Safe Speed Forums

but RobinXe has.

Sorry but that is precisely what Robin was suggesting with " we could slow down to allow them to pass before the pinch-point, or we could stop completely"

Crossing a red light without infringing on the crossing traffic is on a par with a motorist doing 35mph in a 30limit on a clear road. A technical offence which does no harm. But a motorist is much more likely to be punished for the latter tan a cyclist is for the former. I think that is why so many of the motorists on here dislike cyclists so much.

Nobody would be denying us anything, we're simply taking the steps we deem necessary to satisfy our own perception of the level of danger, without denying other road users any of their right of way. I'd also suggest that using our rights as an input into our decision-making process on the roads, especially as more vulnerable road users, is unwise; let any subsequent investigations worry about right, we should be using safety, cooperation and courtesy considerations to ensure no investigation is required. It is, after all, quite possible to be both right and dead!

Yes, I obviously must dislike myself too!

Perhaps cyclists are seen in a bad light because many of that group frequently choose to capitalise on their reduced exposure to enforcement ...

I don't believe he did, I could have missed it.
Could you link to the post and quote the appropriate text where RX said using PP at a PP is wrong.

The problem I have is that you are asking for a single specific answer to a question that is really quite generic, so the answer is "it depends". You have also asked a loaded question (again), and confounded a number of different issues in the one question. But I will attempt to provide a balanced response as best I can.

The first part asks whether I think it is appropriate to "intentionally impede other road users", so this is specifically about intent. The answer to that part is: "no, it is not appropriate to intentionally impede other road users".

The second part is asking about "[taking up a road position to] prevent [other road users] from potentially doing something which might increase our perceived danger to ourselves". In this case, you are asking about a different intent, and my answer is "sometimes". It will sometimes be the case that other road users are impeded as a side effect of adopting a particular road position, so it is a matter for the cyclist to assess all the factors, including safety of themselves and others , convenience of themselves and others, and any other factors and make a decision about how to proceed. In some cases, it may need some negotiation and, as I have said, that usually works. In some cases, you may come across an ignorant bully, and in that cases, the sensible strategy is to defer to them (and then report them to the police if they actually did something really dangerous).

Now, you can take this as a genuine attempt to answer your question honestly, or you can continue to pursue the approach that is just looking for an argument, but this is my answer to your question and I will not be answering it again now.

Robin use the phrase "obstructing other road users" to mean "Primary position"

...he does have priority, and is quite right to assert it...

This is exactly the dangerous attitude I was referring to, principle over safety, it often ends in a self-righteous corpse.

safety, cooperation and courtesy

So you, JBr, do feel that cyclists are entitled to deliberately obstruct others in this way, even if there are other ways they could improve their own feeling of safety, without imposing themselves on others?

Well, it rather sounds like you're saying that you're obstructing other road users because you are confident that they won't go into the back of you, which doesn't sound like a way to improve your safety, nor does it sound like you've considered any other options which might be less obtrusive. Nobody should impose on other road users intentionally and directly by their own chosen actions; have you never heard the adage about not causing other road users to change speed or direction by your own manoeuvres?

I probably cycle about 1,500 miles per year, motorcycle about 12,000 and drive 8,000. What are your totals?

I very seldom resent having to make allowances in my road use for others' shortcomings, but the thing is, they are allowances I make in my own speed and course, I do not impose myself on other road users in an attempt to get them to do or not do what I think they should or should not do. The debate here is about one set of road users feeling entitled to wilfully obstruct others based on what they themselves think is appropriate, for their own convenience, when there are other alternatives. Several people are focussing on cyclists blocking overtakes through narrower sections of road, but I can think of many other situations where the issue may arise.

I'll drop in again at the weekend and see how you are getting on.

I very seldom resent having to make allowances in my road use for others' shortcomings, but the thing is, they are allowances I make in my own speed and course, I do not impose myself on other road users in an attempt to get them to do or not do what I think they should or should not do. The debate here is about one set of road users feeling entitled to wilfully obstruct others based on what they themselves think is appropriate, for their own convenience, when there are other alternatives. Several people are focussing on cyclists blocking overtakes through narrower sections of road, but I can think of many other situations where the issue may arise.

Cycling along a road is not a "shortcoming"

When taking the lane, the cyclist is not "wilfully obstructing others for their own convenience". The alternatives, to which you alluded, are what, exactly?

If they're not obstructing

Can you explain what you mean by obstructing please.