Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

@&#$ing cyclists version 2


  • Please log in to reply
225 replies to this topic

#61 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 13,041 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:36 PM

Then obviously they have to wait, again common sense. Blocking people who can safely overtake though, is just being a annoying person.

lol@ very sensitive swear filter. :D

Agree with you about there is no need to deliberately antagonise other road users.
Fides invicta triumphat

#62 guess who

guess who
  • Coach
  • 4,020 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:38 PM

Have a read of this article. Some very interesting points in it. Getting people to understand this way our eyes work. Would have much more benefit than some of the silly ideas people are suggesting.


“Sorry mate, I didn’t see you”. Is a catchphrase used by drivers up and down the country. Is this a driver being careless and dangerous or did the driver genuinely not see you?
According to a report by John Sullivan of the RAF, the answer may have important repercussions for the way we train drivers and how as cyclists we stay safe on the roads.
John Sullivan is a Royal Air Force pilot with over 4,000 flight hours in his career, and a keen cyclist. He is a crash investigator and has contributed to multiple reports. Fighter pilots have to cope with speeds of over 1000 mph. Any crashes are closely analysed to extract lessons that can be of use.
Our eyes were not designed for driving
We are the result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. Our eyes, and the way that our brain processes the images that they receive, are very well suited to creeping up on unsuspecting antelopes and spotting threats such as sabre-toothed tigers.
These threats are largely gone and they’ve been replaced by vehicles travelling towards us at high speeds. This, we’ve not yet adapted to deal with.
Why?
Light enters our eyes and falls upon the retina. It is then converted into electrical impulses, that the brain perceives as images. Only a small part of your retina, the centre bit called the fovea, can generate a high-resolution image. This is why we need to look directly at something, to see detail.
The rest of the retina lacks detail but it contributes by adding the peripheral vision. However, a mere 20 degrees away from your sightline, your visual acuity is about 1/10th of what it is at the centre.
Try this scary test to see quite how much detail you lose in your peripheral vision
Stand 10 metres away from a car.
Move your eyes and look just one car’s width to the right or left of that car.
Without moving where you eyes are now looking, try and read the number plate of the car.
Try the test again from 5m.
The test shows you quite how little detail you are able to truly capture from the side of your eyes.
That’s not to say that we cannot see something in our peripheral vision – of course we can. As you approach a roundabout, you would be hard pressed not to see a huge lorry bearing down upon you, even out of the corner of your eye – obviously, the bigger the object, the more likely we are to see it. But would you see a motorbike, or a cyclist?
To have a good chance of seeing an object on a collision course, we need to move our eyes, and probably head, to bring the object into the centre of our vision – so that we can use our high-resolution vision of our fovea to resolve the detail.

Here’s when things get really interesting.
When you move your head and eyes to scan a scene, your eyes are incapable of moving smoothly across it and seeing everything. Instead, you see in the image in a series of very quick jumps (called saccades) with very short pauses (called fixations) and it is only during the pauses that an image is processed.
Your brain fills in the gaps with a combination of peripheral vision and an assumption that what is in the gaps must be the same as what you see during the pauses.
This might sound crazy, but your brain actually blocks the image that is being received while your eyes are moving. This is why you do not see the sort of blurred image, that you see when you look sideways out of a train window.
The only exception to this, is if you are tracking a moving object.
Another test to try
If you are not convinced, try this test.
Look in a mirror.
Look repeatedly from your right eye to your left eye.
Can you see your eyes moving? You can’t.
Repeat the test with a friend and watch them. You will see their eyes moving quite markedly.
You can’t see your own eyes move because your brain shuts down the image for the instant that your eyes are moving. This is called Saccadic masking.
In the past, this served us well. It meant we could creep up on antelopes without our brain being overloaded by unnecessary detail and a lot of useless, blurred images.
However, what happens when this system is put to use in a modern day situation, such as a traffic junction?
Why we miss motorbikes and bicycles
At a traffic junction all but the worst of drivers will look in both directions to check for oncoming traffic. However, it is entirely possible for our eyes to “jump over” an oncoming bicycle or motorbike.
The smaller the vehicle, the greater the chance it will fall within a saccade.
This isn’t really a case of a careless driver, it’s more of a human incapacity to see anything during a saccade. Hence the reason for so many “Sorry mate, I didn’t see you” excuses.

The faster you move your head, the larger the jumps and the shorter the pauses. Therefore, you’ve got more of a chance of missing a vehicle.

We are effectively seeing through solid objects, with our brain filling in the image.
Additionally, we tend to avoid the edges of the windscreen. The door pillars on a car therefore create an even wider blindspot. This is called windscreen zoning.
The danger of playing music
Our ears help us build up a picture of our surroundings. However, inside our cars or with music playing, our brain is denied another useful cue. Additionally, bicycles are almost completely silent, so won’t be heard by car drivers.
How accidents happen
Let’s say you are driving along. You approach a junction and you notice a lack of traffic. You look left and right and proceed forward. Suddenly you hear the blast of a horn, as a motorbike flashes in front of you, narrowly avoiding an accident.
What just happened?
On your approach, you couldn’t see there was another vehicle on a perfect collision course. With a lack of relative movement for your peripheral vision to detect and the vehicle being potentially hidden by being near the door pillar, you miss it entirely.
Lulled into a false sense of security you looked quickly right and left, to avoid holding up the traffic behind you, and your eyes jumped cleanly over the approaching vehicle, especially as it was still close to the door pillar in the windscreen. The rest of the road was empty, and this was the scene that your brain used to fill in the gaps! Scary, huh?
You were not being inattentive – but you were being ineffective.
Additionally, if you didn’t expect there to be a cyclist your brain is more likely to automatically jump to the conclusion that the road is empty.
Forewarned is forearmed, so here’s what we can do.
Drivers:
Slow down on the approach of a roundabout or junction. Even if the road seems empty. Changing speed will allow you to see vehicles that would otherwise be invisible to you.
A glance is never enough. You need to be as methodical and deliberate as a fighter pilot would be. Focus on at least 3 different spots along the road to the right and left. Search close, middle-distance and far. With practise, this can be accomplished quickly, and each pause is only for a fraction of a second. Fighter pilots call this a “lookout scan” and it is vital to their survival.
Always look right and left at least twice. This doubles your chance of seeing a vehicle.
Make a point of looking next to the windscreen pillars. Better still, lean forward slightly as you look right and left so that you are looking around the door pillars. Be aware that the pillar nearest to you blocks more of your vision. Fighter pilots say ‘Move your head – or you’re dead’.
Clear your flight path! When changing lanes, check your mirrors and as a last check, look directly at the spot which are going to manoeuvre.
Drive with your lights on. Bright vehicles or clothing is always easier to spot than dark colours that don’t contrast with a scene.
It is especially difficult to spot bicycles, motorbikes and pedestrians during low sun conditions as contrast is reduced.
Keep your windscreen clean – seeing other vehicles is enough of a challenge without a dirty windscreen. You never see a fighter jet with a dirty canopy.
Finally, don’t be a clown – if you are looking at your mobile telephone then you are incapable of seeing much else. Not only are you probably looking down into your lap, but your eyes are focused at less then one metre and every object at distance will be out of focus. Even when you look up and out, it takes a fraction of a second for your eyes to adjust – this is time you may not have.


#63 Wiltshire Rhino

Wiltshire Rhino
  • Coach
  • 2,326 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 04:24 PM

If you are going to come up with a working idea. First of all it has to work.
Yours doesnt. Lets try again.


My idea is to use common sense. Are you saying using common sense won't work? It seemed to work in the past when people were more aware of their responsibilities and the rights of others instead of being aware of their own rights and, if something goes wrong, the other person is always responsible.

Edited by Wiltshire Rhino, 06 December 2012 - 04:31 PM.

2014 Challenged Cup Winner

#64 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,264 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 05:35 PM

My idea is to use common sense. Are you saying using common sense won't work? It seemed to work in the past when people were more aware of their responsibilities and the rights of others instead of being aware of their own rights and, if something goes wrong, the other person is always responsible.


Common sense would work for some situations but not all.

In some situations the problem is the infrastructure and quite often the steps that would make the situations better for cyclists and pedestrians (and often motorists) are blocked by special interests and numbskull thinking.

Plus people like Sev the Mamil who think everyone should mix with traffic.
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#65 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,304 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 05:42 PM

Answer the two questions John.


say please. :rolleyes:

1. No one should be in charge of a 1.5 tonne vehicle capable of over 100 MPH if they cannot control a 15kg vehicle capable of 25 mph. There are a number of exemptions for disables drivers already. It is a simple matter to incorporate this one.

2. Tall people can always drive with the sun roof open.

2A. There are plenty of low profile lightweight helmets around; climbing helmets for example. If all drivers and passengers wore such helmets the incidence of head injuries in car accidents would be dramatically reduce.

#66 tonyXIII

tonyXIII
  • Coach
  • 4,988 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:28 PM

I get the idea that we are all road users and equally entitled to be so, but ....

Yesterday evening on the way home from work, it was blizzard conditions. So much so that I almost abandoned the journey near Stokesly for a hotel room. This morning, driving to work, the gritters had obviously been working hard (true heroes of the road, those guys!) and the road surface was wet, but not icy. However, the temperature through Bilsdale got down to -9C. Seriously cold! Imagine my amazement on the return journey this evening to find myself behind a cyclist - in the pitch dark! He was carrying a light, but these roads are narrow. So narrow that I sometimes get nervous just passing a large truck coming the other way, especially in the dark when the edges of the road are not absolutely clear. Why cycle in those conditions? Slush, hidden ice maybe, dark, cold, filthy spray from other vehicles. He can't have been enjoying it, surely? I had to slow to a crawl going up one hill due to oncoming traffic. It was impossible to pass him. It was okay and I don't begrudge him the road. I just cannot understand why he wanted to cycle. Why not save the cycling for daylight/weekend when it would be safer?

Am I being picky?

Rethymno Rugby League Appreciation Society
Founder (and, so far, only) member.


#67 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,264 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:35 PM

I get the idea that we are all road users and equally entitled to be so, but ....

Yesterday evening on the way home from work, it was blizzard conditions. So much so that I almost abandoned the journey near Stokesly for a hotel room. This morning, driving to work, the gritters had obviously been working hard (true heroes of the road, those guys!) and the road surface was wet, but not icy. However, the temperature through Bilsdale got down to -9C. Seriously cold! Imagine my amazement on the return journey this evening to find myself behind a cyclist - in the pitch dark! He was carrying a light, but these roads are narrow. So narrow that I sometimes get nervous just passing a large truck coming the other way, especially in the dark when the edges of the road are not absolutely clear. Why cycle in those conditions? Slush, hidden ice maybe, dark, cold, filthy spray from other vehicles. He can't have been enjoying it, surely? I had to slow to a crawl going up one hill due to oncoming traffic. It was impossible to pass him. It was okay and I don't begrudge him the road. I just cannot understand why he wanted to cycle. Why not save the cycling for daylight/weekend when it would be safer?

Am I being picky?


I'd cycle in that but I wouldn't drive. Commuting, not 'pleasure'.

And indeed have done!
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#68 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,559 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:52 PM

Imagine my amazement on the return journey this evening to find myself behind a cyclist - in the pitch dark! He was carrying a light, but these roads are narrow. So narrow that I sometimes get nervous just passing a large truck coming the other way, especially in the dark when the edges of the road are not absolutely clear. Why cycle in those conditions? Slush, hidden ice maybe, dark, cold, filthy spray from other vehicles.

Imagine a similar scenario but the dingbat on two wheels had no lights and that was my experience driving home this evening. Thankfully I did manage to see the dingbat in time to avoid scraping him along the wall.

#69 tonyXIII

tonyXIII
  • Coach
  • 4,988 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:05 PM

Imagine a similar scenario but the dingbat on two wheels had no lights and that was my experience driving home this evening. Thankfully I did manage to see the dingbat in time to avoid scraping him along the wall.


Some people are just plain stupid. My cyclist had a really good rear light - bright red and flashing! I saw him from a long way off, which made it easy to slow down to 10mph on the hill. It really would be suicide to cycle on the road from Sproxton to Hovingham without lights as there are no street lights for miles and it is really dark!

edited to change a stupid error before anyone saw it. :blush:

Edited by tonyXIII, 06 December 2012 - 10:06 PM.

Rethymno Rugby League Appreciation Society
Founder (and, so far, only) member.


#70 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:24 PM

He was carrying a light, but these roads are narrow. So narrow that I sometimes get nervous just passing a large truck coming the other way, especially in the dark when the edges of the road are not absolutely clear.


Narrow? I dream of roads that wide, often having to drive miles where virtually nothing coming the other way could pass. If you do meet another car/van/milk tanker it's a case of both of you getting as far up the grass bank as possible, either that or reverse to the nearest passing place (often an open gate to a field).

One such road is known locally as The Peat Road; it used to be for access to the peat bogs used for domestic fuel. When I'm on a particular delivery, one of the last bits uses this single-track road for the last few deliveries - a few hill farms spread over about five miles. On a Saturday morning shift, when you've been up since 4:30am, you're desperate to finish, get home and put the feet up, there is nothing more certain than to meet a few dozen club cyclists from one of the east-central Scotland cycling clubs. Despite the rush there is nothing to it than to get you near-side wheels up on the grass verge, wait for the lycra-clad hoards to pass, and return their smiles and waves. They are just about to complete quite a gruelling climb, under their own steam, so who am I to demand that they get out of the way? I'll just wait, have a little patience, and trust that being considerate is good for the soul?
"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#71 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 13,041 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:22 PM

Imagine a similar scenario but the dingbat on two wheels had no lights and that was my experience driving home this evening. Thankfully I did manage to see the dingbat in time to avoid scraping him along the wall.

As you say, that is just shear stupidity.
Fides invicta triumphat

#72 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 13,041 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:24 PM

I get the idea that we are all road users and equally entitled to be so, but ....

Yesterday evening on the way home from work, it was blizzard conditions. So much so that I almost abandoned the journey near Stokesly for a hotel room. This morning, driving to work, the gritters had obviously been working hard (true heroes of the road, those guys!) and the road surface was wet, but not icy. However, the temperature through Bilsdale got down to -9C. Seriously cold! Imagine my amazement on the return journey this evening to find myself behind a cyclist - in the pitch dark! He was carrying a light, but these roads are narrow. So narrow that I sometimes get nervous just passing a large truck coming the other way, especially in the dark when the edges of the road are not absolutely clear. Why cycle in those conditions? Slush, hidden ice maybe, dark, cold, filthy spray from other vehicles. He can't have been enjoying it, surely? I had to slow to a crawl going up one hill due to oncoming traffic. It was impossible to pass him. It was okay and I don't begrudge him the road. I just cannot understand why he wanted to cycle. Why not save the cycling for daylight/weekend when it would be safer?

Am I being picky?

Lots of cyclists commute to work, perhaps there isn't an alternative.
Fides invicta triumphat

#73 guess who

guess who
  • Coach
  • 4,020 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:41 AM

My idea is to use common sense. Are you saying using common sense won't work? It seemed to work in the past when people were more aware of their responsibilities and the rights of others instead of being aware of their own rights and, if something goes wrong, the other person is always responsible.


Common sense does work, if people have it. As a driving instructor. One of the things that has shocked me, is realising how little common sense some people actually have. Along side this the lack of multi tasking and ability to forward plan.

#74 guess who

guess who
  • Coach
  • 4,020 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:48 AM

say please. :rolleyes:

1. No one should be in charge of a 1.5 tonne vehicle capable of over 100 MPH if they cannot control a 15kg vehicle capable of 25 mph. There are a number of exemptions for disables drivers already. It is a simple matter to incorporate this one.


You first of all say that no one should be driving a car if they cannot ride a bike. You then say there could be exemptions. You cant have both things.
The exemptions that disabled people have. Have nothing to do with learning or passing the theory and driving test.


2. Tall people can always drive with the sun roof open.


Evn you know how silly this idea is.

2A. There are plenty of low profile lightweight helmets around; climbing helmets for example. If all drivers and passengers wore such helmets the incidence of head injuries in car accidents would be dramatically reduce.


All the climbing helmets i have seen have a high profile.
The other thing to think about. No government would ever be brave enough to bring this in. If they did you would have to wear one on a train, in a plane and so on.

Like i said before. If you are going to come up with a working plan, it has to work.

Your clearly does not. Try again.

#75 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,129 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:03 AM

Common sense does work, if people have it. As a driving instructor. One of the things that has shocked me, is realising how little common sense some people actually have. Along side this the lack of multi tasking and ability to forward plan.

(As an aside, does the Highway Code say it's fine to flash your lights for the usual reasons?)

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#76 guess who

guess who
  • Coach
  • 4,020 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:11 AM

(As an aside, does the Highway Code say it's fine to flash your lights for the usual reasons?)


What do you mean by the, usual reasons?

#77 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,129 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:20 AM

What do you mean by the, usual reasons?

"I'm letting you go", "thanks" and such.

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#78 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,304 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:48 AM

You first of all say that no one should be driving a car if they cannot ride a bike. Correct
You then say there could be exemptions. You cant have both things. yes you can

The exemptions that disabled people have. Have nothing to do with learning or passing the theory and driving test
Evn you know how silly this idea is. I guess being a driving instructor does test your sense of humour.
All the climbing helmets i have seen have a high profile. you need to get our more, then
The other thing to think about. No government would ever be brave enough to bring this in. If they did you would have to wear one on a train, in a plane and so on. Clearly not as there are virtually no head injuries on those forms of transport. See below.
Like i said before. If you are going to come up with a working plan, it has to work. Your clearly does not. Try again. OK, but its not you I need to persuade,large numbers of people derided seat belts when they were first introduced. Despite only a bus and coach few accidents , seatbelts are now fitted on coaches and school buses.


No need. it is a matter of principle regarding the ability to cycle. There are numerous ways in which disabled people can cycle . Se here for example. http://www.getcyclin...ecial-needs.php

Cycling teaches awareness of road surfaces, road conditions, the way other road uses behave etc. It teaches people to actually observe what is going on around them and taking this forward with them as they move on to car driving is to me a sensible, viable and indeed essential way of doing things. As for helmets when driving, then you need to look at modern helmet technology outside of your experience. Of course, people are not going to wear helmets in cars, despite the views of people like Brake. However, that does not invalidate the argument that it would be beneficial. But what price are people prepared to pay or what risks are they prepared to take over nearly 27,000 killed or seriously injured last year on our roads.

Head injuries
It is estimated that in Britain, approximately one million people attend hospital A&E departments every year with some form of traumatic brain injury. Road crashes account for 40% to 50% of all brain injuries and are most commonly associated with severe injuries. [15] The largest group of people with brain injury is men aged 15-29 who have been in road crashes.

Edited by JohnM, 07 December 2012 - 11:49 AM.


#79 guess who

guess who
  • Coach
  • 4,020 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:39 PM

"I'm letting you go", "thanks" and such.


Unfortunately no.

This is the only mention about it in the highway code.

110

Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.
111

Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully.

#80 guess who

guess who
  • Coach
  • 4,020 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:45 PM

Of course, people are not going to wear helmets in cars, despite the views of people like Brake. However, that does not invalidate the argument that it would be beneficial. But what price are people prepared to pay or what risks are they prepared to take over nearly 27,000 killed or seriously injured last year on our roads.


You even say, Of course, people are not going to wear helmets in cars.

In saying that you sound like a man on a mission. So what is your proposal to make the government actually do something?