5 ms·

One of the linked accidents in the article looks terrible, a man is cycling along the road, a bus overtakes him and clips his handlebars, knocking him to the gr

One of the linked accidents in the article looks terrible, a man is cycling along the road, a bus overtakes him and clips his handlebars, knocking him to the ground and then running over his torso with the rear wheels of the bus. What a lot of people don’t realise is that you can’t overtake bicycles in a single lane. If there’s no cycle path/markings a bicycle takes up the full lane for exactly this reason. Bicycles can’t cycle close to parked cars due to passenger doors opening up randomly, and the sides of the road by the curb is generally not maintained enough to cycle in. Cars/buses/trucks have to wait until they can safely overtake.

sneak 6y ago
For this reason I always try to drive in the center of the lane or even in the left tire-track of a lane when cycling in places without a shoulder or dedicated bike lane; that is, make it clear they can't just scoot past me on the left by taking as much of the lane as possible. That's also super dangerous because car drivers are aggressive dicks who seem to hate anyone on a bike, so I generally won't cycle in places without bike lanes or shoulders unless it's like 4am and the roads are totally abandoned, but I'd rather risk getting deliberately rammed by a car than accidentally squished between lanes.
- AYBABTME 6y ago
  Not sure why you're downvoted, I do similar exactly because otherwise cars pass me by a mere few centimetres. If I'm in the middle of the lane, they can't unless they're really set on pushing me off, and then at least I have a buffer of space to my right that I can verve into. If you stick to the side of the road, you make it the default decision for people (many of which I'm sure might not if they knew better) to pass too close to you, plus you've got no buffer or escape route. The thing is most people don't understand that putting yourself in the middle of the lane, as a bike, is the safest thing to do for everyone. Motorcycles are taught to do exactly that: position themselves so that they positively take their lane.
  - prower 6y ago
    Drivers hate cyclists because they're slow, dangerous, usually don't follow rules of the road (regarding stops, traffic lights, right of way, one-way streets) and they can die, or be badly injured, as soon as they get in contact with anything at all for a microsecond. Cycling in the city is scary because going with a bike in the traffic is straight-up insanity.
    - sneak 6y ago
      As someone pointed out downthread, there are no "cyclists", just other people who, at that time, are on bikes. Hating someone and unnecessarily acting in ways that might cause their death because they are moving slowly due to being on a bike is, to put it mildly, psychotic.
      - prower 6y ago
        Going on the street without paying attention to all signs, rules and potential dangers is NEVER OK. That's paramount (for everyone on the road) and I'm not questioning that for a second. That said, bikes are dangerous for everyone involved. If you encounter a bike you slow down all traffic (because you can't overtake safely, and that's difficult on busy roads), you have to keep distance and account to the fact that you could run over the biker AT ANY TIME because bikes are NOT reliable when roads are not 100% correctly maintained. They can stop at any time on the road for some reason without even a warning, and as soon as you touch them they're pretty much dead. That's enough to give any driver a 500% stress increase. And I'm sure for the biker is the same. I know I sound like an asshole but if drivers hate cyclists, and pedestrians hate cyclists, and motorbikers hate cyclists, and public transport drivers hate cyclists, and truck drivers hate cyclists, and politicians hate cyclists... I'm not saying they're right, but for sure there is a recurring reason that's worth investigating.
        sneak 6y ago
        > That said, bikes are dangerous for everyone involved. If you encounter a bike you slow down all traffic (because you can't overtake safely, and that's difficult on busy roads), you have to keep distance and account to the fact that you could run over the iker AT ANY TIME because bikes are NOT reliable when roads are not 100% correctly maintained. Going slower isn't unsafe, it's safer. You're confusing inconvenience for lack of safety. Going slower and driving as if the vehicle in front of you may stop at any time is safe, responsible driving.
conradludgate 6y ago
I've been teaching my girlfriend how to cycle in London recently. I've told her that she needs to stand her ground, and not cycle so close to the pavement. It's scary though. I've told her for now that if she sees a bus, to stop and let it go ahead because they can be so dangerous
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Cycling close to the pavement is super dangerous because if your pedal so much as touches the kerbstones on the downstroke you'll get thrown into traffic. I've seen more than one kid fall in the way of oncoming traffic like that, fortunately without anybody getting hurt but still, it can happen in a fraction of a second.
  - robbiep 6y ago
    100 times yes. Defensive cycling. Not a perfect prevention strategy but the best we can do
  - aembleton 6y ago
    You're also more likely to ride into glass and other debris that gets pushed to the edge of the road.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  > I've told her for now that if she sees a bus, to stop and let it go ahead because they can be so dangerous I always let the bus and the truck have the right of way, even when I'm in my car, because I prefer to die in my bed.
kennywinker 6y ago
This 10,000x! The people who tell cyclists they need to “follow the rules of the road” are the same ones who will tailgate you and yell at you when you take up the full lane.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jillesvangurp 6y ago
The solution to this is fixing local legislation. As a car driver your risk is asymmetric: you will have a few scratches/dents on your car and the other side ends up in hospital (or worse). So, it's important to bias traffic rules to protecting more vulnerable participants like cyclists or pedestrians. Here are some examples of things that work in various countries: The Netherlands fixed this ages ago. You hit a cyclist with a car, it's your fault regardless of the circumstances for the insurers. The net result is a country where drivers are very mindful of cyclists and check their right side mirrors before turning right and their left side mirror before 'dooring' a passing cyclist. Failing to do that is expensive and there are so many cyclists that it is in any case a good idea. Besides, nobody wants it on their conscience to have people hospitalized because of inattention, sloppiness, or incompetence. France at some point introduced a simple traffic rule that states that when over taking cyclists you need to give them a lot of space. So, now you see cars slowing down and overtaking cyclists properly on two lane country roads: i.e. waiting for the left lane to clear and then using that and giving the cyclist at least a meter or so of clearance. It's kind of funny to see that in action but it works. Failing to do that has hefty fines associated with it if you get caught. So drivers actually do this. France has a lot of cyclists on country roads training and getting taken over by cars doing 90 km/hour is not risk free unless they keep their distance. So, a completely sane rule. Any accidents tend to be very nasty. And again, nobody wants that on their conscience anyway. London introduced fees for entering the downtown area. Unless you have to be there, you'll want to avoid that because it's expensive. It also has cameras all over the place so if you mess up, it will be on camera. That was mainly done for pollution and security reasons but it also made it a safer place to bike around.
- jobigoud 6y ago
  Most people in the Netherlands and in France have themselves been on a bicycle within car traffic, I feel that's more likely the reason why they are careful when they overtake a bicycle, rather than the fines.
- novok 6y ago
  Unfortunately I don't think such a law would be politically tenable in america, which is probably why it hasn't happened.

sneak 6y ago

For this reason I always try to drive in the center of the lane or even in the left tire-track of a lane when cycling in places without a shoulder or dedicated bike lane; that is, make it clear they can't just scoot past me on the left by taking as much of the lane as possible. That's also super dangerous because car drivers are aggressive dicks who seem to hate anyone on a bike, so I generally won't cycle in places without bike lanes or shoulders unless it's like 4am and the roads are totally abandoned, but I'd rather risk getting deliberately rammed by a car than accidentally squished between lanes.

AYBABTME 6y ago
Not sure why you're downvoted, I do similar exactly because otherwise cars pass me by a mere few centimetres. If I'm in the middle of the lane, they can't unless they're really set on pushing me off, and then at least I have a buffer of space to my right that I can verve into. If you stick to the side of the road, you make it the default decision for people (many of which I'm sure might not if they knew better) to pass too close to you, plus you've got no buffer or escape route. The thing is most people don't understand that putting yourself in the middle of the lane, as a bike, is the safest thing to do for everyone. Motorcycles are taught to do exactly that: position themselves so that they positively take their lane.
- prower 6y ago
  Drivers hate cyclists because they're slow, dangerous, usually don't follow rules of the road (regarding stops, traffic lights, right of way, one-way streets) and they can die, or be badly injured, as soon as they get in contact with anything at all for a microsecond. Cycling in the city is scary because going with a bike in the traffic is straight-up insanity.
  - sneak 6y ago
    As someone pointed out downthread, there are no "cyclists", just other people who, at that time, are on bikes. Hating someone and unnecessarily acting in ways that might cause their death because they are moving slowly due to being on a bike is, to put it mildly, psychotic.
    - prower 6y ago
      Going on the street without paying attention to all signs, rules and potential dangers is NEVER OK. That's paramount (for everyone on the road) and I'm not questioning that for a second. That said, bikes are dangerous for everyone involved. If you encounter a bike you slow down all traffic (because you can't overtake safely, and that's difficult on busy roads), you have to keep distance and account to the fact that you could run over the biker AT ANY TIME because bikes are NOT reliable when roads are not 100% correctly maintained. They can stop at any time on the road for some reason without even a warning, and as soon as you touch them they're pretty much dead. That's enough to give any driver a 500% stress increase. And I'm sure for the biker is the same. I know I sound like an asshole but if drivers hate cyclists, and pedestrians hate cyclists, and motorbikers hate cyclists, and public transport drivers hate cyclists, and truck drivers hate cyclists, and politicians hate cyclists... I'm not saying they're right, but for sure there is a recurring reason that's worth investigating.
      - sneak 6y ago
        > That said, bikes are dangerous for everyone involved. If you encounter a bike you slow down all traffic (because you can't overtake safely, and that's difficult on busy roads), you have to keep distance and account to the fact that you could run over the iker AT ANY TIME because bikes are NOT reliable when roads are not 100% correctly maintained. Going slower isn't unsafe, it's safer. You're confusing inconvenience for lack of safety. Going slower and driving as if the vehicle in front of you may stop at any time is safe, responsible driving.

conradludgate 6y ago

I've been teaching my girlfriend how to cycle in London recently. I've told her that she needs to stand her ground, and not cycle so close to the pavement. It's scary though. I've told her for now that if she sees a bus, to stop and let it go ahead because they can be so dangerous

jacquesm 6y ago
Cycling close to the pavement is super dangerous because if your pedal so much as touches the kerbstones on the downstroke you'll get thrown into traffic. I've seen more than one kid fall in the way of oncoming traffic like that, fortunately without anybody getting hurt but still, it can happen in a fraction of a second.
- robbiep 6y ago
  100 times yes. Defensive cycling. Not a perfect prevention strategy but the best we can do
- aembleton 6y ago
  You're also more likely to ride into glass and other debris that gets pushed to the edge of the road.
WalterBright 6y ago
> I've told her for now that if she sees a bus, to stop and let it go ahead because they can be so dangerous I always let the bus and the truck have the right of way, even when I'm in my car, because I prefer to die in my bed.

kennywinker 6y ago

This 10,000x! The people who tell cyclists they need to “follow the rules of the road” are the same ones who will tailgate you and yell at you when you take up the full lane.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jillesvangurp 6y ago

The solution to this is fixing local legislation. As a car driver your risk is asymmetric: you will have a few scratches/dents on your car and the other side ends up in hospital (or worse). So, it's important to bias traffic rules to protecting more vulnerable participants like cyclists or pedestrians. Here are some examples of things that work in various countries: The Netherlands fixed this ages ago. You hit a cyclist with a car, it's your fault regardless of the circumstances for the insurers. The net result is a country where drivers are very mindful of cyclists and check their right side mirrors before turning right and their left side mirror before 'dooring' a passing cyclist. Failing to do that is expensive and there are so many cyclists that it is in any case a good idea. Besides, nobody wants it on their conscience to have people hospitalized because of inattention, sloppiness, or incompetence. France at some point introduced a simple traffic rule that states that when over taking cyclists you need to give them a lot of space. So, now you see cars slowing down and overtaking cyclists properly on two lane country roads: i.e. waiting for the left lane to clear and then using that and giving the cyclist at least a meter or so of clearance. It's kind of funny to see that in action but it works. Failing to do that has hefty fines associated with it if you get caught. So drivers actually do this. France has a lot of cyclists on country roads training and getting taken over by cars doing 90 km/hour is not risk free unless they keep their distance. So, a completely sane rule. Any accidents tend to be very nasty. And again, nobody wants that on their conscience anyway. London introduced fees for entering the downtown area. Unless you have to be there, you'll want to avoid that because it's expensive. It also has cameras all over the place so if you mess up, it will be on camera. That was mainly done for pollution and security reasons but it also made it a safer place to bike around.

jobigoud 6y ago
Most people in the Netherlands and in France have themselves been on a bicycle within car traffic, I feel that's more likely the reason why they are careful when they overtake a bicycle, rather than the fines.
novok 6y ago
Unfortunately I don't think such a law would be politically tenable in america, which is probably why it hasn't happened.