Doubling Up On Road

[MissTillyFlop]

Hey we all plough our own furrow.

Thankfully, yes.

 

[freecyclist]

[QUOTE 1588484"]
I've not said that.


I will control the road around me as much as possible to minimise the risk of dangerous overtakes. If this means preventing cars from overtaking until it's safe to do so then I will, and that's the right thing to do.


Again, I've not said that I do.




[/quote]

Yes you did
. freecyclist, on 26 October 2011 - 12:20:45, said: So ; cyclist (solo or single file group) riding in secondary.
No oncoming traffic.
Parked cars encroaching onto opposite lane.
car cannot overtake completely in opposite lane but could comfortable overtake one third in cyclists lane and 2 thirds opposite lane.
Can the car go past ?"
You replied ;
"No.
You shouldn't overtake. "
?

 

[MissTillyFlop]

Yes you did
. freecyclist, on 26 October 2011 - 12:20:45, said: So ; cyclist (solo or single file group) riding in secondary.
No oncoming traffic.
Parked cars encroaching onto opposite lane.
car cannot overtake completely in opposite lane but could comfortable overtake one third in cyclists lane and 2 thirds opposite lane.
Can the car go past ?"
You replied ;
"No.
You shouldn't overtake. "
?

Sorry to wade in here. But he's said that you shouldn't try to overtake. He hasn't said he will actively try to stop you from doing so. Unless you have some form of telepathical skills that I am not party to.

 

[freecyclist]

[QUOTE 1588487"]
Where's the evidence of these fundamentalists? You wouldn't be pushing people into that extreme to give you more grip on your argument would you? Because that is the work of a troll.
[/quote]
Invariably ime accusing others of being a troll is just a cowardly and lazy way of trying to shut someone else up.
I will give you the benefit to presume that you dont intend to go their.

 

[Origamist]

I realise that any special interest forum is naturally going to attract its share of militants and extremists but the philosophy that you should actively prevent cars from overtaking unless their is a 100% clear opposite carriageway even when safe to do so like in my 1/3 2/3 situation is a brand of cycling fundamentalism that is quite new to me.
I am curious to know do you really put this militancy into practice or is it just harmless cyberbased bravado.
If you really cycle along in primary at the head of a line of traffic that could otherwise pass quite safely if you were in secondary , on the grounds that overtaking cars would have to dip into your carriageway then isnt that just going to piss motorists off unnecessarily and actually increase the danger of an enraged motorist driving in a way that might endanger your safety.
I dont see that it is a good idea for you , the motorist or society.

The only militancy on this thread appears to be coming from you. Most people disagreeing with you understand the character and etiquette of group riding and are merely pragmatists prepared to ride assertively when required - this is not extreme behaviour, but a sensible precaution borne of experience.

 

[freecyclist]

[QUOTE 1588493"]
Nope.

I explained to you how cars should overtake bikes.

I explained to you the good practice of controlling your road space when cycling.

You've mixed up the two and come to the wrong conclusion.



[/quote]

Ok well clearly i havnt understood what youve said so can you clarify.
No oncoming traffic.
Parked cars encroaching onto opposite lane.
Cars cannot overtake 100% completely in opposite lane but could comfortable overtake one third in cyclists lane and 2 thirds opposite lane.
Should cyclist adopt secondary thereby allowing motorists to go past
or
Should cyclist adopt primary thereby preventing motorists from going past.

 

[Red Light]

Hey we all plough our own furrow.

Yes and yours is heading downwards at a high rate of knots and you are still digging!

 

[rowan 46]

for years I cycled in the gutter thinking I was being polite and safe and wondering why I got so many close passes at pinch points and near left hooks. I then read cycle craft and realised the reason was because I wasn't controlling my space. Over the years since I read and applied the message of the book my cycling has been a lot less hairy. It seems counter intuitive that driving in the middle of the road amongst faster traffic can be safer but it absolutely is. Most of my cycling is done in secondary for courtesy's sake as I am not a quick rider. However when the need arises I switch to primary. this is done at my discretion as previous experience tells me that some drivers are not overly concerned about my presence or safety unless I make them so. I am not overly concerned about holding up a driver as it a/ keeps me alive and b/ protects them from the guilt of injuring a person. A driver may mutter when they come across you riding primary but they won't run you over unless they are complete bastards. unfortunately riding in secondary they sometimes just don't see you

 

[freecyclist]

[QUOTE 1588498"]
None of the above. Cyclist should adopt a position so it is safe for them and the car driver behind shoud wait to safely overtake.

You have trouble understanding this so this will be my only contribution to this thread.
[/quote]

Meaningless.
What is the position that the cyclist should adopt ?

 

[freecyclist]

[QUOTE 1588494"]
Nope again.


Note that you have only responded to the easy part of that post...
[/quote]

Err yes.
You were insinuating that i was a troll.
Invariably accusing others of being a troll is just a cowardly and lazy way of trying to shut someone else up.

 

[MissTillyFlop]

Meaningless.
What is the position that the cyclist should adopt ?

What do you want? Feet and inches?

He's saying assess the situation and apply some common sense.

Is this so beyond your ken?

 

[Glow worm]

What is the position that the cyclist should adopt ?

Aaaaaaargh! Re-read several contributions above from experienced cyclists patiently trying to explain to you exactly that. Honestly, if you really haven't got it yet, I would politely invite you to switch off your computer and go and do something else.

 

[freecyclist]

[QUOTE 1588501"]
I've answered that already in my original post. I suggest you go and read it again.
[/quote]

"Cyclist should adopt a position so it is safe for them"
And where in the situation detailed is that.
Why wont anyone give a straight answer ???

 

[MissTillyFlop]

"Cyclist should adopt a position so it is safe for them"
And where in the situation detailed is that.
Why wont anyone give a straight answer ???

Because it's about personal judgement. Sorry, but we can't equip you with that.

 

[freecyclist]

Aaaaaaargh! Re-read several contributions above from experienced cyclists patiently trying to explain to you exactly that. Honestly, if you really haven't got it yet, I would politely invite you to switch off your computer and go and do something else.

Ok can you give a straight answer ???
No oncoming traffic.
Parked cars encroaching onto opposite lane.
Cars cannot overtake 100% completely in opposite lane but could comfortable overtake one third in cyclists lane and 2 thirds opposite lane.
Should cyclist adopt secondary thereby allowing motorists to go past
or
Should cyclist adopt primary thereby preventing motorists from going past.
Straight answer anybody - where on the road should cyclist be.
None of this "where its safe nonsense" where is safe ?