# Riding in primary or not?



## Matthames (19 Jun 2010)

Following on from my truck thread there seems to be a few on there who think I was out of position, but leaving that situation aside here is another situation to think about.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HgO1sG4eK4


Nothing much happens in this clip, except that I am doing 20 along a 30 mph road in primary position where a few people would say I should be in secondary. All will be revealed in part 2, but for now I pose the question am I right to remain in primary or should I be in secondary?


----------



## dondare (19 Jun 2010)

Are you on a space hopper or pogo stick?


----------



## AnotherEye (19 Jun 2010)

It's not a wide lane and if there are any potholes you need to avoid them. I would ride in primary but be courteous to any driver behind me by moving into secondary to let them pass when there is a clear road ahead and nothing coming the other way.


----------



## dave r (19 Jun 2010)

I would ride that section of road in secondary, there's no need for primary.


----------



## Matthames (19 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> Are you on a space hopper or pogo stick?



A lot of that probably has to do with the format I encoded the video on, I couldn't use the format I wanted as one of the codecs for it is throwing a wobbly. 

Also a lot of the problem has to do with the road surface being a bit bumpy.


----------



## gavintc (19 Jun 2010)

Secondary for me.


----------



## Moodyman (19 Jun 2010)

Going into the roundabout and up to the pedestrian island you should do primary.

After the island, you should move to secondary to allow other traffic to pass.

It also depends on the circumstances in part 2 of your video.


----------



## rh100 (19 Jun 2010)

I would ride secondary on that one, although the fact that I will not ride in the gutter means I would still be a fair bit out anyway. Primary towards and through the RAB though. 

The long stretch has no call for primary IMO (but bear in mind I'm still learning it all myself - so it is just my opinion  ), the secondary position and oncoming traffic on a narrow road like that would surely prevent dangerous overtakes except from a complete moron, and there isn't much you can do about morons.


----------



## DrSquirrel (19 Jun 2010)

The RAB, islands and oncoming traffic - Primary.

The long straight there isn't any reason you couldn't stick in Primary as cars have a clear enough view ahead, but you will probably get resentment from this... I would stick in a Primary if there was nothing around and move to Secondary when a car approaches if I feel it's okay. Hopefully seeing you in Primary will make them think more about the room they will give, and then you extend that the opposite way when moving into Secondary. etc.


----------



## DaleB (19 Jun 2010)

Moodyman said:


> Going into the roundabout and up to the pedestrian island you should do primary.
> 
> After the island, you should move to secondary to allow other traffic to pass.
> 
> It also depends on the circumstances in part 2 of your video.




+1, it looks a very narrow road though


----------



## 4F (19 Jun 2010)

Given the scenario in the video in question and not being aware of what may be behind you, in that instance I would be in secondary.


----------



## Matthames (19 Jun 2010)

Part 2 is up: 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPJ26tTt9ZA


As you can see from part 2 there is a pothole near a drain which could probably throw somebody off their bike. The only way to avoid it is to ride out into a primary position and pass it, also it is a good idea to ride a primary position early to discourage anybody overtaking you as you pass it or if they overtake, they overtake in the other lane, which is what quite often happens. 

For that section, if the conditions are favourable I tend to stick to primary for the length of the road as I do reach speeds of around 30mph, like in the video.


----------



## DrSquirrel (19 Jun 2010)

I wouldn't bother dropping from Primary if I was keeping up with the car in front. 0:56

The only thing wrong about Primary on a straight road is the anger from people in cars... and that's their own ignorant faults.



I still don't really see the overall point of these videos though...


----------



## Matthames (19 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> You are making a mountain out of a molehill. All those risks would have been absorbed riding in secondary. As for part ii why are you holding a primary positon on a straight road??? Secondary is all that is needed.
> 
> And for the love of God do something with that camera, strap it to your handlebars or stop moving your head so much.



That pothole can swallow a bike tyre, I have had a few brown trouser moments with it before I considered it prudent to just stick in primary and go around it. 

I am holding position as I am doing traffic speed for that particular road. At those sorts of speeds you really need to be in a more central position to avoid any hazards on your nearside. There is not much scope for any cars behind to do anything legally anyway. 

That road is rather bumpy which is why the camera is wobbling. Had that been on my handlebars I doubt you would of seen anything at all. The reason my head moves around a lot is because I am constantly updating my observations with as much new information as I can. I don't do my videos for the benefit of other people, I mainly use my videos to analyse my own riding and to maybe use as evidence for any incidents I may come across.


----------



## Moodyman (19 Jun 2010)

I can understand why you held primary position after the pedestrian island, but I agree with Lee that you could avoid the pothole from secondary too.

However, I note that you stayed in primary after the pothole. Yes, you were doing 30mph and that may be the speed limit, but some drivers like to travel a little faster, so why not move over to your natural position and let them pass?

They might be wrong in getting p1ssed off, but it's not your job to enforce the speed limit.


----------



## dave r (19 Jun 2010)

Secondary all the way along there, I would have only considered primary aproaching the two side road towards the end of the second video, to protect myself from left hooks. Early in the second video I got a glimpse of an entrance to something, couldn't tell what from your video, might have needed primary passing that for the same reason as before. The pothole was nothing to write home about, some of Coventrys roads are worse than riding across ploughed fields, if you use the road often you should know where the potholes are, and if its a road you don't know you should be looking for them, and you should be planning ahead to deal with them


----------



## Matthames (19 Jun 2010)

Btw the resized photo of the pothole kind of distorted its dimensions a bit. It juts out 3ft from the kerb. Every time I ride past it I am hoping that the council have got onto it as it is a fairly busy main road, especially around school kicking out time and rush hour. If it is like that for much longer though, I will be reporting it through the fill that hole site. 

If you are doing traffic speed your natural position is in the primary, if cars want to go faster, they just have to overtake in the other lane. Most drivers will either hang back or will overtake in the other lane giving you loads of room. In secondary they will be more tempted to try and share the lane with you and thus overtake a lot closer.


----------



## dave r (19 Jun 2010)

Matthames said:


> Btw the resized photo of the pothole kind of distorted its dimensions a bit. It juts out 3ft from the kerb. Every time I ride past it I am hoping that the council have got onto it as it is a fairly busy main road, especially around school kicking out time and rush hour. If it is like that for much longer though, I will be reporting it through the fill that hole site.
> 
> If you are doing traffic speed your natural position is in the primary, if cars want to go faster, they just have to overtake in the other lane. Most drivers will either hang back or will overtake in the other lane giving you loads of room. In secondary they will be more tempted to try and share the lane with you and thus overtake a lot closer.



I still wouldn't use primary through there, except at the side roads


----------



## 4F (19 Jun 2010)

dave r said:


> Secondary all the way along there, I would have only considered primary aproaching the two side road towards the end of the second video, to protect myself from left hooks. Early in the second video I got a glimpse of an entrance to something, couldn't tell what from your video, might have needed primary passing that for the same reason as before. The pothole was nothing to write home about, some of Coventrys roads are worse than riding across ploughed fields, if you use the road often you should know where the potholes are, and if its a road you don't know you should be looking for them, and you should be planning ahead to deal with them



I think Dave sums it up here, I think Mat you are trying to justify using primary to control other road users speed limit and this is plainly wrong.


----------



## Coco (19 Jun 2010)

Can't see anything wrong with staying in secondary and pulling out in primary when you need to. You know where that hole is so you'll have plenty of time to signal and get in the right position to pass it.


----------



## Alien8 (19 Jun 2010)

The road is too narrow for a motor vehicle to safely overtake you without encroaching on to the other side of the road. If someone wants to overtake, and they half-a-brain, they will do so by moving fully over. Of course, riding a long way out might annoy another cyclist trying to get past you, but I would expect them to give you some verbals if they want you out the way. You should also keep a check on what's going on behind.

Ride where you like - its no big deal either-way.


----------



## Matthames (19 Jun 2010)

4F said:


> I think Dave sums it up here, I think Mat you are trying to justify using primary to control other road users speed limit and this is plainly wrong.



That assumption is well off the mark. The way I see it is that I am traffic and if I am going at traffic speeds then I might as well take up a dominant position and not just be an after thought. The critical word here is safety, in primary a motorist has to make a proper attempt at overtaking and thus give me more space. If you are doing 30 in primary most drivers wouldn't bother overtaking you and your hardly impeding their progress. If however you did 30 in secondary, motorists might be tempted to try and pass you if they feel they can remain in their lane. This kind of overtake can be dangerous as you would have nowhere to go if things went wrong. 

I use position as a safety tool to control the space around me. I don't use it to control other road users speed limit like you may think. Other road users are part of the traffic after all and if I do feel that I am impeding their progress I will move over and let them past if it will not infringe my safety bubble. 

On that stretch of road in the video I didn't have any traffic behind me anyway.


----------



## GFamily (19 Jun 2010)

Matthames said:


> Btw the resized photo of the pothole kind of distorted its dimensions a bit. It juts out 3ft from the kerb. Every time I ride past it I am hoping that the council have got onto it as it is a fairly busy main road, especially around school kicking out time and rush hour. If it is like that for much longer though, I will be reporting it through the fill that hole site.
> r.



Boggle! You haven't even reported it?


----------



## BentMikey (19 Jun 2010)

If there's no traffic behind, then primary is the correct default position according to cyclecraft. You can always drop back to secondary when a faster vehicle approaches and it's safe to do so, which would be for most of those two video clips, again best practice. Do you have mirrors? If not, I'd question why you're not looking back much more often.


----------



## AnotherEye (19 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> If there's no traffic behind, then primary is the correct default position according to cyclecraft.... Do you have mirrors? If not, I'd question why you're not looking back much more often.


Bent, that's my instinct as well (see my post above). I also wondered about looking back when I watched the video's; I'm not sure but I think I look back more when I'm going faster. Definitely more when I'm in the primary position.


----------



## hambones (19 Jun 2010)

He has already said there was no traffic behind him so constantly looking behind is just not necessary. I am presuming he has ears and can hear of course...


----------



## BentMikey (19 Jun 2010)

hambones said:


> He has already said there was no traffic behind him so constantly looking behind is just not necessary. I am presuming he has ears and can hear of course...



Relying on hearing instead of looking properly as you should be is p1ss poor riding, unfortunately.


----------



## hambones (19 Jun 2010)

I disagree - but hey ho


----------



## BentMikey (19 Jun 2010)

That sort of riding is well stupid because you can't always hear bicycles and electric vehicles, and it annoys the heck out of many drivers. Look back and know what's there, don't guess with your hearing, which isn't even very directional. Become human to drivers behind you by looking at them. They'll likely give you more space and they'll treat you much more fairly.


----------



## BentMikey (19 Jun 2010)

> I'm with Mike - if I was riding that road and there was nothing behind I'd ride down the middle of the lane. It gives more room to manoeuvre around potholes, manhole covers etc. If something comes up behind, wants to pass and it's safe to I'll move over.



There are two additional benefits - being out in the middle of the lane will cause drivers to think twice as they come up on you, and they likely will pass wider and slower than if you stay in secondary the whole time, even once you've dropped to secondary for them. The second benefit is that when drivers see you move over nicely for them, they will be happy that you're alert and looked back for them, and that you made an effort to make their overtake a little easier. Some will flash hazards in a thank you for this.


----------



## GrasB (19 Jun 2010)

You need look behind to a visual picture on frequent intervals. Yes you can use your hearing to constantly survey the situation behind you in a general sense but it certainly shouldn't be used as your primary observation means. 

I often find that I hear cars before I can see them (hedges etc. are much better at completely obscuring light than sound), it gives me a chance to have a idea at the situation before I can gather information visually (is it a large or small vehicle? Are they going quickly? etc). That said it's also the trigger to increase my rear obs frequency, normally it's every 4-5s but when I'm aware of an vehicle behind it's about half that until I can see them. Around town I find hearing far less useful as there's to much going on to get good information so it's more frequent rear observations.

I also agree with the 'human' aspect of looking behind. Often even when a car is a fair way back, 50m or so, you can see an instant change in the way the driver behaves when you look behind.


----------



## jimboalee (19 Jun 2010)

> I'm with Mike - if I was riding that road and there was nothing behind I'd ride down the middle of the lane. It gives more room to manoeuvre around potholes, manhole covers etc. If something comes up behind, wants to pass and it's safe to I'll move over.



+1.

Matt. When you get a few more years under your belt, you'll learn that 'if you can ride a bike at that speed, you can ride it anywhere across the carriageway you friggin' like'.

Down a gradient at close to 30 in a 30 limit, "It's YOUR road!"

When you get on the upgrades and the speed drops, staying out in the middle will cause a hold-up, so go to the nearside.


----------



## dondare (19 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> If there's no traffic behind, then primary is the correct default position according to cyclecraft. You can always drop back to secondary when a faster vehicle approaches and it's safe to do so, which would be for most of those two video clips, again best practice. Do you have mirrors? If not, I'd question why you're not looking back much more often.



I would ride quite far out from the side on a road like that if I was the only person using it. Some might call it primary. As you say, it's always possible to move aside to let faster vehicles pass.
But I feel quite seasick after watching that clip going up and down and it would have been even worse if he'd been continually looking behind as well.


----------



## jimboalee (19 Jun 2010)

One word of warning tho'.

A cyclist at 30 mph in a 30 mph limit isn't seen very often and motorists in sideroads easily misjudge our approach. They don't expect a cyclist at 30 mph.

So when I'm riding at anything over 22ish, my fingers are on the brake levers.

And BTW. If you look round TOO often, a motorist following you will well think "Keep your eyes in front of you if your going to ride like a lunatic".


----------



## dondare (19 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> Wheels are stronger then you think you know, and you wouldn't have nay problems with that pothole, you feel that strongly about it then ring the local council.



I've got strong wheels and robust tyres but I avoid potholes if I can. 



User3143 said:


> This refers to my earlier post about an 'ideal world' your ideal world is that motorists don't speed and therefore you doing 30 in the middle of the road is fine but it's not. There is absolutely no need for you to be in that position.



I know the world is not ideal but if people are going to drive dangerously then I'd sooner put myself out to draw attention to it than put myself out to accommodate it. Forcing someone to slow down is not necessarily going to be more dangerous than giving them the illusion that they have room to overtake me without slowing down. 



User3143 said:


> Constant observations!!! Half the time you are looking at the road 5 yards in front of you and in some parts you are looking at your front tyre. Me thinks you are trying to hard in a high gear and are putting your head down - we have all done it, nothing to be ashamed of.
> 
> If you don't do your vids for the benefit of other people then why the hell do you post crap on here? Please don't because this not the way to ride a bike.
> 
> In fact **** it I'm gonna look at buying a camera, make some vids on how to ride a bike and post them in the beginners section and ask Admin to make them a sticky.



I look forward to this.


----------



## Matthames (19 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Do you have mirrors? If not, I'd question why you're not looking back much more often.



Thanks for pointing that out to me 

On that stretch I probably done a couple of rear observations looking at the video. Can't really explain why I didn't do as many as I should of done.

I looked at another video and counted about 150 rear observations, which equates to an average of 1 every 10 seconds. Really I should of done more, there were a few lifesaver checks I should of done which for some reason I missed out . Something for me to be aware of in future. I have noticed with my observations though that I tend to do a lot more when ever I am changing speed and direction, which is good. On a straight road, depending on how fast I am going and how heavy the traffic is, I tend to do one every 5-10 seconds with maybe the odd long gap in between. 

So I would be definitely paying more attention to rear obs in future.


----------



## Matthames (19 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> One word of warning tho'.
> 
> A cyclist at 30 mph in a 30 mph limit isn't seen very often and motorists in sideroads easily misjudge our approach. They don't expect a cyclist at 30 mph.
> 
> ...



That is very true. You can see in the video that the driver who pulls out of the holiday park in front of me was cutting it a little bit fine. Not a brown trouser moment by any stretch of the imagination, but certainly enough for me to consider an imminent threat.

It is probably more of an issue for me than somebody with a decent road bike, as with the road bike most people would be expecting it to be going quickly. But a fully rigid mountain bike with panniers?


----------



## HLaB (20 Jun 2010)

I think I'd play it by ear, so as to speak. You've left the roundabout in Primary, so I'd just stay there unless there was traffic, the occasional glance over the shoulder/ ears will answer that. If it was busy and depending how close the obstruction was I'd gradually drift from the primary to the secondary. I think the secondary would still avoid the pothole but I'm not local so I'll leave that to you judgement Matt.


----------



## summerdays (20 Jun 2010)

I certainly would be in primary on the roundabout and exiting it, after that I think I would have to see depending on what speed I was going at.

I've one place on one of my routes that I always go in primary:
http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&h...SI0obcTSRdesFnAcq4PFaw&cbp=12,184.37,,0,-1.12

Its a big downhill, and I'm going at the same speed as the cars (approx 25mph - unless its queuing) and having to brake to slow down sometimes and the road surface is bad especially in one section (that I have reported over a year ago and nothing has been done). Too much traffic around for anyone to contemplate overtaking. When ever I get to the bit I don't like I look behind and move further out ... and at the end of it I move back again. I often wonder if the motorists behind work out why I move out for that 100m or so - but I'm not holding them up anyway.


----------



## AnotherEye (20 Jun 2010)

Matthames said:


> That is very true. You can see in the video that the driver who pulls out of the holiday park in front of me was cutting it a little bit fine. ... It is probably more of an issue for me than somebody with a decent road bike, as with the road bike most people would be expecting it to be going quickly. But a fully rigid mountain bike with panniers?


Most motorists will just see cyclist, they won't be looking at the bike.


----------



## blockend (20 Jun 2010)

One main road I regularly take in the rush hour has a queue of traffic joining from a minor road on the left, or trying to cross over to the other side. The briefest pause in traffic will have a driver pulling out. 
The junction is at the bottom of a long descent, not steep but enough for commuters to hit 20mph+ and roadies to make 35. Heart in mouth stuff as you watch the hubcaps rolling as you approach covering the brakes.

The safest way is to make drivers unsure of your intentions. I take primary, primary right and back to primary, pedalling hard, freewheeling and pedalling again until I'm through the junction and then resume secondary. Better drivers think 'what's this berk doing?' than 'I know what he's doing and I'll miss him by three feet if I'm quick'.


----------



## AnotherEye (22 Jun 2010)

From the guide to cycling (Institute of Advanced Motoring) written by John Franklin; author of Cyclecraft.

p12: _Positive, tolerant and courteous attitudes reduce the risk of collisions._

p38: _"... ride where you can best be seen,where you deter or prevent others from putting you at risk, and where control of your cycle is as easy as possible.

You should ride in the centre of the leftmost traffic lane (primary position) when you can keep up with the traffic; when you need to emphasise your presence to drivers behind or ahead; or when you need to deter following drivers from overtaking you because it is not safe to do so._

_ ... When it is safe for other drivers to pass you, ride in the secondary position, about one metre to the left of the moving traffic lane, that part of the road where through-traffic is moving. note that this position should always be determined relative to the position of the traffic, not the kerb . Do not ride slavishly close to the curb where other drivers may not easily notice you. In any event never ride closer than 0.5m to the road edge as this will leave you with insufficient escape room in an emergency.
In deciding where to ride,always take into consideration the nature of the road surface. Where the surface is poor, allow yourself extra space in which to divert by keeping further out._


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jun 2010)

blockend said:


> One main road I regularly take in the rush hour has a queue of traffic joining from a minor road on the left, or trying to cross over to the other side. *The briefest pause in traffic will have a driver pulling out. *
> The junction is at the bottom of a long descent, not steep but enough for commuters to hit 20mph+ and roadies to make 35. Heart in mouth stuff as you watch the hubcaps rolling as you approach covering the brakes.
> 
> The safest way is to make drivers unsure of your intentions. I take primary, primary right and back to primary, pedalling hard, freewheeling and pedalling again until I'm through the junction and then resume secondary. Better drivers think 'what's this berk doing?' than 'I know what he's doing and I'll miss him by three feet if I'm quick'.



I'm glad you realise this.

I also hope you realise, from what has already been said on this forum and others, motorists don't always see cyclists. They don't always see motorcyclists.

Now from what you say, you KNOW there is a small likelyhood of a motorist dodging out, so why are you not slowing to give yourself distance and time enough if the silly sod does pull out?

The choice between me stopping for the idiot or T-boning him would be.... stopping.


----------



## dondare (22 Jun 2010)

blockend said:


> One main road I regularly take in the rush hour has a queue of traffic joining from a minor road on the left, or trying to cross over to the other side. The briefest pause in traffic will have a driver pulling out.
> The junction is at the bottom of a long descent, not steep but enough for commuters to hit 20mph+ and roadies to make 35. Heart in mouth stuff as you watch the hubcaps rolling as you approach covering the brakes.
> 
> The safest way is to make drivers unsure of your intentions. I take primary, primary right and back to primary, pedalling hard, freewheeling and pedalling again until I'm through the junction and then resume secondary. Better drivers think 'what's this berk doing?' than 'I know what he's doing and I'll miss him by three feet if I'm quick'.



Is it too awful to suggest that now and then you actually slow down a bit and give them time to pull out safely? They've got homes to go to, too.


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> Is it too awful to suggest that now and then you actually slow down a bit and give them time to pull out safely? They've got homes to go to, too.



Give way to a car pulling out into the cyclist's right of way?

How dare you suggest such a thing?


----------



## Origamist (22 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> Is it too awful to suggest that now and then you actually slow down a bit and give them time to pull out safely? They've got homes to go to, too.



Indeed, but have a good look behind first. If you've got vehicles close behind slow down gradually or not at all - cyclists don't have brake lights.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Jun 2010)

After a near rear ending in my youth when I was on a motorcycle, I tend to keep an eye on my mirrors when braking for this kind of thing, also traffic lights and pedestrian crossings for example. I also often hold up my left hand in a stop-like manner to make sure the people behind me get the idea.

It's not always possible when emergency braking, but I've averted a few incidents this way in London.


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> Indeed, but have a good look behind first. If you've got vehicles close behind slow down gradually or not at all - cyclists don't have brake lights.



Put out your right arm and wave it in an up-down motion.

Use your rear brake and sit up with your knees splayed out to act as an airbrake.


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jun 2010)

After thinking about this a little further.... and remembering an incident outside Sainsbury's on Saltisford, Warwick....

If you have no idea how efficiently you can stop using the rear brake only, the course of action would be to go to the nearside, as the nearside will be the bit of road that will be clear soonest.

It is safest to 'emergency exit' round behind a moving car than 'emergency exit' in front of it.

Having moved to the nearside, cars following will be less likely to rear-end you.


----------



## Origamist (22 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Put out your right arm and wave it in an up-down motion.
> 
> Use your rear brake and sit up with your knees splayed out to act as an airbrake.



In the example cited by blockend we're talking about descending at up to 35mph or so - at these speeds I'm reluctant to take my hands off the bars when I know there's a potential threat up ahead, at lower speeds it's less of problem and I occasionally use hand gestures to warn drivers. However, as I've had these misinterpreted/misunderstood in the past, you need to be careful.

Sitting up, freewheeling, arm movements, looking behind are all good ways of getting attention, but in some situations you'll go past the point of no return and you are at the mercy of a car pulling out.


----------



## HaloJ (22 Jun 2010)

With regards to arm movements for slowing....

I'm with Mikey about using the flat open "HALT!" gesture rather than the suggested arm up and down movement. Arm movements have all but vanished from our roads along with driving standards and courtesy. So a waved arm could be perceived as an over exuberant gesture for turning rather than the intended slowing down.

Abs


----------



## blockend (22 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> Sitting up, freewheeling, arm movements, looking behind are all good ways of getting attention, but in some situations you'll go past the point of no return and you are at the mercy of a car pulling out.



Exactly. All a rider can do is draw attention to himself and hope for the best. If the waiting driver has queued long enough and is sufficiently anxious to get home, his judgement will be overidden by that desire and he _will_ pull out. 

So far as allowing people to enter the main flow, it only happens if a driver wants to turn left or, generally speaking, right into the side roads. The junction is close to where a 40 limit (read 50) meets a 30 sign (read 40). A cyclist unilaterally allowing cars to pull out from the side would be rear-ended within a week.
If you want to see bike handling skills with two locked up wheels and the accompanying exchange of pleasantries, this junction is the place. Most of the time T-boning is only avoided by the rider's brakes, by which time the car has snuck through the gear box and is a speck in the distance. In law a miss of 2mm is as good as a mile.


----------



## blockend (22 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Now from what you say, you KNOW there is a small likelyhood of a motorist dodging out, so why are you not slowing to give yourself distance and time enough if the silly sod does pull out?



It's a complex mix of judgement and psychology. Because the peak rush hour time for queuing cars is between 5-10 minutes to move as many vehicles into the main flow, drivers are highly motivated to take risks. 
I negotiate the crossroads as you suggest but a freewheeling cyclist is seen as a cue to pull out, which is why I initially said the stop-go style of pedalling and varying road positions to promote uncertainty about ones intentions (am I turning left, going straight on or turning right?) seems to be the best way of not being offered a point blank side door.

Watching other riders technique is interesting, especially from the side road perspective. Fast roadies tend to go flat out and hope drivers take the hint but I've seen a few leave a long line of rubber when the hint is ignored.


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> In the example cited by blockend we're talking about descending at up to 35mph or so - at these speeds I'm reluctant to take my hands off the bars when I know there's a potential threat up ahead, at lower speeds it's less of problem and I occasionally use hand gestures to warn drivers. However, as I've had these misinterpreted/misunderstood in the past, you need to be careful.
> 
> Sitting up, freewheeling, arm movements, looking behind are all good ways of getting attention, but in some situations you'll go past the point of no return and you are at the mercy of a car pulling out.



So there are multiple hazards waiting. The guy knows them.

At the bottom of a hill, there is a junction where motorists are known to pull out.

For one, I wouldn't allow myself to get to a speed down the hill where stopping is not possible with only one brake ( the rear ).

Second, the OP has implied he makes his decisions based upon 'fast roadies tend to go flat out'. A 'hope for the best' situation. NOT good.


On the Walsall Road between The Scott Arms and Walsall in N Brum, there is a downhill where cyclists could get the 40 mph limit.
At the base of this hill, there was a side road ( now a set of lights ).
Unwary cyclists were often caught out by inattentative motorists emerging from the sideroad.
During the evening rush hour, I would be in the second lane with the cars freewheeling at 40 .
Now the lamps are in operation, I know I will have difficulty stopping if they change to red, so I forsake the thrill-ride and roll down the hill in the nearside expecting to have to stop.
Mostly not but they could....


----------



## blockend (22 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Second, the OP has implied he makes his decisions based upon 'fast roadies tend to go flat out'. A 'hope for the best' situation. NOT good.
> ....



Can you point out where have I given that impression? It's precisely the opposite to what I've been saying, which is cyclists survive such junctions by promoting as much uncertainty about their actions as possible.

I take crossroads and junctions slower than most riders, always with hands covering the brakes and with eye contact where possible. Going fast leads to _white helmet_ stunt passes, going slow likewise, so smart riders disengage from motorists expectations and act unpredictably. A little studied madness goes a long way when drivers play the percentage game.


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jun 2010)

blockend said:


> Can you point out where have I given that impression? It's precisely the opposite to what I've been saying, which is cyclists survive such junctions by promoting as much uncertainty about their actions as possible.
> 
> I take crossroads and junctions slower than most riders, always with hands covering the brakes and with eye contact where possible. Going fast leads to _white helmet_ stunt passes, going slow likewise, so smart riders disengage from motorists expectations and act unpredictably. A little studied madness goes a long way when drivers play the percentage game.



Appologies.

I misunderstood. What I read is you ride down the hill making as much of a spectacle of yourself as possible to be noticed by all the motorists around you and the motorist at the junction.

This sounded like a 'hope for the best' situation.


----------



## Origamist (22 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> For one, I wouldn't allow myself to get to a speed down the hill where stopping is not possible with only one brake ( the rear )....



Interesting - what speed would you recommend descending at? Where would you position yourself?




jimboalee said:


> Second, the OP has implied he makes his decisions based upon 'fast roadies tend to go flat out'. A 'hope for the best' situation. NOT good.
> 
> ...



I don't think he has implied any such thng.


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> Interesting - what speed would you recommend descending at? Where would you position yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've appologised. I misunderstood.


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> Interesting - what speed would you recommend descending at? Where would you position yourself?



This is not a numbers game, its a KNOW YOUR BIKE'S PERFORMANCE game.

C'mon then origamist, what's the answer?


----------



## Origamist (22 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> This is not a numbers game, its a KNOW YOUR BIKE'S PERFORMANCE game.
> 
> C'mon then origamist, what's the answer?



Jim, I don't know the stopping distance with just my rear brake (in wet or dry etc) - that's why I'm asking for your opinion.


----------



## blockend (22 Jun 2010)

Crossroads are also a good place to practice some lingering rear observations on the approach. It suggests the rider _might_ be about to turn but more importantly, denies the opportunity for an eyeline with the driver.
Eye contact is useful for close proximity but at distance it can justify a pull out on the basis 'the cyclist has seen me'. Looking away - with a keen ear on changing engine notes - is often more effective at pinning down an undecided driver than looking at them.

My observations are purely opinion, based on 40+ years road cycling, they are not a _right_ answer. Indeed, I believe standard 'rules', like an unreconstructed approach to primary positioning, is counter productive to rider safety. A good rider will be prepared to press on or abandon a strategy depending on the volatility of his environment.


----------



## Origamist (22 Jun 2010)

blockend said:


> Crossroads are also a good place to practice some lingering rear observations on the approach. It suggests the rider _might_ be about to turn but more importantly, denies the opportunity for an eyeline with the driver.
> Eye contact is useful for close proximity but at distance it can justify a pull out on the basis 'the cyclist has seen me'. Looking away - with a keen ear on changing engine notes - is often more effective at pinning down an undecided driver than looking at them.
> 
> My observations are purely opinion, based on 40+ years road cycling, they are not a _right_ answer. Indeed, I believe standard 'rules', like an unreconstructed approach to primary positioning, is counter productive to rider safety. A good rider will be prepared to press on or abandon a strategy depending on the volatility of his environment.



Stop talking sense, otherwise people will think I have multiple identities on this forum.


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> Jim, I don't know the stopping distance with just my rear brake (in wet or dry etc) - that's why I'm asking for your advice.



Its a very simple experiment.

So simple, schoolboys do it by riding toward a chainlink fence ( at the nearby tarmac tennis courts ), pulling the brake and seeing how close they stop from the fence.

Oh, those were the days.


----------



## Origamist (22 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Its a very simple experiment.
> 
> So simple, schoolboys do it by riding toward a chainlink fence ( at the nearby tarmac tennis courts ), pulling the brake and seeing how close they stop from the fence.
> 
> Oh, those were the days.



Nice dodge.


----------



## magnatom (22 Jun 2010)

I've come late to this, but I would take the secondary position (a good strong one) along this road. Looking at the width of the road any car needing to overtake would have to cross the white line considerably when in secondary. Therefore I think it is probably sufficient. Adding to that, the fact that the road is long and straight, to me this strengthens the case for secondary. I don't think primary gains anything apart from irritating drivers behind.

I'm not one to shirk from annoying someone if I feel my safety is compromised, but here secondary is more than sufficient, and if you can reduce the aggro then all well and good. Of course you have to take into account junctions, potholes etc.


----------



## dondare (22 Jun 2010)

*Air brakes?*



jimboalee said:


> *Put out your right arm and wave it in an up-down motion.*
> 
> Use your rear brake and sit up with your knees splayed out to act as an airbrake.



And this helps to slow you down?


----------



## Matthames (22 Jun 2010)

My position down the road all depends on my speed and traffic conditions. Today because of the sea breeze I had to stick to secondary, although there was a point were the sun's reflection off the rear light cluster of a car in one of the drives caught my eye. I couldn't see the front of the car because of a hedge, so therefore couldn't work out whether they were brake lights and the car about to reverse out or that it was just the sun shining on the cluster. At that point I moved over to primary to assume the worst case scenario of a car reversing into my path.


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> Nice dodge.



Here's a man who risks his life every day riding a pedal cycle on the public highway, and he doesn't know the capability of the main systems on his bike which will bring him to a halt if he needs to effect an emergency stop.

I thought it was the first thing every sensible cyclist does. Ride off on a new bike ( or after brake maintenance ) ,,,, pull the brakes hard to make sure they'll stop the bike in an emergency.


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jun 2010)

> Any estimate on the number of following drivers who would understand the signal and not just think you're stupidly trying to take off?



When I took my driving test, a knowledge of the HC was necessary to answer the questions at the finale of the test.

I don't know what they do now. Is it in the written test?


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jun 2010)

OH, and BTW. 

I braked with the rear brake only down this street tonight. Right hand was signalling right as I approached the traffic island.

I had total confidence due to my 'Roadworthyness tests' performed when I assembled the bike.

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&l...oid=c6p-wcnUyWYBxt-pJB_f9g&cbp=12,297.67,,0,5


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> OH, and BTW.
> 
> I braked with the rear brake only down this street tonight. Right hand was signalling right as I approached the traffic island.
> 
> ...



OH, and another BTW.

Dominant in the center of the lane all the way down this hill 'cus I'm turning right at the island.

If you turn the streeview 180 degs and go back up Saltisford, you'll see the nasty little island where countless idiots try to squeze me into the gutter. Bollocks to them, I'll go round that island on my own.


----------



## blockend (22 Jun 2010)

Surely it's not how much distance a bike needs to stop in test conditions, but how little space you need when travelling at 15mph and a driver pulls out four bike lengths in front?
I can testify to the usefulness of practicing a front wheel stand in such conditions.


----------



## Origamist (22 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Here's a man who risks his life every day riding a pedal cycle on the public highway, and he doesn't know the capability of the main systems on his bike which will bring him to a halt if he needs to effect an emergency stop.
> 
> I thought it was the first thing every sensible cyclist does. Ride off on a new bike ( or after brake maintenance ) ,,,, pull the brakes hard to make sure they'll stop the bike in an emergency.



Jim, we're not talking about emergency stops. What is under consideration is this:




jimboalee said:


> For one, I wouldn't allow myself to get to a speed down the hill where stopping is not possible with only one brake ( the rear ).
> ...



Why are you so reluctant to explain yourself? As I've said, I roughly know my braking distances with both brakes, *but not the rear only* when I'm descending (which puts more weight over the front wheel). I was hoping you would enlighten me, why so coy?


----------



## dondare (22 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> It doesn't but it's the HC sign for slowing down.



I knew that, really. I even use it sometimes.


----------



## dondare (22 Jun 2010)

> Any estimate on the number of following drivers who would understand the signal and not just think you're stupidly trying to take off?



Or dribbling an invisble basket ball. 

Or drying nail varnish...


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> Jim, we're not talking about emergency stops. What is under consideration is this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't understand.
Do you have trouble controlling your bike while riding with one hand making signals?

In an urban environment, hand signals are necessary. Agree?
When faced with a descending stretch of road where signalling is necessary, do you let the bike freewheel to a speed without knowing whether it will stop when only one brake in utilised?

I wouldn't. 

Do you not test the effectiveness of your brakes when you've done maintenance on them?

I do.

If you honestly don't know whether your bike will stop under rear brake application only down a hill, I suggest you use this nice sunny weather and empty road conditions ( footy on telly ) and FIND OUT.

Then, when you next roll down a hill and need to signal with EITHER hand, you will know your bike will stop with one brake only.

If your bike doesn't stop with only one brake applied, you'll know you can't roll down a hill of that gradient at that speed because your bike won't stop when you ask it to. Crash, bang, wollop!


Jeez. There are some on this forum who call themselves cyclists,,,


----------



## blockend (22 Jun 2010)

Not many bikes can be brought to an emergency stop on back brake only. The hydraulics on my MTB won't, neither my Campag or Shimano dual pivots and on the cantilevers I'd still be squeezing as I was put in the ambulance.

The old saw that says rear is for slowing, front is for stopping is close to the money. Riders generally give a clear signal then use both hands for the tricky stuff. In fact hard breaking using _only_ the rear is a receipe for trouble.


----------



## Origamist (22 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> *I don't understand.*
> Do you have trouble controlling your bike while riding with one hand making signals?
> 
> In an urban environment, hand signals are necessary. Agree?
> ...



I've helpfully highlighted the only flash of lucidity in the above post. The rest of your remarks are characterised by irrelevance, twaddle, strawmen and eccentricity. It's amusing for a while, but your protestations are becoming increasingly vacuous.

I'd advise no one to follow Jim's rear brake guidance when descending if there is a busy side road at the bottom of the hill.


----------



## gaz (22 Jun 2010)

indicate with the leg?


----------



## GrasB (22 Jun 2010)

jimboalee, the problem with the rear brake is that it's effectiveness is heavily dependent on where your body weight is, so it's fine for feathering speed on a descent but certainly is NOT the brake of choice when coming to a stop. This is the very reason I have my front brake on my *left* hand. I can signal right, which is a much more important signal than the indication of turning left, & have a consistently performing brake to stop with. I've yet to have a problem with going over the handlebars when braking heavily with the front brake but a rear lockup & thus loss of direction/stability is a much more pressing issue.


----------



## jimboalee (23 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> I've helpfully highlighted the only flash of lucidity in the above post. The rest of your remarks are characterised by irrelevance, twaddle, strawmen and eccentricity. It's amusing for a while, but your protestations are becoming increasingly vacuous.
> 
> I'd advise no one to follow Jim's rear brake guidance when descending if there is a busy side road at the bottom of the hill.



Here's a guy who can speak chapter and verse on Road safety and legislation; and quote merrily from Franklin's 'Cyclecraft', but he openly admits he does not know the full capability of the brakes on his own bike.

He might be riding a 'death trap'. He doesn't know, he's never tested it.

I'd advise no one to follow Origamist's roadcraft advice. He sits at his computer instructing us all the 'safest way' to ride a bicycle on the road, when he rides round on an 'unknown quantity'.

This is what could be described as an 'Armchair cyclist'.


And for what it's worth before you all start shouting "I never use only one brake, I always use both".
There might be a time when ( I'm temped to say 'I hope' ) the front brake cable fails on YOUR bike.


----------



## davidg (23 Jun 2010)

I would be on the pavement...is that tertiary?


----------



## jimboalee (23 Jun 2010)

> Jim
> 
> Perhaps you could list the braking distances of your bikes, using either and both brakes, in a wide variety of conditions? One decimal place will do.



What is the point of that?

You don't ride my bikes and you're probably a lot heavier than me,,,


----------



## jimboalee (23 Jun 2010)

I can do the standing 1/4 mile in 34 seconds, if that helps?


----------



## jimboalee (23 Jun 2010)

> Don't you know?



No. What IS the point of it?


----------



## Origamist (23 Jun 2010)

Jim, I’m sure you’ve convinced many cyclists and armchair cyclists who read this forum of the merits of your rear-brake, arm-waving descent strategy when approaching a busy side road; sadly, I’m not one of them. 

A few things:

1. I check my brakes (and adjust them if need be) before every ride. 

2. I’d hazard I have quoted from Cyclecraft approx 3 times out of nearly 
3000 posts. Whereas you regale us with shaggy dog stories every other post.

3. Admitting you do not know something is not a sign of weakness, Jim. It’s why I was hoping you’d be able to give us more detail on your peculiar bike handling advice. It may have had merit, but you’ve diverted us into the realm of “armchair cyclists”, “death traps”, and general whimsy. 

I could go on, but it would only contribute further to the downward trajectory of this thread. I'm outta here.


----------



## Bollo (23 Jun 2010)

davidg said:


> I would be on the pavement...is that tertiary?



In the ensuing handbags, I feel this didn't get the recognition it deserved, so.......


----------



## Riding in Circles (23 Jun 2010)

What's a rear brake?


----------



## dondare (23 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Here's a guy who can speak chapter and verse on Road safety and legislation; and quote merrily from Franklin's 'Cyclecraft', but he openly admits he does not know the full capability of the brakes on his own bike.
> 
> He might be riding a 'death trap'. He doesn't know, he's never tested it.
> 
> ...



I tried being an armchair cyclist but fell foul of forum rules. So it's back to being an old duffer.


----------



## BentMikey (23 Jun 2010)

Catrike UK said:


> What's a rear brake?



'kin dangerous on your tricycle!!


----------



## jimboalee (23 Jun 2010)

The trouble with me is I'm out on my bike so often, I don't have time to read all the books and glossies on 'How to ride a bike'.

Maybe I should go an a training course and get one of those delicately written certificates which says

"This man can ride a bicycle".

I'll put it in the cabinet with all my AUK medals and badges.

Then when friends and relatives call round, they can say "Your'e a REAL cyclist now. You now know how to 'get in the way' properly".


----------



## dondare (23 Jun 2010)

Strangely, I find time to do both.
(And hold down a full-time job &c.)


----------



## marzjennings (23 Jun 2010)

Catrike UK said:


> What's a rear brake?



When I used to ride around on a Ross Trice the rear brake was part of the steering arrangement. 

Same is sort of true on my mountain bike wear a touch of back brake can sometimes help correct a corner going wrong.


----------



## BentMikey (23 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> The trouble with me is I'm out on my bike so often, I don't have time to read all the books and glossies on 'How to ride a bike'.



That's why you talk such rubbish, is it?


----------



## GrasB (23 Jun 2010)

marzjennings said:


> When I used to ride around on a Ross Trice the rear brake was part of the steering arrangement.
> 
> Same is sort of true on my mountain bike wear a touch of back brake can sometimes help correct a corner going wrong.


Reminds me of - It's not a hand brake, that's a yaw adjustment lever!


----------



## dondare (23 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> The trouble with me is I'm out on my bike so often, I don't have time to read all the books and glossies on 'How to ride a bike'.
> 
> Maybe I should go an a training course and get one of those delicately written certificates which says
> 
> ...



"Has satisfied examiners that he can ignore traffic lights; ride up one-way streets in the wrong direction and use an untaxed vehicle on the public roads."


----------



## hambones (23 Jun 2010)

Jimboalee - the trick is just to see the funny side in what others post and remember that they are just people giving their own opinions. Some of the advice offered from people on here is hilarious and doesn't reflect the reality of cycling at all. Just smile to yourself and pedal on...


----------



## davidg (23 Jun 2010)

cheers, Bollo. At least someone liked it!


----------



## jimboalee (24 Jun 2010)

hambones said:


> Jimboalee - the trick is just to see the funny side in what others post and remember that they are just people giving their own opinions. Some of the advice offered from people on here is hilarious and doesn't reflect the reality of cycling at all. Just smile to yourself and pedal on...



I am seeing the funny side.

My new Shimano RS-Eighty wheels arrived yesterday and they are now on my SWorks.

I'll be off work early tomorrow and able to get over to the Hagley Road at the Kings Arms XRDS to intercept Mr Paul.

I wonder if he'll see the funny side when I scalp him good and proper


----------



## jimboalee (24 Jun 2010)

> You'll be too busy marking out your braking distances at each junction to scalp anyone.



I've been thinking about this.

To claim a 'scalp' the scalper has to be older and the scalper's bike has to be heavier.

Seeing you are less than half my age ( still wet behind the ears and have a hell of a lot yet to learn ), I'll relax the bike weight rule.


----------



## jimboalee (24 Jun 2010)

> You're 80?????
> 
> I'd let you win.



You're 40???

And you still babble like a child.....


----------



## jimboalee (24 Jun 2010)

Sorry Mr Paul. I had you at a mental age of 25.

Just qualified a Masters Degree in a subject that was NOT cycling.


----------



## dondare (24 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Sorry Mr Paul. I had you at a mental age of 25.
> 
> Just qualified a Masters Degree in a subject that was NOT cycling.



That puts you at 50+ which I wouldn't have guessed.


----------



## Crackle (24 Jun 2010)

I know where you're coming from Jimbo ( I think). I've been riding a bike on the roads so long I've developed my own style of riding. In some cases it's better in other cases it just works but I would be hard pressed to teach it to someone else. I'm never likely to buy Cyclecraft or read it but it's also never too late to learn and I've changed some of my habits or at least tried different things as a result of others experiences on here. I do wonder sometimes if 'primary' is being overused by some people but it's impossible to judge unless you ride the same roads. I do know there are better riders than me on here, in terms of good technique but I'd like to think I'm as good as anyone at protecting myself on the road when I need to.

You back brake stopping was interesting. I'm reminded of a downhill in the dark with a right turn at the end on a road which was coned for roadworks. The surface was chewed up and I was committed to the middle of the lane to make the turn with a car coming up behind me. I deemed it essential to signal to him that I was both slowing and turning and as I couldn't see anything beyond the headlights I kept up the signal until I could filter off or was sure he knew my intentions, which was roughly when I filtered off but braking one handed over a rough surface was challenging.


----------



## dondare (24 Jun 2010)

I have developed instincts which cannot be learned from a book and techniques which I wouldn't advise anyone to emulate but I still read "how to ride a bike properly" books and articles. 
Don't always agree with them, any more than I agree with you lot.


----------



## blockend (24 Jun 2010)

Alarms bells went off when message board posters spoke without irony of using the middle of the lane as the normal place to be, unless there was some pressing reason not to be there. 

I read Cyclecraft donkey's years ago not long after it came out - though still a remaindered copy - and saw nothing surprising in the advice, though the descriptions were long winded and I failed to see how volatile and transient conditions could be translated by borderline pedantry and line drawings. What I failed to notice was the new gift of the middle of the road people began talking about. 

Experienced cyclists will always spend periods of their journey in exposed positions for a variety of reasons but taking up residence there will bring you a whole heap of trouble. Unless you're the kind of person who sees themselves on a mission and other road user's bile as fuel for your cause, general primary ownership will not make you faster or safer.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Jun 2010)

Blockend, that post shows only how much you've misinterpreted cyclecraft.


----------



## Origamist (24 Jun 2010)

On cycling fora (where self-selection plays an important part), the concept of primary position seems to have taken on an almost totemic status in the minds of both its fervent champions and keenest critics. For me, it’s just another lateral position in the road to be deployed when necessary.


----------



## dondare (24 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Blockend, that post shows only how much you've misinterpreted cyclecraft.



Calling a middle-of-lane position "Primary" invites misinterpretation.


----------



## blockend (24 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> Calling a middle-of-lane position "Primary" invites misinterpretation.



Absolutely.


----------



## jimboalee (24 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> On cycling fora (where self-selection plays an important part), the concept of primary position seems to have taken on an almost totemic status in the minds of both its fervent champions and keenest critics. For me, it’s just another lateral position in the road to be deployed when necessary.



I though you'd gone and weren't coming back?? 

You're right, just another position to utilise when the circumcstance dictates.

See Jimbos rule 3.

Everyone has their own measure. 
Some read books and obey them like 'the gospel according to St XXXXX".
Some read books and think "interesting, but I feel safe with what I'm doing already".
Some read very few books.

The last book I read on cycling was "Dancing uphill". Only because my LBS lady lent it to me.
Inside the front dustcover were some black and white photos from before the war.
In one photo was Sgt. J. C. Lee of the RAF cycling team.

"Jim, you're the spitting image of your uncle".


----------



## blockend (24 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> For me, it’s just another lateral position in the road to be deployed when necessary.



Indeed.


----------



## jimboalee (24 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> Calling a middle-of-lane position "Primary" invites misinterpretation.



So why didn't Franklin follow the motorcyclist's existing terminology of 'Nearside' and 'Dominant'?


----------



## Origamist (24 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> I though you'd gone and weren't coming back??
> 
> You're right, just another position to utilise when the circumcstance dictates.
> 
> ...



Luckily for you, it was only a 24 hour self-exile, Jim. Spending too much time in commuting is a dirty business and I needed time to cleanse myself.


----------



## Bollo (24 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> Luckily for you, it was only a 24 hour self-exile, Jim. Spending too much time in commuting is a dirty business and I needed time to cleanse myself, now and again.



Nothing without a video


----------



## BentMikey (24 Jun 2010)

I've yet to see anyone provide any real and useful Cyclecraft criticism showing where JF gets it wrong.


----------



## Origamist (24 Jun 2010)

Bollo said:


> Nothing without a video



Great idea - an educational aid (in glorious HD with some "informative" POV shots) on best practice vis-a-vis the application of Sudocrem, pre-ride...


----------



## Origamist (24 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> So why didn't Franklin follow the motorcyclist's existing terminology of 'Nearside' and 'Dominant'?



This is one of your more astute observations. Why don't you ask him?
PM me if you want his email - he has never failed to reply to me.


----------



## blockend (24 Jun 2010)

An example of why pragmatism wins out over line drawings. One morning about a year ago I was approaching a junction onto the ring road of a local town taking what's called primary, because it was the position with most benefit to me as a cyclist.
However the engine note of a following car and the rapid changes through the gear box gave me, for purely instinctive reasons, the idea to pull in well to the left. The car came past at perhaps, 60mph (we were in 30) with no care for my positioning and proceeded to take the roundabout in the wrong direction, mostly on two wheels. A police siren followed 30 seconds later.

I have no proof that I'd have ended up as collateral damage in a car chase if I'd held my ground but I believe it to be so, because there was no safe zone for the driver and I was the softest target. This is an obvious example on a scale of brinkmanship but there are common ones where instinct leads a cyclist to places no amount of Cyclecraft can legislate for. It would be better if _except_ and _unless_ were spelt out in bigger letters to stop newbies taking the thing down as writ, then broadcasting it to the rest of us.


----------



## magnatom (24 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> This is one of your more astute observations. Why don't you ask him?
> PM me if you want his email - he has never failed to reply to me.




Do you know John personally? I've always thought it would be interesting to get his insights into some of my and others videos.


----------



## jimboalee (24 Jun 2010)

Let's get this right???

'Primary' is the position on the road where the cyclist is in control of the lane and following vehicles cannot ( or would be foolish to ) pass.

'Secondary' is the position on the road where the cyclist is making a minimal obstruction to traffic.


These, to me are the same as Dominant and Nearside, which were terms in use many years before Franklin published his novel.


I have scanned CycleCraft. It contains much of what I learned on a Moped training course in the mid seventies.

I ride my pedal cycle in the same manner as I would ride a restricted Moped. A Jawa Babetta I bought in a fit of madness in 1979.
It was £79.99 and did 25 mph maximum.


----------



## Origamist (24 Jun 2010)

magnatom said:


> Do you know John personally? I've always thought it would be interesting to get his insights into some of my and others videos.



I have heard him speak and have contacted him in the past, but he's not made it onto my Christmas card list just yet...

I imagine much of his time is taken up with his work as an expert witness at trials etc.


----------



## magnatom (24 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> I have heard him speak and have contacted him in the past, but he's not made it onto Christmas card list just yet...
> 
> I imagine much of his time is taken up with his work as an expert witness at trials etc.




Aye, that's why I have never bothered to ask. It certainly would be interesting to find out his take on it though.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Jun 2010)

blockend said:


> An example of why pragmatism wins out over line drawings. One morning about a year ago I was approaching a junction onto the ring road of a local town taking what's called primary, because it was the position with most benefit to me as a cyclist.
> However the engine note of a following car and the rapid changes through the gear box gave me, for purely instinctive reasons, the idea to pull in well to the left. The car came past at perhaps, 60mph (we were in 30) with no care for my positioning and proceeded to take the roundabout in the wrong direction, mostly on two wheels. A police siren followed 30 seconds later.
> 
> I have no proof that I'd have ended up as collateral damage in a car chase if I'd held my ground but I believe it to be so, because there was no safe zone for the driver and I was the softest target. This is an obvious example on a scale of brinkmanship but there are common ones where instinct leads a cyclist to places no amount of Cyclecraft can legislate for. It would be better if _except_ and _unless_ were spelt out in bigger letters to stop newbies taking the thing down as writ, then broadcasting it to the rest of us.



This is very good Cyclecraft, exactly as advised in the book. Your misunderstanding again, I'm afraid.


----------



## gaz (24 Jun 2010)

blockend said:


> It would be better if _except_ and _unless_ were spelt out in bigger letters to stop newbies taking the thing down as writ, then broadcasting it to the rest of us.


I don't think anyone 'broadcasting' here is a newbie


----------



## jimboalee (24 Jun 2010)

blockend said:


> An example of why pragmatism wins out over line drawings. One morning about a year ago I was approaching a junction onto the ring road of a local town taking what's called primary, because it was the position with most benefit to me as a cyclist.
> However the engine note of a following car and the rapid changes through the gear box gave me, for purely instinctive reasons, the idea to pull in well to the left. The car came past at perhaps, 60mph (we were in 30) with no care for my positioning and proceeded to take the roundabout in the wrong direction, mostly on two wheels. A police siren followed 30 seconds later.
> 
> I have no proof that I'd have ended up as collateral damage in a car chase if I'd held my ground but I believe it to be so, because there was no safe zone for the driver and I was the softest target. This is an obvious example on a scale of brinkmanship but there are common ones where instinct leads a cyclist to places no amount of Cyclecraft can legislate for. It would be better if _except_ and _unless_ were spelt out in bigger letters to stop newbies taking the thing down as writ, then broadcasting it to the rest of us.



This happened to me once. The high pitch of a revving engine and wailing of police sirens to my rear.
I didn't need to recall advice in a book, I got off the road bloody pronto.

In a situation like this, and if I'd thought quicker, I could have picked up the pot of flowers in the adjacent garden and tossed it through the car's ( not the police car, stupid ) windscreen.

"Cyclist assists Police in apprehending Bank Robbers. Bank gives £10,000 reward".....


----------



## Origamist (24 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Let's get this right???
> 
> 'Primary' is the position on the road where the cyclist is in control of the lane and following vehicles cannot ( or would be foolish to ) pass.
> 
> ...



Yes, it's taken a while, but you're picking things up as we go along. 




jimboalee said:


> This happened to me once. The high pitch of a revving engine and wailing of police sirens to my rear.
> I didn't need to recall advice in a book, I got off the road bloody pronto.



Let me spin your crude "book vs experience" dichotomy a different way: you don't have to read (and/or admire the pics) in the _Karma Sutra_ in order to have sex, but you might learn some new positions, tips and tricks if you do...


----------



## blockend (24 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> This is very good Cyclecraft, exactly as advised in the book. Your misunderstanding again, I'm afraid.



On the contrary, "I read Cyclecraft donkey's years ago not long after it came out...*and saw nothing surprising in the advice...**What I failed to notice was the new gift of the middle of the road people began talking about.*"

It's splendid that JF is taken seriously enough to be involved as an expert witness at inquests and the like. It would give my nearest and dearest comfort to know I had the right to be in the middle of the road. However I have no inclination to exercise that right as fulsomely as message board contributors suggest and am happy riding 'secondary' as a default and 'primary' when under threat.

This is old news no doubt but one cyclist's notion of threat is different from another's. A manoeuvre that takes two seconds to undertake on the open road, for better or worse, might be analysed through pages of counter argument on here and still no clear decision on its merits reached. For that reason I take instinct, particularly survival, seriously enough to let it override theory on a regular basis.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Jun 2010)

My point was more that you derided Cyclecraft, and tried to show how your instinct was "better", when it was just Cyclecraft exactly as per expert theory and practice.


----------



## blockend (24 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> My point was more that you derided Cyclecraft, and tried to show how your instinct was "better", when it was just Cyclecraft exactly as per expert theory and practice.



I missed the chapter on fleeing bank robbers but the point I was attempting to make was my initial reading of Cyclecraft didn't reveal any of the later interpretations that aggregated around it, especially the one that cyclists belong in the middle of the lane unless they feel 'safe', versions of which regularly recur on message boards.

The terms_ primary_ and _secondary_ are misleading if that simplistic interpretation was the one Franklin intended, which I suspect wasn't the case. As someone suggested earlier, the terminology has gained totemic status with riders using the inference to support their chosen riding style.

It's clearly to the advantage of all cyclists that we have legal support in taking a prominent position to control aspects of traffic flow where necessary, but adds to the demonisation of riders when that control takes on a polemical spin. Personally I feel cyclists should be able to ride where the hell they like in a lane so long as they're aware of the full consequences of that decision. An unfocussed sense of danger (surely the only intelligent response to cycling on the highway) is not in itself a justification to hog the road, IMO, whereas thoughtless driving certainly is. 
In those nuances the argument lies.


----------



## jimboalee (24 Jun 2010)

http://www.amazon.com/Sloanes-Complete-Book-Bicycling-Anniversary/dp/0671870750#noop

Here’s the book on my shelf.

Let me quote…

“To go straight ahead to cross the intersection when the light turns green, move to the center of the traffic lane. That way you will be visible to drivers from all directions. You can accelerate across the intersection about as fast as a car. Once across, move back to the right ( left in the UK, Japan, Australia, Ireland and the Isle of Man ) side of the road where it is safest.”

“To turn left ( right in the UK, Japan, Australia, Ireland and the Isle of Man ) at a two lane intersection, stay in the center of the vehicle lane and make your turn when you get the green, as if you were a car. Get back to the right ( Left in the UK, Japan, Australia, Ireland and the Isle of Man ) side of the road as soon as possible.”


Notice..; No naming parts of the carriageway, and I understood Eugene's meanings immediately.

Mine's the 1995 25th Anniversary edition.

Eugene also says;
"On any street, road, trail or lane, keep in mind Sloane's first rule of bicycle safety: Always be alert, never assume anything, and above all give the right of way to anyone who asks for it. Never argue, do not give the finger to anyone, for you know not what fury you might unleash. Do not even fight for the right of way with a pedstrian. let 'em go their way, you go yours when its safe."


----------



## blockend (24 Jun 2010)

> "feeling safe" isn't helpful because it draws away from the method of riding, and is too subjective to be any use.



Agreed. As with all instruction manuals that refer to complex problems, they necessarily assume a certain level of familiarity with the issues - a subject discussed exhaustively in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - otherwise terms like 'your own safety' are meaningless.


----------



## gaz (24 Jun 2010)

Following on from paul's good example of holding a strong position.
A few things i have to say about me holding primary for quite some time.

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRONsqlL1q8


----------



## blockend (24 Jun 2010)

> Positioning comments?



V. nice. Perhaps a few more rear obs but you won't be failing the blockend test.


----------



## blockend (24 Jun 2010)

gaz said:


> Following on from paul's good example of holding a strong position.
> A few things i have to say about me holding primary for quite some time.
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRONsqlL1q8




Filtering too fast in the final quarter. You could have been doored by any of the cars and the ped looked like he was about to step into the road. Admittedly wide angle cams give a poor perception of true speed.


----------



## gaz (24 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> Go up the RHS next time when filtering slow moving traffic.


case by case i think. In this case probably better because of the stopped car. But normally i wouldn't because there is a right turn just before the lights.


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jun 2010)

> Positioning comments?



That's a video of what can be seen from the helmet of a cyclist as he/she rides his/her bike down a road.

Brings back happy memories of the past forty years summer commuting. Pleasant sunshine, moderate traffic volumes and sticky dry road surface.

Am I supposed to be objecting about the guy/gal's road positioning?

Seems you wasted your time digging out a suitable video.

Ho, hum.


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> Go up the RHS next time when filtering slow moving traffic.



I don't think the cyclist was near the Royal Horticultural Society. It looks like somewhere in Edgbaston, Brum.


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jun 2010)

I commuted on my SWorks this morning.

22.5 miles in 1hr 18mins.

I tried to ride in 'primary' somewhere near the middle of the lane for the whole trip, moving over to 'secondary' when I heared a vehicle approaching.

Solihull to Warwick. SIX vehicles passed me 

Warwick to Gaydon. Aston Martin 6 o'clock assembly workers RUSHING along ( as they ALWAYS do ), so I didn't spend too much time in 'Primary'.


I tell you, between Solihull and Warwick, on this still and quiet Friday morning, I could have ridden down the center line, zig-zagging in and out of the white lines. 

22.5 mile non-stop. Can't be bad.

To be quite blunt Mr Paul. I couldn't give a toss where 'primary' is, or even where 'secondary' is. I'll ride where I deem to be the most appropriate place for the situation, not where someone else says I should.


----------



## BentMikey (25 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> I'll ride where I deem to be the most appropriate place for the situation, not where someone else says I should.




Thanks for your honesty, Jim. I believe this is the crux of the matter with all the cyclecraft critics. "I'm an excellent rider, don't you DARE to tell me how to ride".


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (25 Jun 2010)

Positioning put simply

SHARE the road. You do not own it. Nor are you a guest on it.


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jun 2010)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> Positioning put simply
> 
> SHARE the road. You do not own it. *Nor are you a guest on it*.



Oh yes you are.

Her Majesty the Queen owns the road and it is only by her good grace and the permission of her government and Policing forces that YOU are allowed to use it.


----------



## Origamist (25 Jun 2010)

_Cyclecraft_ doesn't foist strict rules upon cyclists where road positioning is concerned - it offers advice, guidance and tips. It enshrines the received wisdom with regard to best practice that has accreted over many decades and is still evolving. 

Remember: "a cyclist is too vulnerable to follow rigid rules irrespective of the danger to himself" (now look what you've made me do, quote Franklin!).

Cyclists have always and will continue to interpret the text as they see fit given the road conditions they find.


----------



## dondare (25 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Oh yes you are.
> 
> Her Majesty the Queen owns the road and it is only by her good grace and the permission of her government and Policing forces that YOU are allowed to use it.



Aren't the roads, by and large, "public estate"?


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> Aren't the roads, by and large, "public estate"?



If they were, the Queen would need to register her car.

One is not required to register a motorised vehicle if its intended use is solely on one's own property.


----------



## BentMikey (25 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Thanks for your honesty, Jim. I believe this is the crux of the matter with all the cyclecraft critics. "I'm an excellent rider, don't you DARE to tell me how to ride".



...is what I posted earlier.


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> I don't think the cyclist was near the Royal Horticultural Society. It looks like somewhere in Edgbaston, Brum.



IT IS 

Its Edgbaston Park Rd.

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&l...oid=wONqRPVtCx0tuxIzS0ffiA&cbp=12,232.06,,0,5

Mr Paul is ASKING for a scalping


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (25 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Oh yes you are.
> 
> Her Majesty the Queen owns the road and it is only by her good grace and the permission of her government and Policing forces that YOU are allowed to use it.



OK let's be pedantic to miss the point completely. When was the last time the Queen rammed you off the road?

Within the context* of the thread it ought to have been quite obvious that being a guest referred to a guest of the body of people collectively known as "motorists"

Would you rather every post came with a lot of clauses and subsections?
_
*something which, for some reason, many people seem to be completely incapable of understanding once they sit in front of a computer, to the extent that one might consider to be deliberate in order to win fictional points on a fictional scoreboard_


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jun 2010)

> And this is where you're having the problem. Cyclecraft is telling you how to ride, so you don't like it. But it's only telling you to do what you say here that you are doing. Puzzling then that it bothers you so much. Is it just because different language is being used?



I went on a leisure ride about fifteen years ago which started in Selly Oak Park and went to Hartlebury Castle to see a veteran cycle meeting. The ride was organised by PushBikes when they were in Allison St.

On the ride, there was this annoying kid about ten years younger than me who wittered on about the correct position on the road, and got quite frustrated when riders went into three abreast in the country lanes.

Was that you?


----------



## blockend (25 Jun 2010)

There are clearly two versions of Cyclecraft, the original one that raised barely a murmer, and the internet age version that cyclists beat each other around the head and neck with.
I prefer the first edition, it matches what I do.


----------



## BentMikey (25 Jun 2010)

Yes it is, Mr P.


----------



## BentMikey (25 Jun 2010)

Perhaps it means I'm biased?


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jun 2010)

> No, that was my brother.
> 
> I was the one laughing at your plus-fours.



No, that was Dougie Pinkerton in the pluses. The chap on the Penny, remember?


----------

