3 ms·

> I don't think non-cyclists realize how much risk you take on when you ride in the city. The only times I saw cyclists in a risky position, they were not resp

by pif 10y ago

> I don't think non-cyclists realize how much risk you take on when you ride in the city. The only times I saw cyclists in a risky position, they were not respecting neither driving code nor common sense (ex: overtaking on the wrong side, in a narrow space between moving cars and pavement, at an unreasonable speed; or the more classical: ignoring red lights, priorities or forbidden directions).

collyw 10y ago
There is evidence to suggest that running red lights is safer for cyclists. I certainly feel safer when I get a head start and get ahead of the traffic in town. http://www.rudi.net/node/16395 http://www.rudi.net/node/16395
- pif 10y ago
  I'll add an advice to the final list: don't overtake a motorized vehicle at a shorter lateral distance than what you'd accept where the vehicle overtaking you.
- pif 10y ago
  I'm sincerely sorry for the people who died in those accidents, but the only evidence I found in the article is that queuing behind a lorry would have prevented all of them.
  - usrusr 10y ago
    Would you also suggest queuing behind a lorry while on a bike lane? That's where "our" (where I live) numerous turning-lorry victims get killed. Nearly without exception slow, defensive cyclists (as far for from the lycra crowd as possible, you can get a pretty good idea what type of cyclist they were from pictures of the maimed remains of the bike) who would not have enough velocity to serve laterally faster than the truck. More aggressive cyclists survive by carefully modulating speed so that they never next to a potentially turning vehicle at the critical point. (Which btw means that they will go through the same "dark amber" lights as the car next to them, because that is where all attention goes in the final approach). The main problem with trucks are not their huge blind spots, but that the rules of physics require them to start their turn very late in the intersection. If you ignore the turn signal (or the driver did not set it) they will look like going straight for a very long time. It's just a very, very good trap (except when the driver yields, as law would require). This trap is also a good illustration of the general "attractivity" of red lights for cyclists: crossing traffic (that would kill you if ignored) is a lot more predictable than turning traffic (that can kill you without warning). Personally, I tend to consider red lights a welcome opportunity to catch my breath while noone is trying to kill me. If on pole position in the bike lane, I will prepare to sprint ahead of turners (cars are whales, as correctly observed somewhere else I'm this discussion), or stare at the bumper ahead of me just like everybody else (I could look farther ahead, but the latency between "starting soon" and "starting now" would drive me mad)

by pif 10y ago

collyw 10y ago

There is evidence to suggest that running red lights is safer for cyclists. I certainly feel safer when I get a head start and get ahead of the traffic in town. http://www.rudi.net/node/16395 http://www.rudi.net/node/16395

pif 10y ago
I'll add an advice to the final list: don't overtake a motorized vehicle at a shorter lateral distance than what you'd accept where the vehicle overtaking you.
pif 10y ago
I'm sincerely sorry for the people who died in those accidents, but the only evidence I found in the article is that queuing behind a lorry would have prevented all of them.
- usrusr 10y ago
  Would you also suggest queuing behind a lorry while on a bike lane? That's where "our" (where I live) numerous turning-lorry victims get killed. Nearly without exception slow, defensive cyclists (as far for from the lycra crowd as possible, you can get a pretty good idea what type of cyclist they were from pictures of the maimed remains of the bike) who would not have enough velocity to serve laterally faster than the truck. More aggressive cyclists survive by carefully modulating speed so that they never next to a potentially turning vehicle at the critical point. (Which btw means that they will go through the same "dark amber" lights as the car next to them, because that is where all attention goes in the final approach). The main problem with trucks are not their huge blind spots, but that the rules of physics require them to start their turn very late in the intersection. If you ignore the turn signal (or the driver did not set it) they will look like going straight for a very long time. It's just a very, very good trap (except when the driver yields, as law would require). This trap is also a good illustration of the general "attractivity" of red lights for cyclists: crossing traffic (that would kill you if ignored) is a lot more predictable than turning traffic (that can kill you without warning). Personally, I tend to consider red lights a welcome opportunity to catch my breath while noone is trying to kill me. If on pole position in the bike lane, I will prepare to sprint ahead of turners (cars are whales, as correctly observed somewhere else I'm this discussion), or stare at the bumper ahead of me just like everybody else (I could look farther ahead, but the latency between "starting soon" and "starting now" would drive me mad)