Chris Boardman cycling video

[RobM77]

Pontoneer said:

I just came across this advert for airbags for cyclists and thought I'd share it here .

I have to say I'm not sure of the advantages vs just wearing a helmet ?

http://www.hovding.com/how_hovding_works

In my humble opinion, the website doesn't sell its product very well, maybe because they'll be sued by existing bicycle helmet manufacturers, but basically a bicycle helmet is vastly inferior to a full face helmet as worn by a motorcyclist. The reasons for this are twofold: firstly a bicycle helmet protects against a very small range of angles of impact - you can still quite easily hit the back, side or front (face) of your head on the tarmac or a car bonnet etc, which is probably more likely than landing completely upside down or head first, when a bicycle helmet would help. Secondly, a bicycle helmet is free to move around on your head so it's likely that the ground or the car bonnet/windscreen etc will just push the helmet to one side and hit your head anyway. My (quite expensive) bicycle helmet tightens at the back for a better fit, but my chin strap was clearly designed for Jimmy Hill or a Sumo wrestler because even on its smallest setting it's nowhere near tight enough to hold the helmet still, and besides, even if one could adjust both adjustments to hold the helmet satisfactorily it would then be extremely uncomfortable.

I'm a keen cyclist and I wear a helmet because it's better than nothing, but I'm fully aware that whilst it may be a life saver in some accidents (as helmet manufacturers and RoSPA etc are keen to point out), a lot of the time it'll be next to useless. That's not a reason not to wear one though (as many cyclists will try and argue on cycling forums, which incidentally are largely full of illogical leftie tossers!), because in many situations it can save your life.

A full face motorbike style helmet solves both the problems described above immediately, but is heavy and limits visibility. This invention that you've linked to seems to offer the best of both worlds - the protection of a full face helmet without the restricted visibility or comfort. I'd definitely wear one if it wasn't too restrictive around the neck when uninflated (i.e. limited my all round vision and awareness, and therefore my ability to avoid accidents in the first place, which is one of the great things about being on a bicycle). In the days before HANS devices I used to race with a neck collar and it was a daft idea, because I could barely turn my head properly, so whilst it made accidents safer, it made them more likely!

Sorry for the lengthy answer. The short answer is that it's a Swedish design and therefore automatically intelligent, well thought out and effective

Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 27th August 15:09

[IcedKiwi]

RobM77 said:

I'm a keen cyclist and I wear a helmet because it's better than nothing, but I'm fully aware that whilst it may be a life saver in some accidents (as helmet manufacturers and RoSPA etc are keen to point out), a lot of the time it'll be next to useless. That's not a reason not to wear one though (as many cyclists will try and argue on cycling forums, which incidentally are largely full of illogical leftie tossers!), because in many situations it can save your life.

Reminds me of this article from a fighter pilot that I believe was on PH a while ago http://www.slobc.org/safety/documents/road-surviva...

FighterPilot said:

....This is risk management.
So is wearing a helmet - every fighter pilot wears a helmet, even though it won’t make much
difference if they hit the ground at 700 miles an hour! It’s about reducing the chances of less
dramatic incidents causing fatal cranial injuries, unnecessarily. Go figure.

[sjmmarsh]

The roads definitely look like a closed facility, which is probably why the cyclists ignore the red light on the pedestrian crossing at the very start of the video...

Steve

[Blakewater]

When overtaking on a single carriageway road, is it really necessary to indicate to pull back in? The driver seems to be pedantic about some things but, even though it's a closed facility, it seems odd to ignore obvious hazards such as the junction and the blind brow of the hill when demonstrating how to overtake properly. If you're going to demonstrate how to do something right it seems only proper to do it absolutely right, otherwise you risk people who can't think for themselves, the sort of numpties who need these demonstrations in the first place, crashing when overtaking at junctions and on the brows of hills and saying they did nothing wrong because the guy in the Chris Boardman video did it.

[RobM77]

Blakewater said:

When overtaking on a single carriageway road, is it really necessary to indicate to pull back in?

Just off the top of my head I can think of three situations where it would be useful:

1. If you've misjudged things and someone appears out of a hidden dip, from a junction or around a corner, it'd be good for them to know in the instant they see you that you're on the way back in when plotting their accident avoidance course. There would probably be no time to indicate after that happened and by already indicating you avoid a left-right-left moment where you don't know which way the other car is going.

2. Whilst concentrating on the road up ahead, you may not have noticed the motorbike who's just come round the previous corner way too fast to stop, or just impatient. This guy needs to know which side of you to squeeze by. We had a video of this happening recently on PH.

3. You may have mis-judged pulling back in and the car you're overtaking may need to back off to help you back in safely.

[R_U_LOCAL]

RobM77 said:

Blakewater said:

When overtaking on a single carriageway road, is it really necessary to indicate to pull back in?

Just off the top of my head I can think of three situations where it would be useful:

1. If you've misjudged things and someone appears out of a hidden dip, from a junction or around a corner, it'd be good for them to know in the instant they see you that you're on the way back in when plotting their accident avoidance course. There would probably be no time to indicate after that happened and by already indicating you avoid a left-right-left moment where you don't know which way the other car is going.

2. Whilst concentrating on the road up ahead, you may not have noticed the motorbike who's just come round the previous corner way too fast to stop, or just impatient. This guy needs to know which side of you to squeeze by. We had a video of this happening recently on PH.

3. You may have mis-judged pulling back in and the car you're overtaking may need to back off to help you back in safely.

So it's not really necessary then - unless you've made a misjudgement?

[Blakewater]

R_U_LOCAL said:

RobM77 said:

Blakewater said:

When overtaking on a single carriageway road, is it really necessary to indicate to pull back in?

Just off the top of my head I can think of three situations where it would be useful:

1. If you've misjudged things and someone appears out of a hidden dip, from a junction or around a corner, it'd be good for them to know in the instant they see you that you're on the way back in when plotting their accident avoidance course. There would probably be no time to indicate after that happened and by already indicating you avoid a left-right-left moment where you don't know which way the other car is going.

2. Whilst concentrating on the road up ahead, you may not have noticed the motorbike who's just come round the previous corner way too fast to stop, or just impatient. This guy needs to know which side of you to squeeze by. We had a video of this happening recently on PH.

3. You may have mis-judged pulling back in and the car you're overtaking may need to back off to help you back in safely.

So it's not really necessary then - unless you've made a misjudgement?

I suppose another situation is if you're passing a line of traffic and want to move in part way along. In the situation in the video, and in any normal overtaking situation, it pretty much goes without saying that you're not going to carry merrily on driving on the opposite side of the road and you're going to pull back in.

[RobM77]

R_U_LOCAL said:

RobM77 said:

Blakewater said:

When overtaking on a single carriageway road, is it really necessary to indicate to pull back in?

Just off the top of my head I can think of three situations where it would be useful:

blah blah blah..

So it's not really necessary then - unless you've made a misjudgement?

The whole point of following most driving rules, especially indicating, is to cover yourself if you've made a misjudgement, because obviously we're not normally aware when we've made a misjudgement . When driving well you build up layers of safety, so if one thing goes wrong it won't directly result in an incident, you've got at least one other thing to fall back on before an incident occurs. I'm defining an incident as anything from a crash to emergency avoidance or even just annoyance.

Consider a simple lane change on a motorway, let's say from lane 3 back to lane 2 after overtaking someone:

If you don't indicate and the person you've overtaken decides to accelerate or a motorbike squeezes between you, then there might be an incident; so there's just one thing that needs to happen before an incident occurs (unless you have a car and a motorbike around you! More about that later..). By indicating to return to lane 2, you add a layer of safety, so not only would that impatient motorbike have to squeeze between you, he'd also have to ignore your indicator, which is obviously less likely than him doing it if you weren't indicating. We're not talking black and white here, we're talking probabilities - just try and imagine this scenario happening a thousand times and you have to admit the biker is going to hang back on just some of those occasions if you're indicating, compared to if you weren't.

The second layer of safety is you checking your rearview and nearside mirrors before moving back. So now we've got three things that need to go wrong before an incident occurs.

We could add a third layer if we include a shoulder check to eliminate the blindspot issues with the mirror check.

Three layers of safety is really nice

We may of course decide to remove a layer of safety if it brings benefits in other areas, for example the shoulder check involves taking one's focus off the road ahead, and unlike the mirror check, doesn't leave the peripheral vision looking ahead. We need to make a decision whether that's worth it or not. That decision can be informed by many things: for example observing the driver/rider in question over the preceding few miles and if they're driving erratically then I'd add the shoulder check. I believe that the decision process for removing or adding layers of safety is one of the key aspects of advanced driving and it's one of the things that a good driver adds to the core skills learnt in the basic driving test.

[DocSteve]

I think it is courteous to indicate left during an overtake when there is traffic coming the other way - even though you are not going to come into conflict with it or cause the oncoming driver to have to slow down or change course it will reassure them that you are moving over and you are not some psychotic lunatic launching your car at them.

[Xpuffin]

Pontoneer said:

The one thing I take issue with in that video is the footnote at the end , "Riding two abreast is NOT illegal - see companion video Two Abreast" .

It may not be unlawful , but it is extremely inconsiderate when two or more cyclists remain two abreast at low speed on a narrow road when they could ( and should ! ) drop into single file to allow themselves to be safely overtaken . I had this issue a few years back when two lycra clad middle aged fatties were wobbling along two abreast on an unclassified country road ; I gave a polite 'toot' from a couple of hundred yards back so as not to take them by surprise , then slowed safely behind them and followed at a safe distance with my car positioned to the offside of the road , thus making it plain that I did not particularly want to follow them at 10 mph or so . Despite the road being clear for some several hundred yards ahead , they refused to move , until an oncoming car appeared , at which they went single file , and I dropped back behind them , but immediately went back out to block me again ; this went on for a couple of miles ( no exaggeration ) which must have taken 10 or fifteen minutes to cover at their pace , until there was a farmyard on the right which allowed me enough space to safely pass them . Some parts of the road were around bends , where I would have no issues holding back until as safe view past was available , but there were plenty of straight bits where a safe overtake would have been on , but for their obstinacy .

As a cyclist myself , I always show consideration to other road users , and will make room for vehicles to safely pass at the first opportunity , as well as giving safe room when I encounter other cyclists as a driver , but this pair were a disgrace and not all motorists would have been as patient with them .

When cyclists do this I feel they should comply with the HC and pull over frequently and allow traffic to pass.
I know I do even solo (I never ride 2 abreast)

[RobM77]

Xpuffin said:

When cyclists do this [ride two abreast] I feel they should comply with the HC and pull over frequently and allow traffic to pass.
I know I do even solo (I never ride 2 abreast)

I often cycle with my wife, and we'd love to chat as we cycle (and stay together without constant shoulder checks!), but we both feel that it's not polite to do so because cars find it harder to see and pass. It's one of many areas where you have to stop reading the HC by the letter and use your common sense; for example yesterday I came across a massive queue of cars facing towards me stuck behind a parked van at the side of the road, and I stopped to let a few through - that's not in the HC and I didn't need to, but it's basic manners imho and eased traffic flow considerably.

[Xpuffin]

RobM77 said:

I often cycle with my wife, and we'd love to chat as we cycle (and stay together without constant shoulder checks!), but we both feel that it's not polite to do so because cars find it harder to see and pass. It's one of many areas where you have to stop reading the HC by the letter and use your common sense; for example yesterday I came across a massive queue of cars facing towards me stuck behind a parked van at the side of the road, and I stopped to let a few through - that's not in the HC and I didn't need to, but it's basic manners imho and eased traffic flow considerably.

Have a back.
Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.........(D. Bader)

[henrycrun]

I just wish that driving instructors would teach pupils to indicate whenever they cross the white line.
Everyone can understand the intention and react accordingly.

[RobM77]

henrycrun said:

I just wish that driving instructors would teach pupils to indicate wheneverbefore they cross the white line.
Everyone can understand the intention and react accordingly.

EFA