Cyclecraft: Exceptions

LSMike said:

I'm interested specifically in situations where you would behave
differently than cyclecraft recommends. Try to make as concise a
description as possible as to what the situation is, and how your
treatment differs from cyclecraft.

Cheers,
Mike.http://www.londonskaters.com/cycling/

I don't disagree with any of it. It's a classic and I think it'd be
important to avoid any angle such as "many cyclists disagree with
sections of Cyclecraft" as this would weaken its authority when citing
it as a defence for correct road positioning for example.

David

LSMike said:

I'm interested specifically in situations where you would behave
differently than cyclecraft recommends. Try to make as concise a
description as possible as to what the situation is, and how your
treatment differs from cyclecraft.

I haven't yet read the new edition, but DW noticed the following while
skimming through it:
"Horns have no purpose. On paths their sound is too abrupt, and as
likely to frighten someone into your way as out of it, and in traffic
they are as ineffective as bells.

"Aerosol-operated sirens are available for cycles, and the louder ones
can be heard inside cars. Their sound is more offensive than a warning
and in most instances a cyclist should be busy avoiding a potential
collision rather than sounding off about it."

When I was learning to ride a motorbike I was told that the horn is the
most important part of the machine. The purpose of the horn is to alert
others to your presence. Because a motorbike is narrower than a car,
motorists are more likely to fail to spot it. An audible warning is
invaluable for preventing cars from pulling out in front of you.

I consider this to be good advice, and to be truer still for pedal
cycles. IME an Air-Zound, correctly used, can be invaluable for
asserting a cyclist's right of way. There have been numerous instances
where judicious use of the horn has prevented motorists from pulling out
in front of me from junctions on the left where they have a poor view of
the road that they are pulling out into (there are two such junctions on
my morning commute). There have even been instances where motorists
have thanked me for using the horn.

Cyclecraft states that:
"in most instances a cyclist should be busy avoiding a potential
collision rather than sounding off about it."

It fails to take account of the facts that using a horn can be part of
avoiding a potential collision and that on many cycles it is quite
possible to fit a horn such that it can be used while braking or taking
other evasive action.

Cyclecraft states that:
"On paths their sound is ... as likely to frighten someone into your way
as out of it".

It fails to take account of the fact that cyclists are able to vary
their speed, and even to stop. If a group of peds has ignored or failed
to hear my bell then I'm likely to be moving pretty slowly by the time I
use the horn. By that point I don't care which way they jump. What I
care about is that they register my presence and move aside so that I
can pass. IME they will rarely jump to one side or the other before
looking round, anyway.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2

LSMike said:

I'm interested specifically in situations where you would behave
differently than cyclecraft recommends.

What's the reason for your interest, BTW? Is there a particular point
that you disagree with and you want to see if anyone else comes up with
the same point independently?

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2

Danny Colyer said:

It fails to take account of the facts that using a horn can be part of
avoiding a potential collision and that on many cycles it is quite
possible to fit a horn such that it can be used while braking or taking
other evasive action.

I delayed buying an Air Zound for ages because in every sutuation
where I could envisage myself using it, I thought my time would be
better spent braking and yelling rahter than fumbling for a button.
Then I was partially overtaken by van, who started drifting to the
left as soon as his cab had passed me. As it happened I was fine, but
I could have been squashed between the van and the barrier to our
left. The situation was such that it wasn't easy to get in front of
him, or drop out behind and hammering on the side of his vehicle
(which I did) had little effect. As it happened, I got clear and was
fine - but I bought an Air Zound 3 on my way home that evening.

Since then I've been similar situations from time to time and the horn
has been great. I last used it whena 4x4 started to overtake me
between two rows of paked cars, then pulled left when the driver
noticed there was oncoming traffic. When I hit the horn she stopped
dead in her tracks and appologised.

I ride about 6 or 7 hours a week in central London and use the horn
once a month or less. When I have a true need for it it's invaluable,
but 99% of the time it's use would be inappropriate - though I did
demonstrate it to a friendly motorcyclist a few weeks ago who pulled
alongside and asked what it was - he laughed so hard he nearly fell of
his bike!

Danny Colyer said:

It fails to take account of the fact that cyclists are able to vary
their speed, and even to stop. If a group of peds has ignored or failed
to hear my bell then I'm likely to be moving pretty slowly by the time I
use the horn. By that point I don't care which way they jump. What I
care about is that they register my presence and move aside so that I
can pass.

Toad of Toad Hall ICMFP.

IME they will rarely jump to one side or the other before

Quoted message said:

looking round, anyway.

Danny Colyer said:

I haven't yet read the new edition, but DW noticed the following while
skimming through it:
"Horns have no purpose. On paths their sound is too abrupt, and as
likely to frighten someone into your way as out of it, and in traffic
they are as ineffective as bells.

"Aerosol-operated sirens are available for cycles, and the louder ones
can be heard inside cars. Their sound is more offensive than a
warning and in most instances a cyclist should be busy avoiding a
potential collision rather than sounding off about it."

When I was learning to ride a motorbike I was told that the horn is
the most important part of the machine. The purpose of the horn is
to alert others to your presence. Because a motorbike is narrower
than a car, motorists are more likely to fail to spot it. An audible
warning is invaluable for preventing cars from pulling out in front
of you.
I consider this to be good advice, and to be truer still for pedal
cycles. IME an Air-Zound, correctly used, can be invaluable for
asserting a cyclist's right of way. There have been numerous
instances where judicious use of the horn has prevented motorists
from pulling out in front of me from junctions on the left where they
have a poor view of the road that they are pulling out into (there
are two such junctions on my morning commute). There have even been
instances where motorists have thanked me for using the horn.

Cyclecraft states that:
"in most instances a cyclist should be busy avoiding a potential
collision rather than sounding off about it."

It fails to take account of the facts that using a horn can be part of
avoiding a potential collision and that on many cycles it is quite
possible to fit a horn such that it can be used while braking or
taking other evasive action.

A horn may well be useful for asserting your right of way and assisting your
convenience, but you can prevent potential collisions by slowing down or
stopping until it is obvious that the driver has seen you. Therefore it is
not necessary to have a horn to be *safe*.

Personally, I'm happy enough not to have one to help minimise the amount of
stuff attached to the bike. I'm only occasionally slightly inconvienced by
not having one.

I think motorcyclists (and all motorists) rely on horns more because they're
not willing to go slow enough to be safe without one.

~PB

Pete Biggs said:

A horn may well be useful for asserting your right of way and assisting your
convenience, but you can prevent potential collisions by slowing down or
stopping until it is obvious that the driver has seen you.

Not if a van or bus driver pulls alongside you and then starts to drift
or turn left, as in the example given by Thweylan.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2

Danny Colyer said:

Pete Biggs said:

A horn may well be useful for asserting your right of way and
assisting your convenience, but you can prevent potential collisions
by slowing down or stopping until it is obvious that the driver has
seen you.

Not if a van or bus driver pulls alongside you and then starts to
drift or turn left, as in the example given by Thweylan.

OK, but so far in that situation I've always managed to avoid being hit by
braking, turning left with the vehicle, or doing nothing at all. I think it
would be rare indeed for those tactics not to work *and* for there to be
time for a horn to be sounded, heard and acted upon.

So personally I'm not going to have a horn taking up space on my bike for
that slight possibility. However, I don't have anything against those who
do want a horn on their cycle (as long as they don't rely on it too much or
get over-confidence from it), and I suppose John Franklin is a bit over the
top in his objections.

~PB

In article <[email hidden]>, Pete Biggs
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Danny Colyer said:

Pete Biggs said:

A horn may well be useful for asserting your right of way and
assisting your convenience, but you can prevent potential collisions
by slowing down or stopping until it is obvious that the driver has
seen you.

Not if a van or bus driver pulls alongside you and then starts to
drift or turn left, as in the example given by Thweylan.

OK, but so far in that situation I've always managed to avoid being hit by
braking, turning left with the vehicle, or doing nothing at all. I think it
would be rare indeed for those tactics not to work *and* for there to be
time for a horn to be sounded, heard and acted upon.

I guess you don't ride somewhere that has lots of railings along the
edge of pavements.

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Pete Biggs
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Danny Colyer said:

On 30/06/2007 15:32, Pete Biggs wrote:
> A horn may well be useful for asserting your right of way and
> assisting your convenience, but you can prevent potential
> collisions by slowing down or stopping until it is obvious that
> the driver has seen you.

Not if a van or bus driver pulls alongside you and then starts to
drift or turn left, as in the example given by Thweylan.

OK, but so far in that situation I've always managed to avoid being
hit by braking, turning left with the vehicle, or doing nothing at
all. I think it would be rare indeed for those tactics not to work
*and* for there to be time for a horn to be sounded, heard and acted
upon.

I guess you don't ride somewhere that has lots of railings along the
edge of pavements.

Most of my cycling is in London, mate, and railings are all over the place.
Unless I'm a ghost (I wonder sometimes), I've survived without ever using a
horn*.

* Apart from the comedy ones we used to buy from Halfrauds as kids that
lasted five minutes.

~PB

Pete Biggs said:

I think motorcyclists (and all motorists) rely on horns more because they're
not willing to go slow enough to be safe without one.

Not me. I only use the horn to say "hello" to other motorists who are
chatting on a phone.

Danny Colyer said:

Pete Biggs said:

A horn may well be useful for asserting your right of way and
assisting your convenience, but you can prevent potential collisions
by slowing down or stopping until it is obvious that the driver has
seen you.

Not if a van or bus driver pulls alongside you and then starts to drift
or turn left, as in the example given by Thweylan.

I don't think it's a good plan to rely on an Air Zound working, being
heard, and being acted upon in the right way, to save your life. The
priority in these cases is the emergency stop or swerve.

When it is useful is earlier, when you still have a little time, and
if the driver responds right you might be able to keep going.

This is a matter of convenience and driver education, but rarely life
or death. So I agree with John Franklin that an Air Zound is not going
to avert a collision, but I also agree with you that it is useful for
asserting right of way. I have one(1).

Colin McKenzie

(1) What it mainly gets used for is amusing children on cycle training
courses.

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Pete Biggs said:

Danny Colyer said:

I haven't yet read the new edition, but DW noticed the following while
skimming through it:
"Horns have no purpose. On paths their sound is too abrupt, and as
likely to frighten someone into your way as out of it, and in traffic
they are as ineffective as bells.

"Aerosol-operated sirens are available for cycles, and the louder ones
can be heard inside cars. Their sound is more offensive than a
warning and in most instances a cyclist should be busy avoiding a
potential collision rather than sounding off about it."

When I was learning to ride a motorbike I was told that the horn is
the most important part of the machine. The purpose of the horn is
to alert others to your presence. Because a motorbike is narrower
than a car, motorists are more likely to fail to spot it. An audible
warning is invaluable for preventing cars from pulling out in front
of you.
I consider this to be good advice, and to be truer still for pedal
cycles. IME an Air-Zound, correctly used, can be invaluable for
asserting a cyclist's right of way. There have been numerous
instances where judicious use of the horn has prevented motorists
from pulling out in front of me from junctions on the left where they
have a poor view of the road that they are pulling out into (there
are two such junctions on my morning commute). There have even been
instances where motorists have thanked me for using the horn.

Cyclecraft states that:
"in most instances a cyclist should be busy avoiding a potential
collision rather than sounding off about it."

It fails to take account of the facts that using a horn can be part of
avoiding a potential collision and that on many cycles it is quite
possible to fit a horn such that it can be used while braking or
taking other evasive action.

A horn may well be useful for asserting your right of way and assisting your
convenience, but you can prevent potential collisions by slowing down or
stopping until it is obvious that the driver has seen you. Therefore it is
not necessary to have a horn to be *safe*.

no but the same could be said for a car or bike or well any thing on
the road really.

Quoted message said:

Personally, I'm happy enough not to have one to help minimise the amount of
stuff attached to the bike. I'm only occasionally slightly inconvienced by
not having one.

I think motorcyclists (and all motorists) rely on horns more because they're
not willing to go slow enough to be safe without one.

~PB

roger

in message <[email hidden]>, Danny

Colyer (') said:

LSMike said:

I'm interested specifically in situations where you would behave
differently than cyclecraft recommends.

What's the reason for your interest, BTW? Is there a particular point
that you disagree with and you want to see if anyone else comes up with
the same point independently?

Methinks he wants to be able to argue 'all these experienced cyclists
disagree with CycleCraft, so it must be rubbish'. I'm very carefully not
replying.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; So, before proceeding with definitive screwing, choose the
;; position most congenital.
-- instructions for fitting bicycle handlebars

Roger Merriman said:

Pete Biggs <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A horn may well be useful for asserting your right of way and
assisting your convenience, but you can prevent potential collisions
by slowing down or stopping until it is obvious that the driver has
seen you. Therefore it is not necessary to have a horn to be *safe*.

no but the same could be said for a car or bike or well any thing on
the road really.

That's right. The difference is that car drivers aren't willing to drive in
such a way that they would be safe without a horn.

~PB

Simon Brooke said:

Methinks he wants to be able to argue 'all these experienced cyclists
disagree with CycleCraft, so it must be rubbish'. I'm very carefully not
replying.

--

Oooh, you should know me better by now Simon!

Danny Colyer said:

LSMike said:

I'm interested specifically in situations where you would behave
differently than cyclecraft recommends.

What's the reason for your interest, BTW? Is there a particular point
that you disagree with and you want to see if anyone else comes up with
the same point independently?

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>

I'm a huge fan of Cyclecraft, and I don't have any points to pick with
it. Not even the airzound issue, though I thought your point was well
chosen and argued.

It's because there have been a very few experienced cyclists who have
IMO unfairly dismissed Cyclecraft. I started a similar topic on an
internet forum some time ago, and the result was nothing. One came up
with one situation where he had a good alternative to the Cyclecraft
option, but it wasn't necessarily significantly better, and the
cyclecraft option was still perfectly valid, as well as it being
debateable as to which one was the better solution.

I think their attitude is borne out of the "I'm a far better driver/
cyclist than average, and no-one is going to tell me how to do it
better" type of thing.

Danny Colyer said:

LSMike said:

I'm interested specifically in situations where you would behave
differently than cyclecraft recommends. Try to make as concise a
description as possible as to what the situation is, and how your
treatment differs from cyclecraft.

I haven't yet read the new edition, but DW noticed the following while
skimming through it:
"Horns have no purpose. On paths their sound is too abrupt, and as
likely to frighten someone into your way as out of it, and in traffic
they are as ineffective as bells.

"Aerosol-operated sirens are available for cycles, and the louder ones
can be heard inside cars. Their sound is more offensive than a warning
and in most instances a cyclist should be busy avoiding a potential
collision rather than sounding off about it."

When I was learning to ride a motorbike I was told that the horn is the
most important part of the machine. The purpose of the horn is to alert
others to your presence. Because a motorbike is narrower than a car,
motorists are more likely to fail to spot it. An audible warning is
invaluable for preventing cars from pulling out in front of you.

I consider this to be good advice, and to be truer still for pedal
cycles. IME an Air-Zound, correctly used, can be invaluable for
asserting a cyclist's right of way. There have been numerous instances
where judicious use of the horn has prevented motorists from pulling out
in front of me from junctions on the left where they have a poor view of
the road that they are pulling out into (there are two such junctions on
my morning commute). There have even been instances where motorists
have thanked me for using the horn.

Cyclecraft states that:
"in most instances a cyclist should be busy avoiding a potential
collision rather than sounding off about it."

It fails to take account of the facts that using a horn can be part of
avoiding a potential collision and that on many cycles it is quite
possible to fit a horn such that it can be used while braking or taking
other evasive action.

Cyclecraft states that:
"On paths their sound is ... as likely to frighten someone into your way
as out of it".

It fails to take account of the fact that cyclists are able to vary
their speed, and even to stop. If a group of peds has ignored or failed
to hear my bell then I'm likely to be moving pretty slowly by the time I
use the horn. By that point I don't care which way they jump. What I
care about is that they register my presence and move aside so that I
can pass. IME they will rarely jump to one side or the other before
looking round, anyway.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>

I can see both points of view TBH. I have an AirZound on my
recumbent, because there it's easy to use the brakes and hit the horn
in the same moment, so it's very useful in just the way you describe.

I used to have one on my upright, but it wasn't as useful because I'd
usually rather be on the brakes and steering as per John Franklin. I
couldn't hit the button as well as brake and steer on drop handlebars,
simply because it would have to be in a strange position half way down
the drops, and I didn't want the horn there. I found I tended to use
the AirZound in retaliation, instead of in warning because of this,
which is not good.

Cheers,
Mike.

Simon Brooke wrote on 01/07/2007 01:01 +0100:

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Danny

Colyer (') said:

LSMike said:

I'm interested specifically in situations where you would behave
differently than cyclecraft recommends.

What's the reason for your interest, BTW? Is there a particular point
that you disagree with and you want to see if anyone else comes up with
the same point independently?

Methinks he wants to be able to argue 'all these experienced cyclists
disagree with CycleCraft, so it must be rubbish'. I'm very carefully not
replying.

Me too.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell