Safe Speed Forums

Good advice. I'm amazed that Claire is happy for cars to pass with 2ft clearance. What a horrible, and wholly unnecessary, experience! She obviously has immense faith in those drivers' concern for her wellbeing.



I thought we'd done that to death, and that your "get out of my way" view had been comprehensively ridiculed, but there you are again with the same old drivel. Cyclists - know your place!



Well, a metre is usually sufficient for everyone's comfort, convenience and safety. OK? (Sarcasm noted, and ignored)

Done it to death? No I don't think so. Ridiculed? Yes, because that seems to be the best you can manage, constructive debate being outwith the grasp of your wit seemingly. "Get out of my way attitude"? A construct of your flawed debating style. I do not believe any road user should intentionally obstruct another merely for their own convenience and peace of mind, especially when less intrusive measures are available.

I believe that all road users should be able to cooperate whilst having minimal or no negative impact on one another. Certainly this confrontational attitude towards on-road interactions is coming wholly from your side!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Having looked at magnatom’s videos, I think I can safely say I wouldn’t like it – he obviously doesn’t!
I never like needlessly holding up other road users.


The last road puncture I had was over a decade ago (I ride both knobblies and slicks, depending on mood; currently slicks). I’ve had a great many off-road punctures in that time, so I can’t say I’m overly concerned about that.

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

In the same way that I wish to be predictable and safe I also have a certain level of predictable behaviour from other vehicles (not 'just cars' either), however I drive and ride defensively, so I am prepared and thinking about all sorts of possible scenarios. When the slightest variant starts to present I am ready. Mostly I have kept myself safe, when cycling, occasionally I have made mistakes and others around me have too, but with sufficient allowance has seen me walk away from them all with a few bruises etc.
It is about encouraging 'just enough good behaviours to achieve the desired effect - safe travelling for you and everyone around you. Being prepared to (be able to) stop is nearly always better than 'prepared to go'.
By living (travelling) by solid fundamental rules, we retain excellent practical solutions for all that the road throws at us.
It is often the case with forums that everyone takes away many different opinions as 'words alone' can be so very misinterpreted. IMHO it is your failure to appreciate that, no Safe Speed member holds that particular belief of "get out of my way" in the first place, that you seem to have failed to grasp. The give way and take, (and take only when absolutely necessary) is promoted however, and it is this that seems to be ridiculed by some (if I understand correctly). The idea that I should always be in a take position when it is un-necessary, is both selfish as well as potentially dangerous.
You have through your life, as we all have, absorbed a mass of data, that helps to mould us into what we are today. Usually obsessive behaviour has stemmed from fear that then justifies selfishness, as a necessary position in an attempt to retain control/self preservation. This is how the PP seems to have been 'born' and comes across to me, hence why I want to know how it has been developed.
When you drive a huge lorry you sometimes have no choice but to have to ask people to 'give' as you simply are too big to provide any alternative. You then show gratitude and others are grateful.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

It's all explained rather well in rule 163, http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314, a picture is included for the challenged amongst us.

I wouldn't say the cyclist shown in the picture was behaving at "the height of selfishness". Would you?

I don't see a negative impact on the car driver, either. Just a requirement for the driver to perform a safe and courteous manoevure. Is that too much to ask? Neither is there any confrontation, as far as I can tell. Should the driver have skimmed past with a few inches of space to teach the cyclist to get into the gutter? Fortunately the DfT doesn't think so.

I regularly do just that.
Is lumpiness really an issue? I mean, really?
I can’t say I have noticed any grip reduction when wet. It would be a solid failure from the authorities if that really was the case – cycle lanes wouldn’t be much different. Of course, I wouldn’t expect anyone to cycle on that if there is a stream of mud flowing on it.


"... be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear..."


Possibly leaving room for cyclists to pass?
Cyclists have a much better perception of exactly where the edge of their envelope is.

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

Technically, the driver in that example gave more room to the cyclist than he would have done when passing another vehicle

Had the cyclist been further over, they would have had less room for passing, so your theory is actually reversed. Added to that, a rider further out is displaying a certain attitude, which probably be returned by like-minded drivers.


I’m happy for a vehicle to pass 2ft from my handlebars. The speed differential is usually less than 10mph where I cycle. What is wrong with that? I can only asssume you are capable of cycling 2ft from a wall without hitting it.


Cycling 1m from the kerb by default seems utterly needless, and a waste of road space.
You need only 1ft to "avoid drains and grit".

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

Just to be clear, when I cycle I don't needlessly hold up anyone. I ride in primary when required for my safety. If secondary (approx 1m from the curb) is safe, that's where I ride - that is most of the time. I heard the rule of thumb somewhere ages ago, tried it, and found that it is quite accurate - that is, when I ride 1m from the curb, I seem to get 1m ish passing clearance from drivers. If I ride closer to the curb, I tend to get passed closer.


Modern bike tyres are great aren't they? I get two or three punctures a year, that's about 2-3000 miles between punctures. Not bad at all. Every couple of weeks I dig out the glass and flints from the tyre before they get a chance to do their damage.

Yes, there is ambiguity in that picture and in the phrasing about "at least as much space as you would a car". It depends on whether we think of the width of the car, or the amount of clearance between vehicles. But the highway code has to be written in simplistic language, so that almost anyone can understand it, and get their driving licence.

That is your opinion and it is at odds with other experts who have studied the subject more deeply.


There has been no change of rules. I was taught the concept of PP (though not by that name) fifty years ago by men who had been using it before WW2. The fact that motorists have ceased to be cognisant of it (if they have) is an indictment of their training not the concept.

_________________
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

Indeed. By riding as Claire suggests your left handle bar will actually be encroaching on the pavement. That puts you in conflict with pedestrians and with street furniture which is often placed on the very edge of the pavement.

_________________
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 found it. It was a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrqG0DqkSlw

I like it because it uses clips, photographs and newspaper cuttings to illustrate the history. What I don't like is the way it leads me to feel that we have absolutely no chance now of getting anywhere near that in this country. ("If I were going there, I wouldn't start from here" sort of thing.)

(From one of the comments: At 52 seconds in: 17th century burgher browsing mobile? Internet on his new netbook. )

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

How civilised. I suppose the optimistic view would be that, as the Dutch have already got this far in civilising their towns, we could learn from them, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. Pie in the sky? Unfortunately I don't think there is any genuine desire to reduce motor traffic in towns. If anything, the efforts seem to be towards maximising it.

RobinXe - are these the alternatives that you keep going on about?

Such as?

It is true to say that one should leave extra gap when riding in areas like shopping high streets. However, this is not the norm. More generally, pedestrians tend not to walk on the kerbstones.

I measured by handlebar width yesterday, just over a foot (from centre). Why do I need 3.3ft?

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

Can posters please refrain from using the word 'curb' when they mean 'kerb'?

Just a quickie if I may Steve. Which means riding in the PP effectively puts you more like 4’ 3” from the kerb.

Soz JtB

_________________
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.

Jbr - read the whole thread and you'll see some examples, though not a comprehensive list. You might also gain a better understanding of where people are coming from.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I assumed the 1m gap was to the centre of the bike, simply because I thought it more reasonable. I now see that wasn't necessarily a good assumption.

Could someone else say if the "1m" is from the kerb to the centre of the bike, or to the left edge of the handlebar?

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

Thanks tone, but the length, tone & antagonism on this thread rather nicely illustrates why I'm not getting involved.

The sheer number of variables involved in selecting & moving between riding positions itself seems to preclude a sensible discussion or conclusion, even the isolated scenarios discussed generate several pages of 'discussion', refutals & clarification, let along generalisations. Add to that deep seated opinions, varying experiences & ambiguous terminology and you have a recipe with this thread.

I'm struck by many parallels with speed limits & selection of safe driving speed.

Unsurprisingly I don't have the time or inclination to join in the fun.... gotta get out on the bike

I'm right in thinking you meant this aren't I?


Undoubtedly fascinating though this thread is, I don't wish to drag it out even longer by repeating all the reasons why your examples are invalid (the one we haven't discussed at great length is the "cycle lanes" option - where are the cycle lanes, exactly?)

As to where people are coming from, I think there is a near-consensus on whether cyclists are allowed on the road, and whether they can determine where to ride in relation to the kerb (thanks Johnnytheboy). We're all different, as is ably demonstrated by the approaches described by the various cycling posters. There is a small minority of hard-core motorists who see cyclists only as obstructions, or as "shortcomings", and don't think they should be afforded courtesy and safety, if they persist in taking up space that could be better filled by a car. Does that sum up this thread?