aegisdesign wrote:

Two pages of irrelevant debate about headphones instead of idiot drivers scaring people off the roads. Well done people.

What is there to debate about idiot drivers scaring people off the road? We're largely in agreement on that. What we disagree on (and hence debate) is whether riding with earphones compromises personal safety

aegisdesign wrote:

Two pages of irrelevant debate about headphones instead of idiot drivers scaring people off the roads. Well done people.

Its all idiot drivers. Thats kind of the point. Sorry you missed that.

hawkinspeter wrote:

The topic of hearing/headphones on a bike really bugs me as lots of unthinking people would have it made illegal for deaf people to cycle and/or drive.

Yes, hearing is a very useful sense to use on a bike, but it is NOT essential. Hearing is mainly used for gleaning information about what is behind you as your vision is obviously used for stuff in front of you, so as long as you're not blindly pulling out in front of other traffic, how does it affect your safety?

Anytime someone is hearing impaired (whether that is by choice or not), they can easily compensate by looking around more often.

I'm deaf. I just try to make sure I know what's behind me at all times.

Being able to hear what's behind you is probably useful if you're walking across the Masaii Mara on your own because lions and tigers and shit are not especially interested in your welfare and are under no obligation not to eat you, so you have to look out for yourself.

On the roads, however, other road users are supposed not to kill you, so you shouldn't have to worry about them sneaking up behind you. You're taught to look behind anyway before you change lanes, or turn or whatever ("mirror, signal, manoeuvre") because even with perfect hearing you can't hear everything, what with wind noise and other environmental stuff . 

With hearing aids in it's often impossible to locate the source of some sounds, unless you have very sophisticated and expensive ones (not NHS), and you can end up looking around trying to locate the source, by which time you've either been eaten by a leopard or crushed by a defective lorry.

nbrus wrote:

she will be catching vehicles unaware and putting them in a position where they need to brake hard to avoid hitting her and then making unsafe passes at the nearest opportunity.

At least your original act disguised it a bit. This is just sloppy.

nbrus wrote:

Riding with a mirror would help as you can keep track of what is coming up behind you. It definitely makes me feel safer. I supect that Macey Stewart, being a pro cyclist is probably always in the primary position and riding as fast as she can, so she will be catching vehicles unaware and putting them in a position where they need to brake hard to avoid hitting her and then making unsafe passes at the nearest opportunity.

If a driver needs to brake hard to avoid hitting a cyclist riding in primary position during the middle of the day with good visibility, they shouldn't be driving.  Heck, even at night with somewhat poor visibility, they should be driving at a low enough speed that they would have enough time to avoid hard braking to not hit her.

And it is absolutely the responsibility of the person overtaking to make sure that the pass isn't unsafe.  You may not have intended, but the wording of your last sentence makes it sound like drivers being held up by a primary-position cyclist are somehow forced into making unsafe passes. This is like the videos I've seen talking about slow left-lane drivers (in the U.S.) are dangerous because they "force" faster drivers to make unsafe lane changes to get around.  That's simply ridiculous.  Sure, when a lane is considered the "fast" lane, it's annoying to have someone going slowly.  But no one is being "forced" to drive aggressively/dangerously; they're choosing to.  Passing a cyclist dangerously close is nothing more than a driver demonstrating the selfish belief that their convenience is more important than the cyclist's safety.

nbrus wrote:

Riding with a mirror would help as you can keep track of what is coming up behind you. It definitely makes me feel safer. I supect that Macey Stewart, being a pro cyclist is probably always in the primary position and riding as fast as she can, so she will be catching vehicles unaware and putting them in a position where they need to brake hard to avoid hitting her and then making unsafe passes at the nearest opportunity.

A mirror doesn't help at all, in fact it's a hindrance. So every time you look and make the assumption a vehicle is going to be too close you're veering off, well you're going to have to do that almost all the time when on the highway. And then motorists will take it that you veering off all the time is fine and they'll continue to hold their line/reasoning of bullying their way through because you'll always get out of the way. The psychology is all wrong hence why we try to get people to take a wider non kerb hugging line.

Basically you'll be checking your mirror too often and not focusing on what's ahead, you can't just give a brief glance each and every time because it takes a little longer to figure out distance and the gap to you which doesn't always reflect how much space you'll get as they are actually passing in any case. A mirror really does not alleviate the problem, it does not get you out of trouble and is a distraction.

Sure if you have neck/mobility issues but this would be better used to judge distance/gaps when manoeuvring yourself not to judge if someone is going to pass you too close.

However it's yet another example of pushing responsibility onto the vulnerable to 'look out' instead of forcing those causing the massively more amount of harm AND are at fault in the vast majority of incidents to take responsibly.

They'll have us in high-vis boxes with airbags, oh wait that's a car.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

nbrus wrote:

Riding with a mirror would help as you can keep track of what is coming up behind you. It definitely makes me feel safer. I supect that Macey Stewart, being a pro cyclist is probably always in the primary position and riding as fast as she can, so she will be catching vehicles unaware and putting them in a position where they need to brake hard to avoid hitting her and then making unsafe passes at the nearest opportunity.

A mirror doesn't help at all, in fact it's a hindrance. So every time you look and make the assumption a vehicle is going to be too close you're veering off, well you're going to have to do that almost all the time when on the highway. And then motorists will take it that you veering off all the time is fine and they'll continue to hold their line/reasoning of bullying their way through because you'll always get out of the way. The psychology is all wrong hence why we try to get people to take a wider non kerb hugging line.

Basically you'll be checking your mirror too often and not focusing on what's ahead, you can't just give a brief glance each and every time because it takes a little longer to figure out distance and the gap to you which doesn't always reflect how much space you'll get as they are actually passing in any case. A mirror really does not alleviate the problem, it does not get you out of trouble and is a distraction.

Sure if you have neck/mobility issues but this would be better used to judge distance/gaps when manoeuvring yourself not to judge if someone is going to pass you too close.

I never find a mirror a hindrance.  I find it very useful. And I never use it to spot vehicles which are going to come too close so that I can move out of their way. I am not that sort of cyclist. If I see something behind I make sure that I am taking the lane as much as is necessary.

"So" all your comments about getting into the kerb are wide of the mark.

I find it quite easy to take a quick glance.

You may have jumped to conclusions here.

Have you ever used a mirror?

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

nbrus wrote:

Riding with a mirror would help as you can keep track of what is coming up behind you. It definitely makes me feel safer. I supect that Macey Stewart, being a pro cyclist is probably always in the primary position and riding as fast as she can, so she will be catching vehicles unaware and putting them in a position where they need to brake hard to avoid hitting her and then making unsafe passes at the nearest opportunity.

A mirror doesn't help at all, in fact it's a hindrance. So every time you look and make the assumption a vehicle is going to be too close you're veering off, well you're going to have to do that almost all the time when on the highway. And then motorists will take it that you veering off all the time is fine and they'll continue to hold their line/reasoning of bullying their way through because you'll always get out of the way. The psychology is all wrong hence why we try to get people to take a wider non kerb hugging line.

Basically you'll be checking your mirror too often and not focusing on what's ahead, you can't just give a brief glance each and every time because it takes a little longer to figure out distance and the gap to you which doesn't always reflect how much space you'll get as they are actually passing in any case. A mirror really does not alleviate the problem, it does not get you out of trouble and is a distraction.

Sure if you have neck/mobility issues but this would be better used to judge distance/gaps when manoeuvring yourself not to judge if someone is going to pass you too close.

However it's yet another example of pushing responsibility onto the vulnerable to 'look out' instead of forcing those causing the massively more amount of harm AND are at fault in the vast majority of incidents to take responsibly.

They'll have us in high-vis boxes with airbags, oh wait that's a car.

This is on the same level as people arguing that speed limits souldn't be reduced, or speed camera tolerances shouldn't be changed because they'd be checking their speedo all the time, and would increase the nmber of crashes.

I assume you also think vehicles shouldn't have mirrors because if their distraction value?

madcarew wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

nbrus wrote:

Riding with a mirror would help as you can keep track of what is coming up behind you. It definitely makes me feel safer. I supect that Macey Stewart, being a pro cyclist is probably always in the primary position and riding as fast as she can, so she will be catching vehicles unaware and putting them in a position where they need to brake hard to avoid hitting her and then making unsafe passes at the nearest opportunity.

A mirror doesn't help at all, in fact it's a hindrance. So every time you look and make the assumption a vehicle is going to be too close you're veering off, well you're going to have to do that almost all the time when on the highway. And then motorists will take it that you veering off all the time is fine and they'll continue to hold their line/reasoning of bullying their way through because you'll always get out of the way. The psychology is all wrong hence why we try to get people to take a wider non kerb hugging line.

Basically you'll be checking your mirror too often and not focusing on what's ahead, you can't just give a brief glance each and every time because it takes a little longer to figure out distance and the gap to you which doesn't always reflect how much space you'll get as they are actually passing in any case. A mirror really does not alleviate the problem, it does not get you out of trouble and is a distraction.

Sure if you have neck/mobility issues but this would be better used to judge distance/gaps when manoeuvring yourself not to judge if someone is going to pass you too close.

However it's yet another example of pushing responsibility onto the vulnerable to 'look out' instead of forcing those causing the massively more amount of harm AND are at fault in the vast majority of incidents to take responsibly.

They'll have us in high-vis boxes with airbags, oh wait that's a car.

This is on the same level as people arguing that speed limits souldn't be reduced, or speed camera tolerances shouldn't be changed because they'd be checking their speedo all the time, and would increase the nmber of crashes.

I assume you also think vehicles shouldn't have mirrors because if their distraction value?

It's not remotely the same, to think so shows your utter lack of cmprehension about the matter.

Go fit a mirror, look at it for every vehicle or vehicle you think is going o be close note how mch time you're not looking ahead and changing yir line.

Nw get in a car, the difference is massive plus a mirror in a car is not used for defensive purposes, sorry but you coudn't be further off the mark if you tried!

Clearly you think close passes will be resolved/made better with bike mirrors, utter nonsense.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

madcarew wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

nbrus wrote:

Riding with a mirror would help as you can keep track of what is coming up behind you. It definitely makes me feel safer. I supect that Macey Stewart, being a pro cyclist is probably always in the primary position and riding as fast as she can, so she will be catching vehicles unaware and putting them in a position where they need to brake hard to avoid hitting her and then making unsafe passes at the nearest opportunity.

A mirror doesn't help at all, in fact it's a hindrance. So every time you look and make the assumption a vehicle is going to be too close you're veering off, well you're going to have to do that almost all the time when on the highway. And then motorists will take it that you veering off all the time is fine and they'll continue to hold their line/reasoning of bullying their way through because you'll always get out of the way. The psychology is all wrong hence why we try to get people to take a wider non kerb hugging line.

Basically you'll be checking your mirror too often and not focusing on what's ahead, you can't just give a brief glance each and every time because it takes a little longer to figure out distance and the gap to you which doesn't always reflect how much space you'll get as they are actually passing in any case. A mirror really does not alleviate the problem, it does not get you out of trouble and is a distraction.

Sure if you have neck/mobility issues but this would be better used to judge distance/gaps when manoeuvring yourself not to judge if someone is going to pass you too close.

However it's yet another example of pushing responsibility onto the vulnerable to 'look out' instead of forcing those causing the massively more amount of harm AND are at fault in the vast majority of incidents to take responsibly.

They'll have us in high-vis boxes with airbags, oh wait that's a car.

This is on the same level as people arguing that speed limits souldn't be reduced, or speed camera tolerances shouldn't be changed because they'd be checking their speedo all the time, and would increase the nmber of crashes.

I assume you also think vehicles shouldn't have mirrors because if their distraction value?

It's not remotely the same, to think so shows your utter lack of cmprehension about the matter.

Go fit a mirror, look at it for every vehicle or vehicle you think is going o be close note how mch time you're not looking ahead and changing yir line.

Nw get in a car, the difference is massive plus a mirror in a car is not used for defensive purposes, sorry but you coudn't be further off the mark if you tried!

Clearly you think close passes will be resolved/made better with bike mirrors, utter nonsense.

So I take it you' can't look in a rear view mirror without veering. Clearly you never look over your shoulder currently because obviously that would result in an outright crash. 

To suggest I think close passes will be resolved with a mirror shows that your normal level of straw man idiocy is in full swing.

I'm sure you agree that car drivers who can't look at their speedo to ensure they're within the speed limits without veering off the road shouldn't be on the road; by the same token a cyclist who can't look in a mirror to check on the state of traffic without weaving all over the road  fits pretty much in the same level of incompetence. My statement was about the sense of your argument, not offering any kind of support for use of a mirror.

alansmurphy wrote:

Reference the headphones, car stereo issue.

 

Why do cars need windows, cancels out the noise, remove them too. Also combustion engines are loud and pretty much obselete, ban immediately...

Your comment brings up the interesting point of making electric vehicles noisier. Tyre sound isn't enough in city centers at the moment. Priuses are fucking terrifying they way they can sneak up on you. Scooters are worse because they make no noise at high speeds and it's going to be really hairy when Brammo's start taking off.

BighugeMonkeysuit wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Reference the headphones, car stereo issue.

 

Why do cars need windows, cancels out the noise, remove them too. Also combustion engines are loud and pretty much obselete, ban immediately...

 

Your comment brings up the interesting point of making electric vehicles noisier. Tyre sound isn't enough in city centers at the moment. Priuses are fucking terrifying they way they can sneak up on you. Scooters are worse because they make no noise at high speeds and it's going to be really hairy when Brammo's start taking off.

Good point, but i was thinking the other way around, if earphones for cycling are bad, why are many cars these days running with loud over-powered engines that prevent drivers from hearing. I mean some even pump fake engine sounds thru the stereo. Sad! 

alansmurphy wrote:

BighugeMonkeysuit wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Reference the headphones, car stereo issue.

 

Why do cars need windows, cancels out the noise, remove them too. Also combustion engines are loud and pretty much obselete, ban immediately...

 

Your comment brings up the interesting point of making electric vehicles noisier. Tyre sound isn't enough in city centers at the moment. Priuses are fucking terrifying they way they can sneak up on you. Scooters are worse because they make no noise at high speeds and it's going to be really hairy when Brammo's start taking off.

 

Good point, but i was thinking the other way around, if earphones for cycling are bad, why are many cars these days running with loud over-powered engines that prevent drivers from hearing. I mean some even pump fake engine sounds thru the stereo. Sad! 

Wasn't there also a study done showing that cyclists listening to music at a reasonable level (not noise-cancelling headphones) could actually hear more of their surroundings than drivers even with the car stereo turned off?

OR_biker wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

BighugeMonkeysuit wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Reference the headphones, car stereo issue.

 

Why do cars need windows, cancels out the noise, remove them too. Also combustion engines are loud and pretty much obselete, ban immediately...

 

Your comment brings up the interesting point of making electric vehicles noisier. Tyre sound isn't enough in city centers at the moment. Priuses are fucking terrifying they way they can sneak up on you. Scooters are worse because they make no noise at high speeds and it's going to be really hairy when Brammo's start taking off.

 

Good point, but i was thinking the other way around, if earphones for cycling are bad, why are many cars these days running with loud over-powered engines that prevent drivers from hearing. I mean some even pump fake engine sounds thru the stereo. Sad! 

Wasn't there also a study done showing that cyclists listening to music at a reasonable level (not noise-cancelling headphones) could actually hear more of their surroundings than drivers even with the car stereo turned off?

I'm failing to find the relevance in comparing the ability to hear well in a car and on a bike. I know I might get slated for this, but I know I rely on my hearing far less when driving than I do when cycling - the fact I'm encased in a metal and glass box doesn't help, and I do have music on most of the time. I consider my hearing perhaps just as important as eyesight when cycling, but not when driving, as I have near 360 degree vision with just a slight turn of my head. To have this when cycling takes more effort (and forces my body into a more unnatural position), therefore my hearing is a vital back-up for awareness to the rear of me.

How many of us still remember learning to drive and having "observation, observation, observation" drummed into us constantly. I don't remember ever being told about the importance of "hearing, hearing, hearing". I'm not saying that hearing doesn't have any role in the ability to drive, you need to be able to hear other car's horns, emergency vehicles' sirens etc, but in my opinion it's not as important as it is when cycling. This is why, although I would defend anyones rights to do it, I would never use earphones when cycling.

Having said that, the earphones issue has no relevance to this article, a complete red herring.