Safe Speed Forums

Perhaps their perception is that another road user considers their convenience to be more important than the cyclist's safety. Incredible, I know, but it does happen.

So could you explain which part of your FAQ applies to your extended travels outside of the cycle lane where there were no hazards (for more than 10 seconds) and vehicles could pass safely?

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

"Perhaps"?

I normally wouldn’t dwell on that response, but I find it a little ironic given the below:


Do you care to explain how my interpretation differs from what was demonstrated?
I can show you where yours differed. So who was it that made the assumption?!?


Thank you! Job done!

You assumed it meant that; you accept it didn’t show it; the assumption is inherently yours.

You asked for the proof of the advice that shows of simply cycling in the middle of the lane; it is given.
Had there been any kind of caveat, then I wouldn’t have argued it, but there isn’t - not at all!


That’s exactly what the animation shows: regardless of traffic and hazards. The wording given corroborates it; the “potential” for: overtakers, junctions, debris…

Anyone taking it at face value has no choice but to draw the conclusion that I did.
I agree that actually doing so is idiotic (oooh, that will come in useful very soon), but for all the reader knows, that’s exactly what your source advises.

The interpretation I gave is demonstrated within the animation. Regardless of what it meant, that’s what it shows.

You can’t reject this simply because you deem the advice within it as unreasonable.
Let me recap:
I claim X
You reject X and ask for proof
I give proof of X
You reject proof simply because you think X was unreasonable, hence you argue that you were correct anyway.


When did I say he said that? Clue: I never said he did!

His video demonstrated it.


Still don’t want to answer the question within? You didn’t need your context for that one!

Do drivers have “every right” to simply remain cycling in the middle of the lane: Yes or no? Yes
Do cyclists have “every right” to simply remain cycling in the middle of the lane: Yes or no? I argue No
What is the difference: free-flow drivers travel faster than cyclists.

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

Which brings me right back to my original point on page 1: "Yes I do think it's a great shame that I often feel the need to ride in primary position and hold up the good drivers just to prevent the minority of idiots out there from risking my life."

You may not like that I inconvenience you when I delay you by, usually, a couple of seconds if at all, but my own experience, and that of people who have studied the subject a lot more deeply that either you or I have, is that the probability of being hit by an annoyed driver is very much lower than the probability of being hit by an unthinking idiot. I consider my safety to take priority over your convenience; I won't insult you by asking whether you agree or disagree with that.

Well, it only took thirteen pages to get back to where I started.

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

Steve, I was trying to think who you remind me of, and then it came to me. Listen to the chap on the right in room 12A (you'll know who it is) in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Your last post is so full of holes that it would take me longer than it would take the council to fill the holes in the roads to point them all out. (Plus, you did the context removal thing yet again.) When you can come up with an argument that is worth pursuing, then I might respond).

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

Between Steve's absurd nitpicking and pedantry, and PeterE's ignorance and prejudice, and the few remaining other posters whose contributions are not quite so distinctive but collectively show just as much lack of understanding of the purpose of our public highways, we can be thankful that the Safespeed campaign is defunct and irrelevant.

If only Paul Smith could see the quality of argument put forward by his accolytes.

Being out of a cycle lane and being in primary position are two completely separate things. In my clip approaching the 'Tanker roubdabout' I am in the secondary position (i.e. where a cars left wheel would be) almost all of the way up to the roundabout. Just before I approach the roundabout I look behind me and move out to the primary road position.

So your assertion that I am always in the primary road position is obviously flawed, wouldn't you agree?

Anyway, I suspect if you were taking part in an advanced drivers test and suggested to the examiner that there were no hazards that you'd fail!

Well after that cheap and unecessary shot from JBr I’d just like to add a question/answer moment if I may...

I’m not sure whether it’s a misunderstanding which stemmed from the early lack of clarity over PP and how or when it’s used, but that’s what muddied the water for me. Well that and seeing you ride fast outside the cycle lane Mag when I can see no reason for not cycling in it as I would have. I don’t see the relevance of whether there is any other traffic or not, if I am in the cycle lane I don’t need to keep looking behind and I am all for keeping my eyes on the roads ahead as much as possible instead of checking behind. I've done that only to find a cat has run in front of me In a car or on my motorbike I know who's going to come off worse but I'm sure I'd be fetched off on a bicycle so, eyes front as much as possible for me. I want to see where I'm going, not where I've been.

I can see how adopting the PP will help in some circumstances, pinch points etc., and it’s something I have done long before finding out here it has a name. I think perhaps there are different degrees of using it though, if I can put it that way, and my experiences of using it to excess are what I have described earlier based on empiricism. i.e. Not good

I thought that Orlando video was very interesting BTW thanks but I can also see how PP isn’t the only way of avoiding a potentially dangerous situation. As an example: Where it shows a car is coming up behind me to turn down a side road and cut me up, I have the spatial awareness to know he is there and what he may do, rather like you did Mag at the roundabout. If a cyclist doesn’t have that spatial awareness he or she is going to come a cropper sooner or later. The same can be said of motorists too.

So in that situation I do the same on my bicycle as I do on my motorbike or in a car and that is ‘if in doubt slow down’. If I could hear, feel and sense a car pulling up behind me I would be on red alert. I think I can pre-empt your answer here; if I adopt the PP I wouldn’t have to worry about that. Good point. But I would feel pressured into going uncomfortably quicker which would limit my stopping time if a car who should see me better but doesn’t pulls out in front of me. Did that make sense? It does to me because I have it in my mind’s eye.

So where I would in that situation go past the junction at, let’s say, 5mph knowing I can stop on a pinhead I am instead in the PP going at twice that speed past the junction. Either that or I use the PP and slow to 5mph which, as I have said, rests very uncomfortably with me on the ‘driver aggravation’ level. Hope that made sense..

BTW, new brake pads or shoes are not nearly as good as ones which have beded-in.

_________________
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.

I supposed you simply don't have any time, again

Answer me this:
If taken at face value, would a casual reader read the advice in your link as remaining in the middle of the carriageway: Yes or No?
If no, then can you please explain why not?

Would you agree that simply remaining in the middle of the carriageway really is foolhardy: Yes or No?
If so then then we have some (more) common ground.


I stand by my assertion that it is better to keep out of the way instead of wantonly putting oneself in the path of danger, as well as needlessly creating frustration; or at the very least, the former is no worse.
Adopting PP at red lights isn’t creating frustration as no-one is going anywhere anyway.




Folks call my style nitpicking; I call it being thorough, thorough enough to catch subtle fallacies that would have otherwise been missed.
Many times in this thread I have demonstrated, without final rebuttal, that my so-called nitpicking has caused opinions to come crashing down (most extreme case, misquoting the HC, followed the HC to the letter, one post != underlying paradigm, lawbreaking SETS, botach's persistence, the 2004 consultation document – am I meant to have ignored these errors? No one seemed to acknowledge the TED when reapplied). The best example of real nit-picking was the spello – oh wait, that one wasn’t mine!



More nitpicking that went unaddressed:


If folks are expending efforts to avoid exploring the reasons for the difference for opinions, then why are they continuing to post on forums? Doesn’t addressing posed questions forward debate & understanding better than personal attacks on character?

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

That's "A distinction without a difference" (someone somewhere knows exactly what I mean by that).
You are riding remaining in the carriageway for no reason, preventing any car from cleanly passing without having to encroach into the other carriageway, where there is a cycle lane available.


Just as well I have never implied such a thing. Oh damned my nitpicking!
Continued poor lane discipline is also a reason to fail......

Returning back to the actual point:

Could you explain which part of your FAQ applies to your extended travels outside of the cycle lane where there were no hazards (for more than 10 seconds) and vehicles could pass safely, as well as your immediate adoption of the position after the roundabout, for your video clip that we were talking about?

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

Yes, I rather thought that might be the attitude. Here's how I see it; of course the safety of all is the top priority on the roads, but while we might be well advised, as more vulnerable road users, to assume that all other road users are going to do the stupidest thing imaginable, that does not give us the right to go around treating them like idiots. By this I mean that the responsibility for our own safety is first and foremost our own, and our actions to defend again the possible shortcomings of others should be ours and ours alone as well, by which I mean that we should not be going around trying to impose ourselves on others, especially as more vulnerable road users.

You say that obstructing those behind you is the only way to defend yourself. I put it to you that this is far from the truth, and suggest that we try to avoid this attitude that we are entitled to put others out because we are more vulnerable and they have engines. This is not cooperation, this is a confrontational attitude that has no place on the roads. If we are concerned that another road user is likely to make an I'll-advised overtake then we have any number of other options that do not put us at odds with others; we could slow down to allow them to pass before the pinch-point, or we could stop completely if the danger is that great, cycle lanes are also an option, particularly if they are separate from the main carriageway, we could even speed up to clear the pinch-point more quickly, if our legs allow. I would suggest that pulling out to block other road users whilst we continue along in exactly the manner we desire, purely based on our own perception of what is safest, is in fact the most selfish of options, and taken only for our own convenience, so we don't have to significantly alter our own speed or direction.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Thank you.

Some perspective:
The roundabout lane itself is 37 feet (11m) wide all around.
The width of all 3 lanes of the M3 motorway (the closest one to me) is 36 feet.

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

This paper by John Franklin (author of Cyclecraft) http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/vehicular.pdf puts the case against cycle lanes very well. It is well worth reading, if you haven't already done so. You might not agree with them but his points are well argued. Perhaps the most apposite point is that Position on the road is by far the most important influence that a cyclist has over his safety. The loss of this ability to influence others is one reason why road-side cycle tracks increase danger at junctions

_________________
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

You are deliberately presenting an extreme position that certainly isn't mine. For one thing, I have never said that "obstructing those behind you is the only way to defend yourself". In fact, in an earlier post, I made my position very clear regarding the need for negotiation as the primary approach to cooperating on the roads, and the fact that such an approach works most of the time. It was the same post in which I answered the question you claim I haven't answered.

I have said many times that I mostly try to apply the principles set out in "Cyclecraft", though I have read much more widely than that, but you either haven't read that or you choose to ignore it.

Also, I have twice referenced the page I wrote last year and moved to my blog in January, that sets out the approach that I try to apply when cycling in traffic, yet you choose to ignore that and make your own extrapolations from individual phrases mentioned here. I even invited constructive comment on it, as I am always keen to improve it. Why do you ignore that?

(Edited to correct a typo.)

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

Thank you DCB. While there are certainly some valid points within that article (and others I disagree with), I don't see how it or your summary applies to the specific case in question, more so given the excellent visibility of potential hazards in this case (which totalled none for significant lengths of time).

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

37 feet is 11.2776m not 11m

_________________
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

I didn't say 37.0000 +/- 0.0000 ft
Just how many significant figures did you want?

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

Ah right, that's the middle of the lane is it? With your eyes maybe!

Awe come on Dave, enough is enough of the p1ss take. This is just starting to sound like tit for tat and I have lots of tat but I can't remember the last time I...

To be serious, I am losing interest in this thread because it has become so personal and nasty!

If it has taught me one thing, it is that I should add another to my list of things never to talk about; religion, politics - and cycling!

Is that what we all want?

_________________
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.

PeterE in councils don't always get road signs and markings right shocka!

There are a lot of them where there is no feeder lane, in which case it becomes illegal to enter them when the light is red, the law specifically states it's illegal to pass over the first white line when the light is red, but also states cyclists are allowed to use the feeder lane to avoid having to do this, no feeder lane, illegal to cross the line when the light is red.

It's a law I break every day.