Do you ever consider the worse that can happen?

[axel_knutt]

By and large, I don't fuss over it. There are times when I get a bit spooked by a near miss, and I might think on it for a while, but generally my mindset is more about it being an interesting tale to relate. It seems that if you've made an informed decision to cycle, then there's no point in keep re-examining your decision with every turn of the pedals. Hartog, Boogaard, Nijland, & Hoek showed that the benefits of cycling outweigh the risks.

There was an interesting program on cancer by Hannah Fry last night in which she considered the extremes to which people will ruin what time they have left with chemotherapy that has little prospect of improving their chance of survival. Toward the end was a guy who had rejected treatment so that he could spend what time he had left out on his mountain bike. Like someone said upthread, people have some funny ideas about risk.

[Jdsk]

By and large, I don't fuss over it. There are times when I get a bit spooked by a near miss, and I might think on it for a while, but generally my mindset is more about it being an interesting tale to relate. It seems that if you've made an informed decision to cycle, then there's no point in keep re-examining your decision with every turn of the pedals. Hartog, Boogaard, Nijland, & Hoek showed that the benefits of cycling outweigh the risks.

I don't ride around reconsidering the decision to cycle. But I do look for hazards all the time and occasionally rehearse in my mind what I will do if something goes wrong.

I got over this slowly as London's cycle infrastructure got better. I started getting to know people's behaviours depending on where I was, time of day and what they drove. I also avoid jumping lights and let people cross the roads.

...

As others have said simply being careful and aware on the road has been the best way for me to avoid any incidents.

This sort of approach.

Jonathan

[VinceLedge]

If you always considered the worst that can happen you wouldn't even cross the road.

[Mike Sales]

If you always considered the worst that can happen you wouldn't even cross the road.

No, what you do is take into account the possible problems and make an appreciation of whether and how you can minimise the risks.
I really value this autonomy, that is, the freedom to take your own risks.

[Jdsk]

If you always considered the worst that can happen you wouldn't even cross the road.

No, what you do is take into account the possible problems and make an appreciation of whether and how you can minimise them.

Yes. Considering the risk of crossing the road is very different from deciding not to cross because of the risk.

Jonathan

[foxyrider]

The worst that can happen? IME anything bad will either happen so fast that you can't influence the outcome or i get to 'this could end badly' before i get diverted to preventing that outcome, sometimes it works, sometimes not but worrying about it beforehand wouldn't make any difference to the outcome.

I don't let road incidents worry me unduly - and i've had a few close calls over the years! Some of those have left me physically shaking, i'd survived a potentially life ending/altering situation, the adrenalin was flowing and i certainly took the rest of the ride more cautiously each time. I'm sure i have, over the years, adapted some of my riding as i've become more risk aware but overall i still ride the same as i did when i started cycling more seriously as a teen.

I admit to occasionally start thinking of the 'frailty' of some bike parts, what it might mean if something broke at the wrong moment but given that all my 'accidents' have been the result of outside forces - mostly ice, i have no reason to dwell on that. The only recurring theme is the ability of @ a square centimetre of tyre to maintain grip, particularly on fast twisty descents. Again i've no personal experience to make me doubt the tyres abilities, its more of a what if.

Back when i raced tandems we did come up with a bail out plan in case of a front wheel puncture - basically head for the verge, but we never needed to put it into action.

So given the opportunity i'll still launch myself down a mountain side at silly speeds on my 23c tyres, i still mix it with motorised traffic but all the time sub consciously i'm looking out for potential hazards.

[peetee]

Normally no, but this week I had cause to. Two of us were riding and chatting in a narrow, straight lane when it became obvious that an approaching car wasn’t slowing down but accelerating towards us. we did all we could to bury ourselves in the hedge but the car struck my ride partners arm resulting in a bad fracture. It was clear from the following conversation with the driver that he was unable to see us from his shady position approximately 75yrds away where I first saw him. just ahead of us when we stopped was a short patch of sunlight which, he claimed, blinded him. I questioned him then why he continued to accelerate towards us until the point of impact at approximately 30mph even though he was in a 20 mph zone.
What has stayed with me since is that during conversation with him it became obvious that he was certain that he was only doing 20mph and that such a speed was ‘safe’ regardless of the conditions and location. Also that his awareness was such that he was reliant on information that was within a few yards of his windscreen but his reactions were not good enough to respond accordingly.
This lane is extremely popular with ramblers, dog walkers and cyclists and it would have mattered not one jot what was present at the time; a collision was inevitable. I’m almost thankful that we were not a young family and, bad as the wrist injury was, had we not done our level best to avoid this vehicle - sustaining scratches and bruises just by doing this - we could both have have been taken violently off the road and put in intensive care.

[VinceLedge]

Considering overall risk (which most people do) is different to just considering the worst that can happen - which some I have met do and it does stop them from taking on different activities, or maybe gives them an excuse
I also think there is quite a lack of understanding of the idea that risk is a product of hazard and probability

[Jdsk]

I think that the quoting and attribution in the last post is garbled.

Jonathan

[VinceLedge]

Fair enough, removed the quoting.

[Jdsk]

Thanks

Jonathan

[Liz_W]

I’ve literally just joined this forum after watching a feature on South Today about 2 surgeons who can’t work because they were knocked off their bikes.

There was a rep from this very organisation ranting on about how it isn’t possible that a driver “didn’t see the cyclist”. Well he’s wrong

I am a keen road cyclist and I am writing this as an exasperated cyclist who sees so many others wearing black with no lights and nothing luminous.

Quite frankly every one of you that falls into this category may as well just sign up for the Darwin Awards now.

You cannot see a dark moving object ( either car or cyclist) that is going through dappled shade whether you are approaching it from behind or if it coming towards you.

Front and rear lights and luminous clothing should be a legal requirement.

My sincere condolences go out to otherwise sensibly visible cyclist hurt by careless drivers.


By the way: I’m the cyclist in Hampshire with 2 front and two rear lights and dressed like a giant lemon.

Liz

[Jdsk]

Welcome

Jonathan

[rareposter]

I am a keen road cyclist and I am writing this as an exasperated cyclist who sees so many others wearing black with no lights and nothing luminous.

So... you see them then?!
I never get this argument - it pops up all the time on FB groups from frothing gammons about how they see cyclists wearing all black / no lights.

Exactly - you've seen them. Same as you'd see dustbins, bollards, trees, deer, foxes, dogs, pedestrians none of which routinely wear hi-vis and lights. I've long thought that the best way to be seen is to wear all black, have no lights and no helmet and ride on the pavement and/or jump red lights. Not only does every driver around see you, they post all about it on FB.

And given the sheer number of incidents where the driver claims they "didn't see", it's even got it's own acronym. SMIDSY. Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You. Usually said by the driver as the lemon-yellow cyclist is crawling out of the gutter after being knocked flying by an inattentive driver.

PLEASE stop with the victim blaming.

[Jdsk]

I am a keen road cyclist and I am writing this as an exasperated cyclist who sees so many others wearing black with no lights and nothing luminous.

So... you see them then?!
I never get this argument...

There's nothing necessarily wrong with the logic of the assertion. They may be clearly visible when they're in some places but not when they're in others.

You cannot see a dark moving object ( either car or cyclist) that is going through dappled shade whether you are approaching it from behind or if it coming towards you.

But you might be able to see the same object when it's illuminated by a street light or a car's headlamps.

Jonathan