- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Cyclist and London buses (copyright Simon MacMichael)Could varying usual routes make city cycling safer? A behavioural psycholgist thinks so
Could varying routes on a commute help cyclists stay safer on the road? That’s one theory advanced by a behavioural psychologist who is examining ways in which bike riders can try to minimise the chances of being involved in a collision, and who last year launched a set of bike lights that he claims make it easier for motorists to spot cyclists.
Crawford Hollingworth launched Brainy Bike Lights last year, with the product tested at the University of Oxford’s Experimental Psychology Lab and endorsed by the Science Museum. The front and rear lights each of a bicycle symbol, which testing found reduced driver reaction time in spotting the presence of a cyclist and reacting accordingly.
Now, in an article for the London Evening Standard, Hollingworth who founded and runs the consultancy The Behavioural Architects outlines four other things that he believes could make urban cycling safer.
The first of those is for riders to vary their most regular routes to avoid riding on ‘autopilot’ – something he terms “disrupting the status quo.”
“You know the routes inside out and this hyper familiarity will reduce your alertness to the unexpected,” he says. “So make regular changes to your route to keep you focused and more aware.”
That could seem counter-intuitive to many cyclists. For many, becoming familiar with a set route leads to awareness of where there are specific hazards – potholes, pinch points, street furniture and junctions where motorists are more likely to try an nip into the main carriageway, or take an ‘amber gamble.’
Besides, the topography of many cities means that the choice of alternative routes may be limited – indeed, in many places, there may be no option other than to follow the same route each day.
Secondly, he says cyclists need to be aware that drivers, too, “have been shown to drive mainly on autopilot, so expect to be invisible to them,” citing “eye tracking research [that] has shown that motorists fail to see one in three cyclists directly in front of them.”
Many cyclists will have experienced close calls or worse with vehicles whose drivers fall back on the SMIDSY – sorry mate, I didn’t see you – excuse, and cycling organisations such as CTC have pushed for the police and criminal justice system to be more rigorous in their pursuit of careless or dangerous drivers.
Hollingworth doesn’t have a concrete suggestion of what cyclists can proactively do themselves to get drivers to pay more attention – he says “always expect the unexpected - human beings are full of seemingly irrational behaviours.”
In his third point, he does recommend using two sets of front and rear lights and having them operate on different modes, saying: “Scientific experiments show that a flashing light can increase awareness, whilst a static one will help drivers judge perspective and distance.”
Among cyclists to use lights in that way are Peter Walker of the Guardian Bike Blog, who wrote about doing so in a piece on high-visibility clothing two years ago.
Fourthly, Hollingworth urges riders to make a distinction with their choice of lights for riding during the hours of darkness between being able to see the road themselves, and the ability of other road users to see them.
“Some directional lighting can be so bright it can actually dazzle motorists and also confuse your identity,” he says.
“As cyclists we need to cover both angles but sometimes we can over focus on seeing and forget that being seen by other road users is equally necessary.
“On urban streets you really need to celebrate your egocentric bias, because this time it really is all about you.”
Some cyclists believe that the brighter the light, the more visible they are to other road users.
But a 2012 report compiled by the European Cyclists’ Federation and cycling organisations in Germany and the Netherlands said that “a major problem [with powerful LED lights with a round beam] is that even when the lamp is properly adjusted, the round beam always dazzles oncoming traffic, just like the high beam of a car.”
What do you think? Would varying routes, deploying different lighting systems or wearing reflective clothing at night – a point not addressed by Hollingworth – make you feel safer on the road? Let us know in the comments below.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Surreyrider 7 min 9 sec ago
In Surrey, that doesn't count as a close pass.
- brooksby 39 min 21 sec ago
You mean that they are Otherwise Law-Abiding™ ?
- brooksby 50 min 51 sec ago
And finally: I wonder how many of the "more than 3,000" signatures on that petition are actually locals, who live or work there (and are not just...
- Doug_D 2 hours 26 min ago
Another book suggestion - I can highly recommend "Lost Summers and Half-Forgotten Afternoons: A Mint Sauce collection" - a beautifully presented...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 39 min ago
But... the last is only not the case with drivers on normal roads because driving on the cycle path / footway / rolling a vehicle up there is seen...
- mdavidford 4 hours 17 min ago
I think you're missing an opportunity to pack even more tech into it - add accelerometers that can detect whether they're pedalling or stepping....
- chrisonabike 4 hours 42 min ago
Thanks. I guess the question is "need". If the road is busy, it sounds like it is a desired route between places? In which case (given this an...
- mdavidford 4 hours 50 min ago
Don't know what you mean. I thought my suggestion was entirely practical.
- Rapha Nadal 5 hours 24 min ago
I'd buy a motorbike fo rthat kind of money!
Add new comment
35 comments
The idea of improving safety by varying routes is ill thought out at best.
If I consider my options for riding from where I live to any of the neighbouring towns (a perfectly reasonable 5-15 miles and a likely commute) there are always a couple of route options. Sure, you could mix it up and switch between the routes that use quiet back roads and lanes and the routes that use fast A roads with multi-lane junctions and huge roundabouts but I can't figure out how that might improve safety.
The fact is most of us choose our regular routes based partly on how friendly they are. Switching to an alternative route that we perceive to be less cycle-friendly seems a bizarre suggestion in the name of improving safety.
Really looking forward to reading that Brainy-commissioned research they mention so much without producing this last year or two.
On lights, I don't know, find the whole thing vexing and confusing. There doesn't seem to be enough in the way of official guidance/standards on the topic, in my opinion.
I entirely disagree with this!
I find it takes some time of doing a regular journey before one finds a route which doesn't either
(a) involve either getting frustratingly lost on sidestreets that don't join up and which feature the usual utterly useless intermittent cycle route signs and street names we get in this country (how often do you find yourself on 'The Road With No Name' having to ask passers-by what the hell this road is called because nobody could be bothered to put up any signs telling you?).
or (b) leaves you stuck on a horrible, scary A-road.
Having finally worked out a reasonably quick route which doesn't leave me in fear of violent death, I'm not going to mess around wandering off of it!
Edit - oh yeah, and the potholes! It takes time to get used to where the whacking great trenches across the road are! Why risk varying things and hitting an unfamiliar crater? Sorry but this advice just seems rubbish to me.
It just seems another form of the fallacious idea that you improve safety by making things more dangerous so you are more 'alert'.
That idea has validity when the issue is risk you impose on others (cf the steering wheel metal spike theory) but it doesn't work when its about your own risk, and furthermore one mostly imposed on you by others. I mean, how far do you take it? How much additional danger should you impose on yourself to increase 'alertness'? Get even more alert by hiring someone to randomly shoot at you on your journey?
Yeah, why not ask the zoo if they can spice up your journey by randomly releasing a hungry tiger on the route once a week to keep you alert.
A nice theory but it is still victim blaming and ignore the potential to teach drivers to expect you on the road. If you ride the same road at the same time each day you pass or are passed by the same drivers everyday. They come to learn how to deal with you, over time riding that route becomes easier as each driver's "autopilot" factors your likely presence into their system one processing. I find this at odds with the multi-route strategy unless you were to keep to maybe three routes so as to maximise your exposure to drivers.
The other main tool I use to keep safe is that drivers tend to give at least as much room as you take from the kerb or parked cars. They don't have to think, system one tells them and for most drivers it's like having a set of whiskers.
Two lights on different setting does certainty work, a flashing light can be too distracting and doesn't allow distance judgement and I would agree lighting yourself and the bike does a lot more to stand out from the plethora of lighted etc which clutter a street.
As for varying a route to work, I personally try and mix it up from day to day if only to keep my brain from turning to mush but I can see how it could keep you more aware.
Car drivers do hate us though and often when I look at people in their hideous highviz clothing with their fluro shower caps on their nasty MTB helmets I find I lack respect for those cyclists as well. I guess a lot of this does boil down to psychology huh.
Ludicrous and ridiculous
It's the way i ride my bike
As a daily commuter I found this an interesting article.
Also the first comment caught my attention because I also use the same front combination of a steady Trelock LS950 and a See.Sense.
I say better the devil you know. While I accept the challenge of a different route may keep you more alert, I'm sure most of us plan our Point A to Point B based on time and safety. I'm happy to take a longer or slower route that is safer within reason. And there can be only so many ways to get from A to B.
No doubt many of us use one route in the morning and another in the evening. Sometimes I do this so I'm riding into (blinded) or out of (invisible) the sun. But there will be some routes that are just inherently safer.
So - in a lab experiment - sure. But in the Real World? Nah.
can be as unsafe in a car as well as a bike, glancing blow to the side of my car, and the person drove off, this was on a roundabout and in day light with my side lights on and indicating....... little damage to car, but the other car did NOT see me, no victim blaming here in the above item.... so if you cycle and take care to protect your self, your at fault? really? i better drive at night with the lights off, up to everyone else to see me .....
your fault for not driving a hi vis car. or does that only apply to cyclists?
Also cars never see anyone, the driver did not see you.
I think I'm safer on routes I know, because I know where the danger points are.
Exactly. A bike light inventor has simply dressed up his marketing strategy by talking up their benefits with pseudo-science, added a few irrelevant strands to his supposed thesis on safety, got everyone arguing over their own cycling habits, and effectively admitted that nothing about his lights is going to make any difference when it comes to inattentive or dangerous drivers.
I totally disagree - taking care of yourself does mean that you are then liable for all blame in any future incident.
Your Honour, I put it to you that the victim is at fault for being run over by my client because he was using the same route to work that he always uses, and so was therefore less aware of his surroundings than if he varied this route.
I don't think it is. Its why Germany updated their regulations, and why car headlights are so strictly controlled. There's a good analysis here
http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/chris-juden/bobby-dazzlers
Oh dear. Some good advice mixed in with some nonsense, as usual.
'However a major problem is that even when the lamp is properly adjusted, the round
beam always dazzles oncoming traffic, just like the high
beam of a car.''
What utter tripe!
I do agree about the lights which are too bright though. There's a cyclist who I often pass on the opposite commute to me who has a flashing light which is so bright I have to shield my eyes with my hand or I can't see anything. This happens if I'm on my bike or in the car.
I've tried to mention it to him when passing him on the bike but he completely ignores me and I've the feeling it wouldn't be well recieved anyway.
Personally, I can't understand how he can see anything himself; his view must be flashing between over-bright and pitch darkness for his whole ride... weird.
Nothing that hasn't been said a hundred times before, and nothing that prevents people from being killed because of mistakes on the road. You can have all the "correct" lighting, clothing, training and road positioning, but if someone in a can/van/bus/HGV misjudges something, or behaves in a less-than-sensible manner you will STILL come off worse. We know this, and that's why only 2% of journeys are by bicycle.
Build infrastructure that accepts people will make mistakes, and that reduces the chances of these mistakes becoming lethal and the roads will be safer.
Everything else is moving the furniture on the Titanic.
I wish I COULD slip into 'autopilot' while riding around town, safe in the knowledge nothing would kill me. I'd be able to admire the shops, the trees, the skies, and the people, out in the same environment and breathing the same air. That would be civilised and lovely.
God forbid they might mistake you for a car or motorbike / sarcasm.
Actually, in rural Surrey at night, the only way I can prevent oncoming cars trying to pass me at speed is by pointing such a directional light so that it is shining into the oncoming drivers' faces. Bearing in mind that their dimmed lights blind me, and some drivers won't dip their lights either, I reckon my safety is worth more than their convenience.
The article is a terrible advertorial with victim-blaming at its core.
Reminded me of those stories about cyber-crime sourced from research done by antivirus software companies.
Interesting ideas, however what is really needed is infrastructure and drivers paying attention. The more people we can get on bikes the better, as we will be safer in groups and people will learn to watch out for bikes.
Just this morning I saw a cunt using his mobile phone while driving about 20mph, I called him out confronted him and he shat his pants when I said "do you want me to call the police". Shame I was in a hurry and didn't have my GoPro (other brands available).
But it's not really cyclists on autopilot that is the problem. I'd say it was pretty hard to dose off or lose focus riding a bike. Don't get me wrong autopilot is not to be condoned and is no way to ride, or drive for that matter.
The problem is the people in the big metal boxes that are running them over, cutting them up, left hooking and pulling out in front of them. Some of them out of malice but more of them because in a nice comfy car listening to the radio it is very easy to drift into autopilot.
That'll be the problem
You're right, it's not cyclists on autopilots that are the problem - that's not what's causing the majority of accidents - but an increased level of awareness may help a cyclist escape or altogether avoid a bad situation, something which could save a life. So, in balance, I think this is an interesting proposal.
I think it might be easier for some than you imagine. I've had my moments on long commutes after long days or weeks. I remain convinced that several years ago I (very briefly) dozed off once whilst riding home mid december from a retail job (thought this episode is most definitely exagerated by memory).
Other than that, for some people zoning out is a coping mechanism for longer or more painful rides.
I think it's quite easily done.
EPL will test anything that pays the £1400 (my guess). And the science museum retail shop stocks (please, not "endorses") anything that is uncontroversial, sciency and profitable. Rest of article fine.
dozing of while riding is not easily done. I've been club riding, racing, touring and commuting (not all at the same time) since 1973 and I have never even heard of it happening to anyone but you. And I believe you. But it's not easily done.
Pages