Mirror

triddletree said:

Brian G said:

Pete Biggs said:

Russell wrote:

> Anyone got any suggestions for a mirror on a road bike?

A helmet mirror should give a better view but I don't see how they're
practical either.

One big advantage of a helmet mounted mirror is that relatively small
movements of the head can aim the mirror as required and widen the field
of view considerably, whereas with a bar mounted mirror one has to
have the setup precisely correct or engage in tricky contortions to
adjust the view.

This is the main reason I don't advise mirrors on bikes. The time taken
in getting the body and mirror correctly aligned, overcoming any
vibration, and then for the eyes to refocus is best, IMO, spent looking
behind.

With a helmet or glasses mounted mirror this usually takes about 3
seconds when one mounts the bike.

Quoted message said:

I'm pleased to see John Franklin also agrees turning the head is both
faster and gives better information than a mirror.

I tend to disagree. There is no replacement for actually turning and
looking but for monitoring traffic more than say 100 m behind the rider
a mirror is excellent. It is particularly handy on long stretches of
windy highway when traffic can come up at 100-130 km/hr and the rider
cannot hear the vehicle.

And if like me you have a bad neck from an old sports injury the mirror
makes monitoring traffic much easier.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

On 9 Mar 2006 05:42:25 -0800, "David Martin" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Anything in a fluo yellow cycle jacket appears to be invisible to a
following driver.

The answer to which seems fairly straightforward.

"John_Kane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John Mallard said:

Russell said:

Anyone got any suggestions for a mirror on a road bike?

I don't want anything too big but must be big enough to see what's
going on behind me.

Are those ones that fit on the end of your drops any good?

Or are helmet mirrors any good? Can they be taken off easily?

I have to thank Danny for recomending the 3rd eye Glasses Mount. I

suppose

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it helps if, like me you are a spectacle wearer, but I suppose shades

would

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

work just as well. It just takes a few days to stop spending more time
looking behind and paying attention to what's going on in front of you
again. It's a novalty thing that soon wears off. you soon start

looking

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

only when you need to (which is actualy surprisingly infreaquantly.
http://www.kinetics.org.uk/html/mirrors.shtml

You may find yourself walking down the street or in shop, craning your
neck to get a good look at something behind you before you realise you
aren't wearing your mirror. 🙂
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Thanks everyone for all the helpful responses.

I like the idea of the 3rd eye (Viewpoint in the link above) so I'll order
one of them. It seems other mirrors are a bit prone to shaking & as I ride
a road bike and the Sussex/Hampshire roads are more like off-road in places
I'm not to sure one would work very well. £10 seems a bit steep for a minute
stick on mirror but I will feel a lot safer if I can see what's going on
behind. The critical thing for me is that I can confidently ride out a bit
to 'claim the road' then be sure to have enough space to go in a bit some
when goon is going to carve me up.

I'll ley you know how I get on.

Russell

Russell said:

I like the idea of the 3rd eye (Viewpoint in the link above) so I'll order
one of them.

FWIW the 3rd Eye is the best mirror that I've found for cycling glasses
with prescription inserts (which is what I wear during the week), but
the Take-a-Look seems very slightly better when I'm wearing contact
lenses (at weekends and on holiday).

You should be aware that the 3rd Eye mounting fork becomes brittle in
cold weather and has a tendency to snap. I haven't yet had one survive
a winter (once it snaps it can then be splinted with a cocktail stick
and gaffer tape, and should last a few more weeks). I get enough use
out of it during the year or so that I now expect it to last that I feel
I've had my money's worth, and I don't resent having to buy a new one
every year, but this winter I've been using a Take-a-Look just to avoid
that cold weather snapping

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Russell said:

The critical thing for me
is that I can confidently ride out a bit to 'claim the road' then be
sure to have enough space to go in a bit some when goon is going to
carve me up.

That doesn't make sense to me. It's no good attempting to claim the road
if you bottle it when you see a car coming. If you go in a bit then
you're encouring people to carve you up. Stay out far enough and people
/can't/ carve you up. When there's no need to prevent cars overtaking,
there's no need to claim the lane at that point and you wouldn't get
carved up anyway.

~PB

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Russell said:

The critical thing for me
is that I can confidently ride out a bit to 'claim the road' then be
sure to have enough space to go in a bit some when goon is going to
carve me up.

That doesn't make sense to me. It's no good attempting to claim the road
if you bottle it when you see a car coming. If you go in a bit then
you're encouring people to carve you up. Stay out far enough and people
/can't/ carve you up. When there's no need to prevent cars overtaking,
there's no need to claim the lane at that point and you wouldn't get
carved up anyway.

~PB

I knew someone would pick up on that.
Oh how can I explain it? I don't mean when I see a car coming, I mean that
the car that is almost up to me (like a few feet back now) and its just
about to come past very close, I can move in a bit. That way I won't get
knocked off and I have forced the driver to give me more room than he/she
intended. Maybe as the car is approaching I will rode out a bit more to
force the driver over a bit. Does that make more sense?

Russell

Russell said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The critical thing for me
is that I can confidently ride out a bit to 'claim the road' then be
sure to have enough space to go in a bit some when goon is going to
carve me up.

That doesn't make sense to me. It's no good attempting to claim the
road if you bottle it when you see a car coming. If you go in a bit
then you're encouring people to carve you up. Stay out far enough
and people /can't/ carve you up. When there's no need to prevent
cars overtaking, there's no need to claim the lane at that point and
you wouldn't get carved up anyway.

Quoted message said:

I knew someone would pick up on that.
Oh how can I explain it? I don't mean when I see a car coming, I mean
that the car that is almost up to me (like a few feet back now) and
its just about to come past very close, I can move in a bit. That way
I won't get knocked off and I have forced the driver to give me more
room than he/she intended. Maybe as the car is approaching I will
rode out a bit more to force the driver over a bit. Does that make
more sense?

I understand what you mean, but reading between the lines, I suspect you
are over-estimating the chances of being knocked off, over-estimating how
useful a mirror would be for that situation, under-estimating the dangers
of swerving, and under-estimating how much less assertive a mirror can
make you, and don't really have the full intention to take the lane
properly when necessary. I have used a mirror in the past and reckon I'm
safer on balance now because I'm more proactive.

First of all, a car passing pretty close won't knock you off. It would
have to pass so extremely close that either it actually drove into you or
passed so close that any wobble from you would make you touch the car.
That's very rare, especially if you stay calm and focussed on where you're
going as it overtakes (and you do stay calm once you realise you don't get
hit when you do this).

Maybe a mirror would help in this way on very rare occasions if you're
highly aware of the view all the time, have fast reactions and react to
every pretty-close overtake just in case it turns into an extremely-close
overtake -- spoiling your general cycling enjoyment, if not distracting
you from what's in front and to your near-side as well, possibly making
you hit the kerb or edge of road: probably the how most cyclists come a
cropper when being overtaken. (Holding your ground is the better bet).
Plus, you will over-react sometimes (when a car isn't passing as close as
you thought, or at all) which will encourage more overtaking, increasing
the dangers on balance.

Anyway you don't need a mirror to realise that a car is overtaking very
close -- you'll see it in your peripheral vision and possibly hear it as
it starts to come along side. Even at this late stage it is possible for
you to move in you want to. (Actually, I usually find it's usually best
to simply carry on in a straight line to avoid running into side of road
or encouring the driver to steer even closer. The less complation there
is, the more you can focus on surving in the narrow zone).

repeat quote:

Quoted message said:

Maybe as the car is approaching I will
rode out a bit more to force the driver over a bit. Does that make
more sense?

That bit definitely doesn't make sense. Swerving out if the car is
already very close is highly risky. But you don't need a mirror to
disuade them from overtaking in the first place by taking the lane whether
there's a car behind or not, and not having a mirror will naturally
encourage you to do this more often. Proaction is safer than reaction.

~PB

in message <[email hidden]>, Russell

(') said:

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Russell said:

The critical thing for me
is that I can confidently ride out a bit to 'claim the road' then be
sure to have enough space to go in a bit some when goon is going to
carve me up.

That doesn't make sense to me. It's no good attempting to claim the
road
if you bottle it when you see a car coming. If you go in a bit then
you're encouring people to carve you up. Stay out far enough and
people
/can't/ carve you up. When there's no need to prevent cars
overtaking, there's no need to claim the lane at that point and you
wouldn't get carved up anyway.

I knew someone would pick up on that.
Oh how can I explain it? I don't mean when I see a car coming, I mean
that the car that is almost up to me (like a few feet back now) and its
just about to come past very close, I can move in a bit.

That's what he means. Don't. It invites them to pass too close. Only move
in when they're actually alongside you, and then only if they're
intimidatingly close. And a smart slap on the side window or body panel
is effective in those conditions - sounds /very/ loud inside the car.

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

;; Human history becomes more and more a race between
;; education and catastrophe.
H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"

in message <[email hidden]>, Pete Biggs

(') said:

(Actually, I usually find it's usually best
to simply carry on in a straight line to avoid running into side of
road
or encouring the driver to steer even closer. The less complation
there is, the more you can focus on surving in the narrow zone).

Somehow, I suspect that isn't /exactly/ what you meant to type!

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

;; MS Windows: A thirty-two bit extension ... to a sixteen bit
;; patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a
;; four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that
;; can't stand one bit of competition -- anonymous

(From Russell via Google groups)

Thank-you Simon, that's exactly it.

I understand what Pete is saying but maybe he doesn't appreciate my
situation. I ride a 54m round trip to work several times a week. Much
of it is on roads most other cyclists wouldn't dare venture onto, so
overall I think I am a pretty confident rider. I would far rather be on
quieter roads of course. However, I get seriously carved up at least
twice a day, (3 times this morning). One day I expect I will get
kncoked off but I think I can reduce the chances by being more aware of
what's approaching from behind. With respect Pete, yes I do hear the
cars coming, hundreds of them in a constant stream at times, but I
can't hear if one is coming dangerously close and no I can't see it in
my peripheral vision. As a (kind of) human I think I have a 135 degree
field of vision and I don't have eyes in my bum. (Must have a word with
the Creator about this:-) Anyway, I use a mirror in my car all the
time so why not on the bike?

Russell

Coneripper said:

Thank-you Simon, that's exactly it.

I thought Simon was basically agreeing with me... "Don't [move in a bit].
It invites them to pass too close. Only move in when they're actually
alongside you, and then only if they're intimidatingly close."

Quoted message said:

I understand what Pete is saying but maybe he doesn't appreciate my
situation.

I cycle on all sorts of roads from rural lanes to busy dual carriageways
and everything in between. What I wrote applies to all of them. I get
the odd vehicle passing closer than they should but I never get hit or run
off the road by overtaking vehicles.

Quoted message said:

I ride a 54m round trip to work several times a week. Much
of it is on roads most other cyclists wouldn't dare venture onto, so
overall I think I am a pretty confident rider. I would far rather be
on quieter roads of course. However, I get seriously carved up at
least twice a day, (3 times this morning). One day I expect I will get
kncoked off but I think I can reduce the chances by being more aware
of what's approaching from behind. With respect Pete, yes I do hear
the cars coming, hundreds of them in a constant stream at times, but I
can't hear if one is coming dangerously close and no I can't see it in
my peripheral vision. As a (kind of) human I think I have a 135 degree
field of vision and I don't have eyes in my bum. (Must have a word
with the Creator about this:-)

You can see cars in your peripheral vision when they're along side. As
soon as you get the merest hint there's something there you naturally turn
your head a fraction to get more in your vision. /Sometimes/ you can hear
when a vehicle is coming too close even on a busy road as well.

I think you will increase the danger by moving in more often.

Quoted message said:

Anyway, I use a mirror in my car all
the time so why not on the bike?

Even a confident person is more likely to be intimidated into giving way
when on a relatively vulnerable vehicle like a bike.

~PB

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Pete Biggs

(') said:

(Actually, I usually find it's usually best
to simply carry on in a straight line to avoid running into side of
road
or encouring the driver to steer even closer. The less complation
there is, the more you can focus on surving in the narrow zone).

Somehow, I suspect that isn't /exactly/ what you meant to type!

I mean: carry on in a straight line to discourage the driver from steering
even closer.

~PB

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Coneripper said:

Thank-you Simon, that's exactly it.

I thought Simon was basically agreeing with me... "Don't [move in a bit].
It invites them to pass too close. Only move in when they're actually
alongside you, and then only if they're intimidatingly close."

Quoted message said:

I understand what Pete is saying but maybe he doesn't appreciate my
situation.

I cycle on all sorts of roads from rural lanes to busy dual carriageways
and everything in between. What I wrote applies to all of them. I get
the odd vehicle passing closer than they should but I never get hit or run
off the road by overtaking vehicles.

Quoted message said:

I ride a 54m round trip to work several times a week. Much
of it is on roads most other cyclists wouldn't dare venture onto, so
overall I think I am a pretty confident rider. I would far rather be
on quieter roads of course. However, I get seriously carved up at
least twice a day, (3 times this morning). One day I expect I will get
kncoked off but I think I can reduce the chances by being more aware
of what's approaching from behind. With respect Pete, yes I do hear
the cars coming, hundreds of them in a constant stream at times, but I
can't hear if one is coming dangerously close and no I can't see it in
my peripheral vision. As a (kind of) human I think I have a 135 degree
field of vision and I don't have eyes in my bum. (Must have a word
with the Creator about this:-)

You can see cars in your peripheral vision when they're along side. As
soon as you get the merest hint there's something there you naturally turn
your head a fraction to get more in your vision. /Sometimes/ you can hear
when a vehicle is coming too close even on a busy road as well.

I think you will increase the danger by moving in more often.

Quoted message said:

Anyway, I use a mirror in my car all
the time so why not on the bike?

Even a confident person is more likely to be intimidated into giving way
when on a relatively vulnerable vehicle like a bike.

~PB

And finally...

The friendly folk at City Cycles in Chichester lent me a Cycleaware 'Heads
Up' to try.
Well, after just a few seconds of riding it became obvious that using one of
these mirrors is not a good idea if like me you have very little vision in
your left eye! I guess anyone else would see around the mirror with their
left eye, to me its like a huge lump completely blocking that part of my
view. I think I would be very likely to ride straight into the first car I
didn't see coming round a roundabout!

Thanks for all the advice anyway.
Russell