Cycling UK Forum

Law should insist that bicycles are fitted with a convex rear-view mirror of the appropriate curvature.

The Sunday Times article of November 29, discussed elsewhere in this forum, argues that cyclists who listen to IPods are a menace. (Largely to themselves, presumably). The CTC newletter, discussing the article, concludes:

"... you should not solely rely on your hearing to know when a vehicle is behind you, cycle training states you should regularly look over your shoulder too."

Looking over your shoulder takes time. Time you're not looking ahead. In most UK traffic situations you need to monitor continuously what is around you - front and back. Being able to hear helps a little, but cannot and must not be relied upon. (A Prius or Tesla could creep up on you and you'd never know.) Car drivers can hear very little, but they have three mirrors. Cyclists should have at least one.

The appropriate curvature of the mirror is crucial. I found a flat mirror was useless, as the vibrations transmitted through my Brompton shook the image so much that I couldn't distinguish a thing. Too curved and the items in the mirror are too small. I am happy with the one I have now and rely on it completely, but I found it hard to get more for my kids' bikes. They are also ludicrously over-priced for what they are (a few bits of black and shiny plastic).

Mandating that a kite-marked mirror should be fitted to every bike as standard should bring down the cost to mere pennies and improve availability. I expect this will significantly enhance cyclists' safety.

I'm not sure whether your trolling or What.
But Mirrors do not replace looking behind. Mirrors vibrate, have blind spots. most are next to useless. A convex mirror makes things Small and things can easily be missed in them Looking at a mirror is also time spent not looking ahead.

Mirrors have their own limitations too.

However as a long term mirror user, all of my bikes have them plus I use a glasses mounted one too, there are good reasons to use them. While a look over the shoulder informs a following road user you know they are there and covers a greater rear arc than most mirrors will cover, the continuous awareness of what's behind you a mirror gives is a real safety issue to me.

The rearward glance serves more than one purpose.

On my recumbents where I can't turn my head far enough to see directly behind me the glasses mirror allows me to see the entire 180 degrees to the rear. I still 'look' at junctions and when signalling a turn or change of lane in order to make the following driver feel I know they are there, even though I can't actually see behind and am already aware of their presence through the mirrors.

It isnt even compulsory for a motorcycle to have one fitted!

I ride with the assumption that there may be a vehicle behind me and will check that there isnt a vehicle before attempting any manouvere.
Personally I find it a lot easier to check behind than I would to use a mirror. In my experience if you have a vehicle fitted with effective mirrors you get out of the habit of doing the "lifesaver"

hmbhmb wrote:Mandating that a kite-marked mirror should be fitted to every bike as standard should bring down the cost to mere pennies and improve availability. I expect this will significantly enhance cyclists' safety.

i expect that mandating anything will get peoples backs up. i can quite happily turn my head to see what's behind me before i move or signal - i don't need or want one

I can't believe anyone would argue against rear view mirrors,they are quite simply a boon for any road going vehicle,I take the point of one not replacing the look over the shoulder but actually argue against mirror use to me is bizarre.
I've been using a RVM for over ten years and wouldn't be without one.

I doubt anyone would argue against mirror use. But that's not the same as not wanting one; I'm with hubgearfreak, I don't need or want one. If you want one, get one. If you don't, don't.

And as for making them compulsory, it indicates a rather twisted sense of priorities. It's incompetent drivers who create danger, not cyclists.

reohn2 wrote:I can't believe anyone would argue against rear view mirrors,they are quite simply a boon for any road going vehicle,I take the point of one not replacing the look over the shoulder but actually argue against mirror use to me is bizarre.
I've been using a RVM for over ten years and wouldn't be without one.

I just don't see the point. But then I've never tried

Perhaps someone could recommend a good one and I'll see what I think... (Needs to fit the drop bar on a tourer)

kwackers wrote:

reohn2 wrote:I can't believe anyone would argue against rear view mirrors,they are quite simply a boon for any road going vehicle,I take the point of one not replacing the look over the shoulder but actually argue against mirror use to me is bizarre.
I've been using a RVM for over ten years and wouldn't be without one.

I just don't see the point. But then I've never tried

Perhaps someone could recommend a good one and I'll see what I think... (Needs to fit the drop bar on a tourer)

Cateye "racing" mirror £5.99 Halfords they fit both drops and straights.

reohn2 wrote:I can't believe anyone would argue against rear view mirrors

i'm not against them - if you want one, buy one & fit one - and i hope that you're both very happy.
it's the compulsion element that gets my goat

i personally believe that cycling with flat bars is safer than with drops, but i'm not suggesting that they should be compulsory. it's your business what you ride with, not mine.

There are two ways top deal with an issue deal with the problem or deal with the victim.

The majority of cyclists struck from behind are due to closes overtakes and bad judgement by the overtaking driver...... fitting a mirror will not help prevent the most common cause of injury. Driver awareness and driver training would be far better, but why bother when you can make a cosmetic token gesture and feel that you have done something.

Equally why the Ipod concern, the average Chavriolet is equally more guilty of distracting, and often prevents others hearing what is going on.... in most cases louder than the Ipod!

Cunobelin wrote:There are two ways top deal with an issue deal with the problem or deal with the victim.

The majority of cyclists struck from behind are due to closes overtakes and bad judgement by the overtaking driver...... fitting a mirror will not help prevent the most common cause of injury. Driver awareness and driver training would be far better, but why bother when you can make a cosmetic token gesture and feel that you have done something.

Equally why the Ipod concern, the average Chavriolet is equally more guilty of distracting, and often prevents others hearing what is going on.... in most cases louder than the Ipod!

I agree. But for a fiver I'll get one, stick it on and see if I've been missing anything. Otoh compulsion is so ott that there's no way I'd ever agree.

NUKe wrote:I'm not sure whether your trolling or What.

Agree.
Last time I suggested this, I was castigated for even asking!

hmbhmb, this is your second post, and you come on here with a controversial subject with particular points to make, and you make them in a strong way. Sorry, but this sort of thing winds people up.

I don't disagree that mirrors are a sometimes good thing, they may help, but not always IMHO. I may agree that iPods aren't good either, but there are others on here who would vehemently disagree with you.

Can you explain your points of view, and argue constructively, rather than just make blunt points?

Thanks.

Cars have three mirrors.

Why?

Think about when you drive and when you use your mirrors.

A car driver has limited mobility and limited vision. You cant just look over your shoulder because your back is up against a seat and you are strapped in. Then you have all those bits of car internal and external blocking your view.
Then you have to drive the car backwards occasionally, when of course you can not see where you are going because you are at the wrong end of the vehicle.
Then you have the other side of the car to worry about and need the left mirror to keep an eye on whats happening down there.

Meanwhile on a bike you just look wherever you like, easy peasy.
Slightly more difficult with a motorcycle helmet on and at greater speeds I will agree.
I wonder how many mirrors will give a usable image at those speeds anyway.

meic wrote:Cars have three mirrors.

Why?

Think about when you drive and when you use your mirrors.

A car driver has limited mobility and limited vision. You cant just look over your shoulder because your back is up against a seat and you are strapped in. Then you have all those bits of car internal and external blocking your view.
Then you have to drive the car backwards occasionally, when of course you can not see where you are going because you are at the wrong end of the vehicle.
Then you have the other side of the car to worry about and need the left mirror to keep an eye on whats happening down there.

Meanwhile on a bike you just look wherever you like, easy peasy.
Slightly more difficult with a motorcycle helmet on and at greater speeds I will agree.
I wonder how many mirrors will give a usable image at those speeds anyway.

The trouble with cars and mirrors is that most seem to think if you're not visible in them you don't exist. I've lost count of the number of times on my motorbike some idiot has decided to move into the lane I'm was in.
Makes you wonder if they wouldn't be safer without - then they'd have to look around.