Safe Speed Forums

By default I don't ride PP, and I aso haven't beeen side swiped, ever! What do you take from that?


Because that's what is recommended by the 'authoritive' PP advocates?

No doubt I'll again be called a troll for pointing out the inescapable confounding issue, yet the accuser ironically refuses explain why the confounding logic is false...

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

Also telling you appear to equate less time on a roundabout means going faster, not taking a less circuitous route.

By default?

Neither do I, I don't know of a cyclist who does.

So you do ride in primary sometimes?

Absolute bladdy nonsense.

No, you haven't read or understood what I wrote. Read it again. I have put back in the text that you removed, possibly in order to hide the context.



I suggest you go back my post number 39 and perhaps read it.


What a stupid response. I said quite specifically why I was using that reference and you have tried to attach some weird interpretation to it. The question you have asked there t the end is an old chestnut has been answered a thousand times in discussions all over the place. I am not going to do your literature searches for you. Get clued up; read the literature on the subject,

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

Ah, hello Steve the Troll. The first of your comments is a barefaced lie. The second ("But that's what the source you referenced recommends (be it indirectly)"), I'll be more generous about, is simply due to the fact that you haven't even bothered to reference the source that you claim to be quoting.

Now, I see that DCW was quite right. There really is no point in discussing things here because a small minority of the participants insist of on throwing in all sort of non-sequitur argument and well-known logical fallacies just to attempt to score points. I saw it referred to as "the local loony bin"; I don't know whether that was quite fair, but I don't want to stick around to find out. I'll follow his example and say goodbye.

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

Tone. Having stormed of in a huff I will return to talk to you, the sanest person on these forums.

You are never "stuck" in the primary position. You adopt it and relinquish it from choice. Riding the high side doesn't mean cycling for miles in a position which makes it difficult for cars to overtake. It means that when you think it would be dangerous to be overtaken to you adopt a position which makes overtaking impossible. But only whilst you are unhappy to be overtaken which is usually only for short distances - past central islands for example.

Now I am going to ask my question again. And if you won't answer it honestly I really am vanishing.

You are riding down a section of road which is 2.1 meters wide. Your bicycle is 0.5 meters wide. The car behind you is 1.6 meters wide. Do you adopt a position close to the kerb leaving a 1.6 meter wide overtaking opportunity for the 1.6 meter wide car to squeeze through. Or do you move out to restrict the overtaking opportunity to 1.2 meters?

If you do the first good drivers won't attempt to overtake but inexperienced or impatient drivers will and one of them will side swipe you off the road. If you do the second you might cause some brief frustration to the following motorist but, unless he is a maniac, he is unlikely to run you down from behind.

So, if we are to remain friends, please answer the question

_________________
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 had got the impression that some cycling authorities had recommended the PP as the default for busy single carriageway urban roads, on the grounds that if you tucked into the kerb then following drivers would inevitably attempt "unsafe" overtaking manouevres when the lane was maybe 10-12 feet wide. The US animation that was shown certainly seemed to imply this.


Given that typical cars are now about 2 metres (6'7") wide over mirrors, I can't really see anyone seeking to overtake if the road is only 2.1 metres (6'11") wide.

The more typical situation is on a road where the lane is 12 feet wide. The bicycle, plus a little bit of leeway towards the kerb, is 3 feet wide. A following car is 6'6" wide. Is it OK for it to overtake "within the lane", assuming traffic coming in the opposite direction? Or should it wait until a gap opens up on the other side of the road to allow an overtake straddling the white line?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

"Oh no, I can't support my point of view in the face of intelligent scrutiny and balanced argument, so I'll call you all some names and run off!"

MGC, the "source materials" ie Cyclecraft do not enter into Malcolm's inference of "some of the posts in this thread". If you have a problem with reading comprehension then it may explain why you hold some of your viewpoints.

Your post 39 does not answer my question, nor did you intend to answer it when you posted, you made that pretty clear. I reiterate that I believe this is because you think that cyclists should obstruct other road users for their own convenience and perception of safety.

You said you were using the reference to answer the question as to who was in the right, which is really doesn't, hence my point. Are you refusing to answer another reasonable question? You're not very good at this debating thing are you? Throwing ad hominem insults and running away evidences this.

At least dcb has had the decency to admit that he does think that cyclists should obstruct motorists, though the example to try to justify it is hardly real-world. The only place where those circumstances could realistically exist are on country lanes, and I'm pretty sure that under those circumstances the safest thing for a cyclist to do would be to stop and pull over, given the danger of oncoming vehicles appearing which will definitely not fit through the gap left by your riding position.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I did say I do earlier on in the thread.
I also said I didn't have any issue with PP; my concern was how much it was over used: "difference between reasonable and unnecessary."


Just saying what I see.
You also appear to be skipping over the point I made.

I will ask the question again:
"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?

Will it be another pertinent one that get gets ignored?

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

I am remaining here a little longer because I have realised that I am arguing the wrong premise. I said earlier that I took the "Primary Position" to be the same as what Richard Ballantine refers to as the "High Side" . But a bit of belated research has informed me that the Primary position is in the centre of the lane. I agree that that is usually very in-advised. My concept of the High Side, as taught to me by my father and the Cycling Club Captain - though not in those terms - fifty years ago, is that ones rides as far out into the road as is necessary to maintain good visibility, to be easily seen and avoid potholes. No responsible cyclist, the lesson continued, will deliberately obstruct another road user. Nor will he compromise his own safety to permit overtaking.

I think that the next lesson compared the quality of the scones at Aberford with those at Sherburn-in-Ellmet

_________________
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

Two birds with 1 stone:


Yes another demonstrable error!

My last post to you contained a link; it's right there within your quote. Had you followed it, you would have noticed it takes you to a discussion of one of your sources:

In light of your latest remarks, it now occurs to me that you gave a stern response without actually knowing your response was with reference to, or you have gotton very lost on a very short trip. Added to that, my link contained highlights pointing to exactly what was being discussed. Did you even check the link at all?
To address your question directly, the post you had responded to was this one, where I had clearly taken issue with the commuteorlando principle. Can you confirm what you were referring to?

Anyway, doesn't the link you gave, from your "various respected authorities", "assert that cyclists travel around all the time in primary"? Yes or no?


After all those posts, you still never found time to answer my other pertinent questions and forwarding the debate!


There does seem to be a correlation between those who are repeatedly proven wrong and those who leave.

Please take your: "most extreme case", "botach's persistence", "that doesn't mean" "Yes, it does" "Splitting hairs", "to the letter" fallacies with you... not forgetting:


Goodbye, again!

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

So the question is: on narrow or busy roads, does it suddenly become OK to ride in the middle of a lane (on narrow or busy roads) if there isn't another cyclist riding nearer the curb?

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

I've stayed out of this 'til now, as all the cyclists I've seen in my area have no regard for the law! We drivers don't have to worry about them as they all ride on the footpaths!

As a tanker driver of 40 years, I can see in the video that the cyclist's stupid position (in the event) on the centre of the roundabout would make the driver think he was turning right. (Not an uncommon assumption as cyclists don't give hand signals.) As the tanker was moving quickly, and as much as I could judge the size of the roundabout, it would have cleared the island before a cyclist travelling at a safe speed got round it. (And is that road wet?)

And I know one shouldn't assume, but who on here never has?

And what-the-hell-ever happened to KEEP LEFT?

I don't think anyone here has a problem with cyclists adopting a normal riding position 3 feet out from the kerb rather than in the gutter. But riding in the middle of the lane on busy single-carriageway roads is another matter entirely.

Any thoughts on my question above about overtaking on single-carriageway urban roads with a 12' lane width?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Oscar raises an interesting point, how do these proponents of 'good riding practice' (who seem on occasion to interpret Roadcraft in a similar manner to Islamists reading the Qu'ran) feel about picking and choosing from the advice, obstructing other road users on the one hand, whilst failing to give hand-signals of their intentions?

Let's be clear, I am not for a second suggesting that cyclists are the only ones who fail to indicate, nothing annoys me more than drivers who think I can guess their intentions, but I have found throughout my adult life that communication prevents so many issues before they arise, and diffuses those that have more often than not.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I think that the post which you quoted made it clear that I agree with you



On a road of that nature I would position my bicycle no more than two feet from the edge. That two feet is "wriggle room" to give you somewhere to go if a following vehicle does attempt to pass too closely. I would consider riding in the middle of the lane to be ill advised and I am surprised that any responsible teachers suggest that you should. I suspect that there is some miss-interpretation involved here. Perhaps Grumps could point me to the source material which he thinks makes that recommendation??

_________________
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

This is nuts. Nobody is suggesting that cyclists should ride in the middle of the lane all the time, and now we have Oscar and robin saying cyclists never indicate, which is clearly outright b***ks.

No more b***ks (sic) than your suggestion that this was what I was saying! Is there a contest on some other forum somewhere over who can make the most retarded comment on the thread? So far you're winning, so high-five, or something!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Well maybe I missed something Weepej but I still don’t have any definition of PP and I think I can be forgiven for thinking, and I still take it to mean, exactly that. That is what the cyclist was doing in that clip dude; what can't speak can't lie!

Maybe this is where we are coming to blows? Can you or someone define it please, then perhaps I can stop jumping at shadows.

_________________
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.