Safe Speed Forums

And don't come running to me if you get crushed against some railings by a lorry that thought it could get past you because you left enough space for it to think it could!

Interestingly women cyclists feature disproportionately amongst crushing victims and there is a school of thought that says it's because they ride less assertively and closer to the kerb,

A very telling misinterpretation from you there Steve.

Why do you think cyclecraft is advising cyclists to get off roundabouts as quickly as possible?

Okay and thanks for keeping communications open weepej. Maybe one of these days I'm going to be able to call you by your real name I’m Tony or Anthony BTW

Can you pleese answer my question though!

What is PP if not two cyclists who are riding side by side which, as I have said and has been avoided by PP proponents, deemed wrong by the Highway Code?

Maybe I came across as being arrogant? Sorry if I did. I used smilies and I thought people here 'got me' by now. I'm OTT and use, bad/sic humour because it's better than crying myself to sleep or blowing my brains out with a gun I don't have.

You weepej, of all people, have been a staunch Town Crier of abiding by the law because it/they know best. (It’s for a reason an’ all that). Are you going to fall out with me too next?

I am not having a good day and DCB has really upset me because I don't feel I did something to deserve his rebuke or severing from SS like he did and making me feel like it was me at fault.

I feel I have lost a friend and good poster in DCB and I still don’t have a f n answer to my very reasonable retort and rebuttal of the PP stance!


Sorry PeterE, sometimes I think it's not such a bad thing to post after a beer or two. Something about getting it off your chest perhaps....

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Thank you. I was wondering if anyone would ever bite on that one.
Yes I was a bit naughty with the second phrase; however, the first indeed reads as I presented.

I hope you appreciate the irony, more so in the context of some of the sub-debates in this thread (at several levels).
"Time Exposed to Danger" doesn't apply to cycling only; can you describe how it also commonly applies to driving, specifically with what has been discussed?

Before you go there, I'm already way ahead on the analogies. The two 'camps' really aren't all that different!

(I was so tempted to answer with a joke instead: "well with positioning like that......." )

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Two cyclists riding side by side is perfectly legal. IIRC the HC says never ride MORE that two abreast.

And riding two abreast and riding primary on the occasions it suits (i.e. coming up to a junction, through a pinch point) are two completely different things.

That's right sorry, but when I have done that I have had motorists blow their horn for me to move over, deliberately blow the horn as they pass to $h1t me up, shouted as they overtake me, (can't repeat what they called me here), and on one occasion spat at me. (The passenger they are driving with). This was back in the days when I cycled with my mate over Clent Hills. I soon stopped riding alongside him I can tell you.

I say again, it's not just about you but how I feel you are putting yourself at risk from getting up motorists noses. I'm not making this up weepej, these are my personal experiences over some 35 years, (off and on), of cycling. Apart from the odd moron who just gets a kick out of abusing cyclists, it has been extremely rare for that to happen to me riding solo near the curb.

I agree with you whoheartedly there and I have never argued against doing so in that situation, but the cyclist in that earlier video was not doing that; he was dominating the entire side of the road which IMO and experience has lead to abuse from motorists.

I don't know what more I can say on it other than I guess my and your experiences have just been very different. Thanks for your reply btw.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

IIRC it also says to ride in single file in circumstances where riding two abreast would cause an obstruction.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Since Weepj doesn't seem to want to answer a very easy question I will make a brief re-appearance to do so.

When riding on the high side you can, in well under less than a second, drop back to the low side to allow a following vehicle to overtake. When riding two abreast it can take ten times as long to single up onto the low side and stop obstructing following traffic.

Weepj point about women is interesting. When I first met my second wife to be she was an occasional cyclist who had several minor incidents with traffic, so that she was reluctant to go cycling with me. But she did, I taught her about assertiveness and riding the high side and we celebrated 25 years of marriage last year without her having had another accident.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Reading some of the posts in this thread, it seems that the recognised authorities on cycle craft have been interpreted as saying that cyclists should dominate, control or otherwise assert their authority on other road users.

This is most unfortunate language and will only promote the alienation of one group of road users from another. Can you really imagine experienced car drivers describing their techniques in these terms?

However, cyclists having adopted this "dominating" mindset find themselves most aggrieved when most other road users don't fall in with this plan. Hence, in their indignation, they resort to cameras to capture those not conforming to their expectations.

As a driver I just sigh and carry on as usual.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Well that's a logical argument which crushes mine ta dcb. They are different in that regard and I didn’t consider it thanks

I'm still unconvinced that I want to be stuck so far out though, because of my personal experiences. I haven’t been hit or knocked off when I have been in the PP but I’m the sort of person who get’s upset if some abuses me when I'm just out riding or trying to enjoy the nice day; it ruins my day out and puts me off going on that road or route again. So I like to keep close to the curb and let them get on their way instead of stuck up my bum goading me into going faster or whatever.

I hope you can forgive me? I honestly meant no offence, or for it to come across as terse as it did to you dcb.

Tone

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

That’s it exactly for me Malcolm. I don’t want to dominate the road because it is me who is the soft target whereas they are not.

For me, it’s like a donkey trying to dominate a lion. That’s a fair analogy I hope?

Add: Where does it say that cyclists can issue orders to drivers like some kind of self appointed traf pol anyway?

I can imagine an exchange between the two something like: -

Cyclist: “Move over! You’re too close to me!”

Driver: “No, you move over towards the curb a yard and you wont be too close to me and I can be on my way!”

Who is to say who is right or wrong

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

To be fair, that's a straw man, and I think you really ought to read the source materials before deducing this. Cyclecraft (the book) does not talk about dominating, controlling or asserting authority over anyone, and I can see no reason from the discussions here why you should assert that it does. I have been one of the most vehement supporters in this thread regarding the use of primary position when needed, and I don't think I have mentioned "dominating, controlling or asserting authority over" anyone once, even though Steve the Troll has tried hard to goad me into such a thing. (Sorry, but I have learned from other posters that name calling is the accepted practice here.) Similarly, I don't think anyone else in the thread who has supported the use of primary position (or "the high side" - haven't heard that before) has either. The issue is one of road position, safety, and moving over to secondary position to allow people to pass whenever it is safe to do so. The relevant sections are on pages 87 and 88 in that particular book; if I get time, I'll quote it here.


Well, actually, rule 163 of the Highway Code is a pretty good start: "Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should [...] give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211-215)". I know it's not the law, but it's a fairly authoritative answer to your last question.


A technique that I have tried quite a bit lately that seems to be pretty successful is to look back on the approach to a pinch point or an obstacle (like a pot-hole) and, if someone is starting to attempt to squeeze through, putting my hand out in a very clear "stop" sign. This pretty much always causes the car to drop back and wait. I can imagine there may be some drivers who might take offence because they interpret it as ordering them about, but I think most drivers see it for what it is: "please don't try to pass me here because there really isn't room to do it safely", and realise that they were being a bit thoughtless. Incidentally, I generally find that they pass me at a respectful distance once the danger area is passed.

[Edited for clarity and to correct some typos.]

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

Damn you Grumps! I've got things to say about that but I've gotta go out tonight, in about 4 minutes!

I'll have to bug you tomorrow

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

That's fine, as long as you also ensure that the driver behind you has the space to stop or slow down without having to resort to emergency braking. That shouldn't really happen at pinch-points (which shouldn't even exist, IMHO) as drivers should be aware of them in good time, however other obstacles like potholes (which shouldn't exist either) might lead to situations where the cyclist's manoeuvre takes the driver by surprise.
It's like the pedestrian who just walks out onto a pedestrian crossing without first looking, simply because they have right of way.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Which is precisely why cyclists should cycle a good distance from the kerb (even if they are in secondary position): so that, if they have to take evasive action to avoid something - a pot-hole, for example - they can swerve inwards rather than outwards if there are cars passing too close or if they don't have time to check properly. (The recommendation in Bikeability is "never less than 0.5m from the kerb", but I heard that is about to be revised to 0.75m. I don't have a definitive source to confirm the latter, but will try to find one.)

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

To be fair, you obviously haven't really read/understood what Malcolm has said. Nobody has suggested that the book says this, but that that's how it's been interpreted by people here who believe that cyclists have the right to obstruct other motorists based solely on their interpretation of the safety of the situation. This is something I asked you about, and you refused to answer, presumably because your answer would be quite telling of your attitude towards other road users.



Interesting that you should bring that up, I guess it's because you feel some sense of entitlement as the rule talks about giving something to cyclists. Let me ask you this, how much space do you give to other road users when you pass them, specifically pedestrians, other cyclists and slow/stationary motor vehicles?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Depends what you mean by obstruction.

To your dunderheaded "get out of my way/road" car nut I bet that would mean having to slow down a bit for three seconds.

Er, you've been side swiped at least once, I haven't. I regularly ride in primary, you say you don't... Take from that what you will.

Read the rule for yourself, it gives a couple of examples in there. How do you feel about cyclists who impede others because they themselves don't want to have to slow down to take ation for their own safety? Would you sling derogatory names at them as a group?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

You're just being blinkered.

There was no traffic behind the cyclist.

In situations where I have no vehicles behind me I often ride further out, maybe even in primary, less risk of hitting a drain, less potholes (which often occur under the tracks of the motor vehicles that use the road) and you're more visible. When a car approaches from behind I move over to let it pass, well in advance.

You seem to want to imagine/assert that cyclists travel round all the time in primary holding up motorised vehicle drivers; why?