Random Morning in the South

[i24]

On 2/5/2024 at 4:33 PM, The Ouzo said:

Unfortunately in group rides there are always those that take it a little to far, I think for the most part you'll see the majority of the group behaving. The bigger the group, the more of them taking it to far. Its the nature of any group gathering.

There is a correlation between the number of cyclists in a group wearing matching kit and the size of their egos.

59 minutes ago, Mamil said:

My view on this topic is that the car is a telling symbol of the everyman of late stage capitalist humanity - the individualist, sealed off from his environment and out of touch with its elements, untold power available at the slightest of gestures, the vanity of the styling of the machine and it's capabilities experienced as an extension of narcissistic aggrandisement and entitlement

While cyclists hunt in groups wearing matching lycro on their customised R200 000 carbon steeds waiting to out sprint any lost roadie that happens to occupy the tar in front of them...

Notwithstanding the above, I have been cycling the shoulders of the roads in the Southern Peninsular for a decade or two. My experience is that the motorists are more accommodating now days than they were in the past and the cycling groups are also trying harder to share the road.

But this is Argie season and Sunday mornings is when it all happens!

Still that does not change the fundamentals, when car and bicycle try and occupy the same piece of tar at the same time, the cyclist always comes off second best. We each have to look after ourselves.

[The Ouzo]

1 hour ago, Nick said:

Would it really? Then why have a speed limit at all?

It's only because we've become normalised to the behaviours of breaking the speed limit that it would become dangerous to suddenly strictly enforce it.

for getting out of a potentially dangerous situation. 

[TIB]

8 minutes ago, splat said:

Riding 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 abreast is annoying AF for the motorist. I get that.
But its not those riders who are being mowed down. So, its not their safety that is really at risk.

It would be interesting to take all the car vs cyclists collisions and analyse them for fault.
Both my wife and I have been knocked off our bikes in a similar fashion to Pure Savage. Riding on our own with lights on the left of the road etc. The drivers all said that they 'Just didn't see us ! '

When you go for a ride, you say goodbye to your spouse as you jump on your bike and they say 'be careful out there'. You try and do most of the right things, but you rely heavily on all other road users to do their part by looking where they are going etc.
Ask the guy that had 1/2 his leg ripped off by that drunk driver a few weeks ago.

Perhaps riding like a tjop means that car have a better chance of seeing you.
Its not the right thing to do. but...

Maybe just as a left field question but I'm genuinely curious.

Has anybody analyzed the number of accidents of individual/single file cyclists vs riding 2-3 abreast in a group? Off the top of my mind one hear more of a single cyclist being knocked down than a car plowing into a peloton. If true the inference is that motorists are more careful around groups (big object) than single cyclists (small object)

[Nick]

2 minutes ago, The Ouzo said:

for getting out of a potentially dangerous situation. 

Same reason that I ride in big groups that take up the whole lane!

Disclaimer: I don't.

Speaking of bending the rules; a law that blows my mind (in the Western Cape at least) solid lines can be crossed if you are overtaking a cyclist (and only a cyclist). A piece of road that is deemed too dangerous for an overtake is suddenly fine if a cyclist is present.

[The Ouzo]

6 minutes ago, Nick said:

Same reason that I ride in big groups that take up the whole lane!

Disclaimer: I don't.

Speaking of bending the rules; a law that blows my mind (in the Western Cape at least) solid lines can be crossed if you are overtaking a cyclist (and only a cyclist). A piece of road that is deemed too dangerous for an overtake is suddenly fine if a cyclist is present.

In and ideal world no laws would be broken, but until there is active policing anarchy will prevail.

 

[ChrisF]

1 hour ago, The Ouzo said:

.....I asked him why he was in such a hurry, he should just slow down and be a bit more patient, he did not like that at all.

 

Fair notice - off topic post

 

30 years ago we often went to Onrus (Hermanus) for the weekend.  That was before those poor quality expensive photos .... so the return trip was often a very energetic ride.  

 

One weekend granny had to get a ride back with us .... Driving Miss Daisy ..... slow ride ....  

 

Nee kyk, ek was dik verveeld agter daai stuur !!!

 

 

It took all of 10 minutes longer 

 

 

It really is not worth it taking stupid risks.

 

 

 

Then again .... ons het mos swaar voete .....

[Jewbacca]

What dangerous situation involves going really really fast?

They make cars that can go from 0 to 100 in like 2 seconds but top out at 140. I understand that one needs to accellerate from a standing start if one were, say, about to be hijacked, but going from 120 to 180 to overtake is, erm, speeding, which is illegal. 

As an ex defender owner I used to Max warp speed out at a deafening 117kph, pull over for all the fast dudes only to see them on the road the entire way from here to Kenton.

The difference between a dangerous average speed and a safe, chilled average speed is tiny in terms of time, but worlds apart in terms of safety, for everyone.

It's just normalised.

Imagine you got held up in main road traffic by cars while out riding and you started swearing and gesticulating at them for holding you up.... 

[The Ouzo]

3 minutes ago, Jewbacca said:

What dangerous situation involves going really really fast?

They make cars that can go from 0 to 100 in like 2 seconds but top out at 140. I understand that one needs to accellerate from a standing start if one were, say, about to be hijacked, but going from 120 to 180 to overtake is, erm, speeding, which is illegal. 

As an ex defender owner I used to Max warp speed out at a deafening 117kph, pull over for all the fast dudes only to see them on the road the entire way from here to Kenton.

The difference between a dangerous average speed and a safe, chilled average speed is tiny in terms of time, but worlds apart in terms of safety, for everyone.

It's just normalised.

Imagine you got held up in main road traffic by cars while out riding and you started swearing and gesticulating at them for holding you up.... 

agreed, it would require breaking the law.

but let say you're on the open road, overtaking. you're three quarters of the way past the car you're overtaking and realise you've made an error in judgement and now need to get past that slower vehicle much quicker or you face a collision with something.

yes the situation should not happen. in an ideal world the vehicle you are overtaking could slow down to let you in, there also would not be a queue of cars preventing you from hitting the brakes and slotting back in behind the vehicle you are overtaking.

but we dont live in an ideal world, we are humans and make mistakes, we have egos that wont let another person pass us, we are in a hurry to get to our destination because the sofa's that we are driving are not comfortable enough.

perhaps a better option would be that your car is able to go speed limit + 30km/h  but only for a short period and then it reverts back to only going the speed limit again.

[Jewbacca]

6 minutes ago, The Ouzo said:

agreed, it would require breaking the law.

but let say you're on the open road, overtaking. you're three quarters of the way past the car you're overtaking and realise you've made an error in judgement and now need to get past that slower vehicle much quicker or you face a collision with something.

yes the situation should not happen. in an ideal world the vehicle you are overtaking could slow down to let you in, there also would not be a queue of cars preventing you from hitting the brakes and slotting back in behind the vehicle you are overtaking.

but we dont live in an ideal world, we are humans and make mistakes, we have egos that wont let another person pass us, we are in a hurry to get to our destination because the sofa's that we are driving are not comfortable enough.

perhaps a better option would be that your car is able to go speed limit + 30km/h  but only for a short period and then it reverts back to only going the speed limit again.

For sure, but that's also a case of how we think currently vs how we can learn to think.

Never mind an ideal world, when I lived in New Zealand, if you sped, you got caught. The end. This seemed to breed a very easy going, courteous road user.

That included going 55 in a 50 zone in the suburbs, 107 in a 100 zone on the highway or anywhere in between. No one sped. You just left earlier, drove 4kph less than the speed limit and everyone let everyone in and out of lanes and turns. 

That wasn't a utopian, theoretical society, it just happened because everyone who drove thought of safety and others when driving. 

Here people don't even merge without playing chicken with the people next to them. They then drive next to each other then have to slam on anchors to avoid a collision, causing stopped traffic. If they just slowed down and meged like a zip, no one would need to stop, less traffic and they would get there quicker with less stress, less road rage and use less fuel.

Anyway, cars and the mindset of a carcentric/motornomative society is so ingrained here that people can't shift their perspective. It just is because that's what we've all been brainwashed to think.

Don't even get me started on people who park in your boot while driving in a row of cars. 

I brake check those people sometimes 🫢

 

[Headshot]

2 hours ago, ChrisH said:

The point of my original Facebook post appears to have been lost on a lot of people.

In summary then...

We know that some drivers drive their cars like idiots. We can't change their behaviour no matter how often and how loudly we point a finger at them. We just can't.

The reality is that cyclists have it in their power to minimise the risk presented by rogue car drivers by actively riding in a defensive and sensible manner. Riding 5 or 6 abreast on a road that is known to be a killing field for cyclists is not, by any stretch of the whataboutist's imagination, doing the sensible thing. All you are doing is making the target 5 or 6 times bigger.

If we want to reduce cycling fatalities, we have to pack our cycling egos away and look within the cycling community to do it ourselves. In South Africa it's not going to happen by enforcing laws, we are too far down the road of lawlessness to achieve that.

Actually I think you're dead wrong on one thing. The bigger the group of cyclists the more likely the car has to take note and slow down to pass. Most fatalities and incidents, like Savages recent one and the poor bloke who was struck by the drunken Navy guy near where your pics are taken were not in large groups or riding abreast.  In fact i think very few incidents between cars and cyclists involve large bunches but I'm happy to be corrected. 

['Dale]

Three points:

It's not a random morning in the South. The title of the thread is misleading. It is an exciting time for cyclists of all sizes and shapes to get in some training for the Cape Town Cycle Tour, reputably the biggest timed cycling event on Mama Earth. Some cyclists are wise and experienced and uphold consideration for other road users. Some are not so wise and experienced and do some silly things.

The trouble with virtue signalling on social media, especially with regard to cyclists vs motorists, is that it incites the bitterness and impatience in those 2-3 ton fast moving metal objects that can kill someone's father, brother, sister or child. We all know that all road users, whether in England, Australia or the Cape Peninsula in summer, have work to do with care and responsibility towards 'the other'.

I imagine that the FaceBook poster meant well and had good intentions. I will not attach my professional brand to such a contentious and complicated matter.

Be safe out there on the roads, cyclists. The world is rushed and intense and many people do not have the grace and patience.

Edited February 8 by 'Dale

[Jewbacca]

5 minutes ago, Headshot said:

Actually I think you're dead wrong on one thing. The bigger the group of cyclists the more likely the car has to take note and slow down to pass. Most fatalities and incidents, like Savages recent one and the poor bloke who was struck by the drunken Navy guy near where your pics are taken were not in large groups or riding abreast.  In fact i think very few incidents between cars and cyclists involve large bunches but I'm happy to be corrected. 

I kind of agree with you. I'd suggest a majority of cycling fatalities aren't even sport cyclists but individual commuters being taken out by naughty cars and drunk people or trucks who just don't belong on the roads they are on.

Sport cyclists make up a small percentage of fatal accidents.

It does piss the cars off, which leads to 4x4 forums littered with hate and 'humorous' tiktoks, but there is zero onus on the cars and drivers to change.

Behaving better on the road won't influence the number of deaths much and it won't change the way the public hate cyclists. That is unfortunately already inherent. 

Making posts suggesting anything can change by highlighting the poor behaviour just gives the real baddies ammo to say 'See, even your own people hate you cyclists, now I feel vindicated in hating you because you all behave badly on the roads' and they will proceed to spread the vitriol.

Dehumanising subgroups is easy. As soon as something has a collective noun that can be used to generalise, the damage is done. 

Let's stop pretending our behaviour will change the statistics. Much like racism, xenophobia and other irrational fears and prejudices, no amount of behaviour will stop people from irrationally hating the   sub group they hate. 

 

[Headshot]

@Jewbacca Precisely. 

[Robbie Stewart]

17 minutes ago, 'Dale said:

 

That is a really unique perspective.

The pic is also great 😉

[NotSoBigBen]

Just 2 observations after my many years of riding ....

Firstly there have always been tchops in any sub set of people, be that cyclists, drivers, butchers, hairdressers, IT professionals and even sales people and there always will be 🤪 - however it used to be a small minority, these days it would appear there are a lot more of them amongst us!

Secondly traffic has grown exponentially ... as an example a 2 lane road I often cross in the mornings at about 6:30 I'd wait a minute or 2 to get a gap, this morning I waited over 5 minutes and even then I really had to give it gas to get over between the vehicles!

The solution? I don't know besides looking out for ourselves, since the 'powers that be' ain't gonna help that's for sure

[Shebeen]

50 minutes ago, Jewbacca said:

Behaving better on the road won't influence the number of deaths much and it won't change the way the public hate cyclists. That is unfortunately already inherent. 

Making posts suggesting anything can change by highlighting the poor behaviour just gives the real baddies ammo to say 'See, even your own people hate you cyclists, now I feel vindicated in hating you because you all behave badly on the roads' and they will proceed to spread the vitriol.

Dehumanising subgroups is easy. As soon as something has a collective noun that can be used to generalise, the damage is done. 

Let's stop pretending our behaviour will change the statistics. Much like racism, xenophobia and other irrational fears and prejudices, no amount of behaviour will stop people from irrationally hating the   sub group they hate. 

 

I could not disagree more with these assumptions. Especially so if you are right, we might as well stop even bothering.