Professional cyclist Macey Stewart posted a video to Indtagram today in which she pleaded with motorists to give riders space when overtaking them.
Clearly upset, the 22-year-old, who has joined Wiggle-High5 this year after two season with Orica-AIS, said: “This video is for the idiot drivers that don’t have 10 seconds of patience to wait behind a rider.
“You are forcing me to hate my sport and not want to continue chasing my dreams because I am so frightened just to do my job and go out training.”
We’ve reported on a number of incidents here on road.cc in which pro cyclists have been killed or injured while training, the most high profile being in recent years being that of 2011 Giro d’Italia champion Michele Scarponi, who lost his life 12 months ago when a van driver ignored a stop sign and struck him.
In December, Katusha pro Alex Dowsett – then with Movistar – recounted how he was “in tears” after a Porsche Cayenne driver left him “the closest I’ve ever been to a career or life-ending crash,” adding that it “scared the living daylights out of me.”
>Alex Dowsett tweet of scary near miss sees dozens share similar stories
67 thoughts on “Video: Pro cyclist tells drivers: “I am so frightened just to do my job “”
The more and more I hear the
The more and more I hear the more I think the powers that be don’t care and see cyclists as an irritant. I contacted Southern Gas Network today to complain about the inappropriate use of some “cyclists dismount” signs through some roadworks in Oxford. Their answer? We consulted with the council and we agreed that it was safest for cyclists to walk on the pavement because it is a single lane of traffic. So cars rule the road then? That’s the message this gives out. Cars have more right to be there than cyclists.
For what it’s worth I also contacted the council and they have, so far, said sweet FA.
John Smith wrote:
Please consider proclaiming the Democratic Cyclists’ Republic of Oxford (DCRO) – it would be beneficial for all residents.
John Smith wrote:
You think…?
John Smith wrote:
Cyclists at road works, Traffic Advisory Leaflet 15/99
http://www.ukroads.org/webfiles/TAL%2015-99%20Cyclists%20at%20Road%20Works.pdf
burtthebike wrote:
Thanks BtB, interesting stuff. If I interpreted the data correctly it would be safer to allow cyclists through and make motorists walk!?!
Also, ‘However, it also states that long sections of narrow lanes can cause difficulties for cyclists. Indeed, it may be safer to have lanes that are too narrow for cars to overtake, rather than lanes where passing is possible but unsafe. This theory was borne out at one of the video sites in Oxford where a lane width of 3 metres led to a number of conflicts caused by drivers attempting to overtake cyclists with very little clearance’
burtthebike wrote:
Ta! I had found the rules on various sources, but nothing that succinct and official. I will throw that at OCC if they comeback to me.
Asking nicely doesn’t work.
Asking nicely doesn’t work.
Fear has to change sides.
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
I think I’m on board with this, main reason being I think a lot of grief dished out to cyclists has had some thought.
*** unscientific anecdata ***:
My wife fairly regularly does the same short training loops as me, but we mainly do them individually because… kids in the house. One of us gets shit from drivers and one of us doesn’t.
She’s an experienced cyclist and driver, her awareness is spot on, we’ve been out together plenty of times and I’d say our road behaviour is really similar. On these loops, especially at the times we go out, there really isn’t much to put you into confrontation with drivers. On the other hand, I commute into Manchester in addition to training rides. On her own, she gets some sort of shit probably every other ride (what I’d class as ‘shit’ if it happened to me); together, we never have; on my own, I get something similar maybe a couple of times a year, across about 10 times the mileage that she does.
I’m a few mph quicker… Can’t be that, surely?
The only real difference I can think of is that I’ll look like a 6-foot lump of rugby player on a bike, often with shaved head/stubble/beard, and she is obviously a half-foot shorter woman, and she rocks the shaved head/stubble combo far less frequently than me.
For various reasons, I don’t want to think that drivers will be arses from within metal boxes to women but not blokes that they’re making some sort of macho judgement about, but I’m struggling to think of other plausible explanations.
TL;DR – the depressing theory is that drivers who dish out shit are sexist and prejudiced bullies. Test it out yourself by giving a reverse seater to a bodyguard with a MAC-10.
davel wrote:
Asking nicely doesn’t work.
Fear has to change sides.
— davel I think I’m on board with this, main reason being I think a lot of grief dished out to cyclists has had some thought. *** unscientific anecdata ***: My wife fairly regularly does the same short training loops as me, but we mainly do them individually because… kids in the house. One of us gets shit from drivers and one of us doesn’t. She’s an experienced cyclist and driver, her awareness is spot on, we’ve been out together plenty of times and I’d say our road behaviour is really similar. On these loops, especially at the times we go out, there really isn’t much to put you into confrontation with drivers. On the other hand, I commute into Manchester in addition to training rides. On her own, she gets some sort of shit probably every other ride (what I’d class as ‘shit’ if it happened to me); together, we never have; on my own, I get something similar maybe a couple of times a year, across about 10 times the mileage that she does. I’m a few mph quicker… Can’t be that, surely? The only real difference I can think of is that I’ll look like a 6-foot lump of rugby player on a bike, often with shaved head/stubble/beard, and she is obviously a half-foot shorter woman, and she rocks the shaved head/stubble combo far less frequently than me. For various reasons, I don’t want to think that drivers will be arses from within metal boxes to women but not blokes that they’re making some sort of macho judgement about, but I’m struggling to think of other plausible explanations. TL;DR – the depressing theory is that drivers who dish out shit are sexist and prejudiced bullies. Test it out yourself by giving a reverse seater to a bodyguard with a MAC-10.— Legs_Eleven_Worcester
Dr Ian Walker did some relevant research a few years ago about drivers overtaking cyclists http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf
burtthebike wrote:
I’m not sure of the value of that work. The average passing distance is not particularly important. 99% of drivers are not an issue. It’s the 1% that are dangerously close and make stupid overtakes that make me cycle further out in the road.
Also:
“Long vehicles can need to cross into the opposite lane for several seconds to overtake a cyclist. Drivers should be reminded about how they get too close, and cyclists might also better understand how difficult it is for these vehicles to find overtaking opportunities in urban environments.”
Surely not my problem. That is those vehicles resonsibility to overtake safely. Wait until there is a safe place to pass, like everyone else. I cannot think of a single time that I have held up a lorry or bus for more than a few seconds, but I can think of plenty of time lorrys and busses have not even slowed, just gone for a pass far too close. If I am holding up traffic then I will stop and let them pass (as per the HWC) but not every time there is a lorry behind me for 2 seconds. I have never seen a lorry or a bus do the same for me when I am driving.
burtthebike wrote:
Yeah, I know about the wig thing, which suggests that driver behaviour is influenced by the cyclist’s appearance from the rear. The result runs counter to my/missus’s experience, which also suggests there’s a hierarchy, but in our case the woman is more likely to get shit/close-passed than the bloke.
Walker’s conclusion assumes he looked like a woman from the back. If he didn’t, and looked a bloke in a long wig, then the influence could have been along the lines of ‘WTF – I’ll give that a wide berth’ as opposed to ‘that’s a lady – better give more room’. I’m happy twisting it that way to fit my dodgy hypothesis.
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
This. We’re scared by drivers. Drivers are *inconvenienced* by us.
Why aren’t drivers scared of cyclists? Because we cannot hurt them. Why aren’t drivers scared of breaking the law? Because it does not hurt them. Why aren’t drivers scared of the Police? Because they never see them.
I’m fast coming around to the view that the only way that drivers will give cyclists the respect we need is if we kill or seriously injure more of them than they do us. Given that this is almost impossible with a bike, we ought instead to be allowed to carry deadly weapons. After all, the drivers get one already.
Richard D wrote:
I read this and think LASERS
Richard D wrote:
You are allowed to ‘carry a deadly weapon’. You’re just not allowed to tell the establishment that you’re doing so.
It’s sad that things have got to the stage where cyclists are openly talking about arming themselves. In my opinion, any cyclist in the UK who goes abroad without a weapon of some sort is either very good at martial arts, or else has a childlike faith in human nature.
But we’re really hamstrung by the idiots in our midst who squeal that ‘ewww, violence is never the answer!’. You can see them in every thread where someone suggests that cyclists might .. just might want to hit back at the people waging a campaign of assault, intimidation and murder against them.
But ‘violence is never the answer’. Wooh-eeh. I’ll be sure to remember that if I’m ever mugged. ‘Sorry, dude – I can’t fight back. Didn’t you know that violence is never the answer?’.
I strongly suspect that so
I strongly suspect that so long as the motons are kept happy and tax receipts from fuel keep pouring in, the government couldn’t actually give a f**k. It’s all greenwash.
StraelGuy wrote:
If only it were that cyclical. Unfortunately I feel like the powers that be just don’t think cycling is an equivalent mode of transport to a car. They just don’t think that close passes are a real problem. That cycling infrastructure is anything more than something to appease a few wired hippies and middle aged middle class white men. That a bicycle is anything more than a toy. They claim to include it in rules and guidance but see the actual implementation as an expensive waste of time.
Yes, I’m I a bad mood today 🙂
Sadly, there are probably
Sadly, there are probably punishment-passing members of the take back control crowd who, wherever they are in the world, would rejoice at the thought of a “millennial snowflake” being bullied into giving up their career, if it means avoiding the only injustice they recognize: them having to surrender an ounce of their primacy. That’s why I prefer not to give them the satisfaction and, instead of gesticulating futilely at them or posting on Instagram, I have identified a few spots on my commute, away from all houses, where I can scream obscenities into the wind about the state of a society that licenses such people to operate dangerous machinery on the public highway.
handlebarcam wrote:
Has Farage nicked your pint again?
This works for me…
This works for me…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJFxt9cL9GU
Give it a go and see how you get on.
nbrus wrote:
That appears to work! Arm all cyclists, and teachers…and maybe all school children too.
There are a few roads that I
There are a few roads that I won’t cycle on unless absolutely neccessay due to fast HGVs and heavy traffic. Best keep to ‘B’ roads and good cycle routes whenever possible and if its just a recreational ride, then try and avoid peak traffic hours. Cycling has its risks and our road network can’t cope with the volume of traffic and idiots we now have to deal with.
Good on Macey. Looks like
Good on Macey. Looks like she is in Australia (like me), which is just as bad as the UK for moron drivers who don’t give a f**k about passing too close to cyclists. I have stopped road riding and now stick to the dirt roads and the limited bike paths in my area. I would not encourage my grandsons to take up road riding even though we live in a rural location. Mountain biking would be my choice for them. Stay safe Macey.
I had someone try and ram me
I had someone try and ram me off the road after overtaking me on a blind bend while I was doing 28mph downhill in a 30mph zone. I caught up and confronted them, to which they said they had tried to knock me off because I was in the middle of the road and should have been by the kerb. Basically a punishment pass because I was taking the primary position.
I only avoided serious injury by braking sharply and swerving, as the road there has no verge and a steep drop onto concrete. Annoyingly the battery on my fly6 had packed up a week before, so I had no evidence to bring a prosecution. It sh1t me up. I’ve only ridden a couple of time in the six months since the incident and now feel very edgy on the bike. I may go back to my MTB roots, but it’s hard as I’m a lifelong rider who used to do a lot of commuting. I also relied on cycling to stay fit. I’ve put on 2 stone since.
HoarseMann wrote:
I’m sorry for the effect this has had on you. Unfortunately, it seems you’ve let this driver, and others like them, win.
I had a frightening experience in London yesterday. A bus overtook me so close that, in reactional instinct, i swerved into the bus lane (on our left). Only for the bus to pull in at a bus stop, in the bus lane, the other side of the junction barely 100m further along. He was just stopping as I passed and signalled my displeasure.
In hindsight, I wanted to drag the driver out through his window and see how he liked being so violently threatened, but I probably should have just hit the engine kill switch.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Yep, it did shake me up. Whilst I haven’t done much riding since, I’ve spent some time fixing my fly6 camera and buying another two cameras. I don’t want this sort of bullying to beat me. But I’m damned if they’re going to do this unpunished again. So I will muster the strength to get back out on the road, but will do so prepared.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
No-one “let’s them win”, it’s a case of being mentally battered into submission. Each of us are different, I rode home with a sling on my arm after being offed but refused hospital because plod were going to leave my bike at the scene and the hospital was 16miles away from home, I’ve had a skip lorry come within inches of dragging me under the wheels but just carry on. Our own lives influence how much tolerence we have and how effected or not we are.
To state what you have is frankly disgusting, attacking a person for being fearful of harm by being bullied off the road and making a choice for themselves is frankly no better than those doing the bullying, well done!
Posting a plea asking for
Posting a plea asking for greater consideration and awareness from drivers, while earphones are flapping about? Seriously?
I’m absolutely not excusing whatever incident caused her to feel this way, but the picture this paints is of a cyclist who uses earphones while riding and so doesn’t give her full attention to her surroundings. That’s unfortunate, and distracts from the greater issue.
flobble wrote:
I disagree.
How is a cyclist listening to music on (non noise cancelling) ear buds any different than a driver listening to thier car stereo? Why is one acceptable to you and the other not? Isnt this double standards?
Crampy wrote:
Massive difference. It’s a bit like playing a driving game with a tv screen in front of you and playing one with a VR headset and earphones in. If you’ve had a go with VR you’ll know exactly what I’m on about. There is still a massive disconnect from having your ears essentially channelled into one thing and having music as background noise. You also have 3 mirrors to look around you. It’s rare that people will be driving around with music on so loud they won’t be able to hear the engine or tyres anymore.
If I ever bother with earphones, it’s only one in the nearside and the other open to traffic noises. I really don’t like to be surprised by cars just suddenly coming past. I recently went deaf for a week with a wax problem and cycling felt somewhat different and bit more unsafe when I couldn’t hear properly.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Nah. I dont buy it. I have tried riding with both normal and noise cancelling buds and can say with experience that noise cancelling buds are a no no. They disconnect you from the task at hand. Normal buds (like the iPhone ones in the vid) let through noise. Just like in a car with a stereo.
You can forget the mirror thing too; as a cyclist your head should be on a swivel. Always giving the shoulder check.
The hyper attentiveness that comes with being on a bike and regular buds are no different than driving with a stereo.
So, do we call for a ban on all car stereos, too?
Crampy wrote:
Quite simply “surprise factor”.
I’ve been cycling for 45 years, over 30 of those competetively. A few years ago when Ipods came out, I got one to enjoy music while on early morning training rides.
In order to hear the music over wind noise I had to have the music loud enough that it cancelled out most other noise. Because of this, trucks or buses could be literally beside me before I was aware of their approach. Cars would pass me before I was aware of their presence.
I have tried riding with music players a number of times, and I have discarded them, because I am so much less aware of what is going on around me on the road. When I hear a truck or large vehicle approaching from behind I move over as far as possible to the left to give them as much room as possible (For those who want to say I should take the primary: because of the small number of roads in my area I have to spend a lot of time on 2 roads which are major trunk roads. They have one lane in each direction and often no shoulder at all. I’m not about to ride down the centre of a road which traffic travels virtually in convoy at 70 mph on.) With music going I am unable to hear them in time to move over, and as a result would ‘jump’ (be startled) when they appeared on my shoulder, with the resulting dangerous minor wobble. In a few months of riding with ear buds in I had more close calls and close passes than in many years of riding previously.
It is different because in a car you can’t really hear what’s going on in the road environment around you anyway, so it doesn’t form an integral part of your behavioural environment.
madcarew wrote:
Im not trying to cause an argument here, but there is a fair bit wrong with what your saying here, imho.
1- just as in a car, the volume should not be so high that it makes the task at hand more difficult.
2- the vehicles overtaking you have a duty of care to pass you leaving a reasonable gap. Their fault, not yours and certainly not your ear buds fault either.
3- unless they were noise cancelling buds, which I find to create too much of a disconnect between me and the riding.
Riding with ear buds is not a crime.
Crampy wrote:
I don’t think anyone is disagreeing with you, however the point being made is that because of some motons out there, hampering your hearing sense in any way does give way to more of the aforementioned ‘surprise factor’ which I can personally relate to on my infrequent semi rural commute along a fast wide road where, when a close pass does occur (and it does, often, regardless of it being wrong) with headphones it makes me personally jump. The bigger the vehicle the bigger the shock (to me).
It’s not right or fair but surprise close passes do happen in the real world, nothing to do with car stereo’s which is as useful as helmet debate in this topic.
peted76 wrote:
Pretty sure one of the vids on here that showed a collision looked perhaps like the rider had had a ‘surprise’ as he appeared to lose control the moment the car started to pass. The closer the pass, the bigger the surprise!
Crampy wrote:
I absolutely agree with you. My point on volume was that to hear the music, the volume needed to be so high to beat the wind noise that it drowned all other noise as well. I do think this is different in a car as they are designed to dampen most environmental noise.
And yes, I agree that the overtaking vehicles have a duty to pass with reasonable space, but this is about maximising your personal riding safety in the meantime until the education programs finally kick in
And no-one has suggested that riding with earbuds is a crime. Many things that affect your personal safety aren’t a crime either, but are highly undavisable in many circumstances.
flobble wrote:
You are part of the problem. You are suggesting that deaf people are not capable of cycling or driving.
What she wears has nothing to do with how people drive.
flobble wrote:
I used to be completely against wearing earphones while cycling, under the impression that it would affect my ability to hear my surroundings. However i now wear a single earphone in my right ear connected to my phone as a means to stay in contact with my pregnant wife should the need arise. I have noticed that it stops a large amount of wind noise helping me to hear cars. OK, i don’t have music on but if i did i can’t see how this would be different to having the radio on in a car.
So let’s not start diverting the attention from the issue at hand.
If someone had jumped out from a bush holding a gun/ knife/ or blunt weapon then threatened Macey, or any other person innocently walking along the roadside, there would be a police investigation to find the offender. Just because she/we are cyclists and the offender is driving a motor vehicle appears to excuse the blatant threatening behaviour. This is wrong.
flobble wrote:
This comment is unfortunate and distracts from the greater issue.
Reference the headphones, car
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…
alansmurphy wrote:
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:
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:
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:
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.
Riding with a mirror would
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.
nbrus wrote:
At least your original act disguised it a bit. This is just sloppy.
nbrus wrote:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
The topic of hearing
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.
hawkinspeter wrote:
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.
Good points Red and Mad – on
Good points Red and Mad – on my very short town centre commute I use headphones. I am virtually owl like because of shite driving , most traffic is stationary etc. and I am essentially taking responsibility for my own demise.
On group rides we are chilling and chatting. On solo weekend rides I’ll have a podcast on that you can generally hear over, in fact more likely to lose the content in the ears but that’s fine. Alternatively I will have a bit of music on in one ear. As you both suggest, surprise factor is my only issue, maybe also taking a racing line through a corner without a big shoulder check. I’ll generally adapt my riding style somewhat.
The one thing I’d question is:
“It is different because in a car you can’t really hear what’s going on in the road environment around you anyway, so it doesn’t form an integral part of your behavioural environment”.
I mentioned previously taking the windows out of cars, somewhat jovialy. We’ve also had the seatbelt debate before on here. Basically, the safer these metal boxes are created, the less responsibility those in control take, one clear example being the a-pillar that protects the driver but reduces visibility – it is now an acceptable norm to kill people and say you didn’t see them due to car design.
I’d wager the guy in a 2 seater top down sports car has much more awareness of their surroundings than someone in range rover’s latest box – and would look suitably more embarrassed at the lights if they cut you up…
I find the biggest problem
I find the biggest problem when I use ear buds, as I often do, is that traffic can drown out the radio.
Brisk head winds do the same, as well as making it impossible to hear traffic. Should I not ride into strong head winds? That might mean waiting days to get home! Though no head wind riding would be nice.
I use a spectacle mirror, so I can check much more effectively for traffic behind. I don’t think ears are an adequate substitute. I cannot imagine riding off the road because I heard a vehicle behind, and I don’t ride in the middle of the road, only moving when I hear something. If I were the sort to tell others how they should ride I would urge that a mirror is essential for safety. But I’m not.
I take care not to suddenly change my line without checking the mirror, to suddenly veer into the road would be odd, as well as potentially dangerous.
I do not find that the programme I am listening to distracts me, any more than drivers find it a difficulty.
I am completely happy that my listening to ear buds does not affect my safety, and I would resent any law especially made for cyclists, as I would mandatory helmets or hiviz.
Alansmurphy commented on
Alansmurphy commented on motor noise as a problem to the driver.
It is also a problem to cyclists, if hearing is all-important.
The sound of the vehicle approaching from behind can be drowned by the lorry coming the other way.
In reality we cope fine with this by not veering out into the lane without checking and signalling, if, for instance, we need to turn right. In the same way, I don’t, in practise, forget that the reason I cannot hear a vehicle behind is in fact that I have earbuds in, so I check and signal before turning right.
Second vote for using a
Second vote for using a mirror. It doesn’t hinder at all – just a quick glance gives you information about what is behind you. What you do with that information is up to you. Sometimes I’ll approach the kerb to let a car overtake and sometimes I’ll move to prevent an overtake. Depends on the circumstances.
Two pages of irrelevant
Two pages of irrelevant debate about headphones instead of idiot drivers scaring people off the roads. Well done people.
aegisdesign wrote:
Not all of us…
but, like, thanks for your contribution.
aegisdesign wrote:
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:
Its all idiot drivers. Thats kind of the point. Sorry you missed that.
I’m thinking of prototyping a
I’m thinking of prototyping a stiff but whippy plastic strip to fit across the bike behind the saddle, about 75cm on each side with red flashing surface mount LEDs and several tungsten carbide tips at each end.
Close passing (75cm or less) should result in scratched paint and possibly glass, and a small extra warning for the rider. As we saw in today’s close pass, the police feel: “No-one was hurt and the only mark was to [the vehicle]” so that should be alright then …
In my experience, motorists hate their car being damaged – even if they don’t give a stuff about damaging fellow humans …
Poor sugar still has a lot to
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.
Skylark wrote:
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:
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:
Cockus Wombulus
Skylark wrote:
Yeah! Im certain that these trained professionals have a lot to learn from us keyboard warriors…
Eejit.