Doubling Up On Road

[col]

Not you!

Was referring to freecycle's repeated posts demanding an exact measurement of how far one should ride away from he pavement.

Various people answered in various tones, but he took exception to every single person, accusing everyone of "refusing to give him a straight answer", when it's pretty much a "how long is a piece of string?" situation.

Ah I see, when you quoted me in your answer it was a natural mistake

 

[col]

We've missed you.

Really? thank you very much, nice of you to say

 

[lukesdad]

Good thanks, Iv been very busy with work and things. Hence my absence.

Nice to have you back

 

[MissTillyFlop]

I would ride secondary and let the traffic go past me.
Thats my opinion.
It is contrary to what mrpauls ideology prescribes the correct action to be.
My riding dosnt vary that much depending on if theres any debris on the ground to the point that i am paralysed from giving an opinion based on hyperthetical sceenario.
I wont be taking anyone to court for wrong advice.

I would judge it on those things.

If I am going slowly, then I will usually get out of the way, unless it poses a risk to me in any way.

If I am coming to the top of a steep hill, then I will pull over at the top.

If I am going at speed, especially downhill, then I wil gradually pull over, as to avoid skidding.

But if it's in the countryside, the vast majority of drivers hold back until there is more room than absolutely needed.

City driving, I will drive about a meter and a half from the kerb, so I have enough room on case of emergency.

BUT I live in London and 90%of my journey is in bus or cycle lanes, so of you live somewhere without these, I dunno.

 

[MissTillyFlop]

Ah I see, when you quoted me in your answer it was a natural mistake

I can see that. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[lukesdad]

Mr paul has said cars should not overtake a cyclist unless they can do it !00% in the opposite lane.
I am asking with reference to the above ;
If you were cycling down a road with no oncoming traffic.
Due to cars parked partly on the opposite carriageway cars attempting to overtake can only utilise 2/3rds of the opposite lane , therefore they would have to dip into your (the cyclists) lane by 1/3rd to be able to overtake.
Under mrpauls theoretical ideology an overtake should not be done under said conditions.
I am asking what would you do - ride secondary and allow the cars to overtake.
or
enforce the no overtaking by riding primary.
And for those prevaricating about potholes and suchlike theres one 2 inch pothole about 15 yards but shoudnt be a problem , fingers crossed.
anyone got the minerals to actually offer an opinion.

Well if they are concerned about their safety and considerate they might stop or at least pull in........ nah ! not these road warriors, they re made of sturner stuff.

 

[freecyclist]

The militant cycling defense of cycling 2 abreast goes - a pair of cyclists riding 2 abreast is no more difficult to overtake that a single cyclist because with either you should overtake entirely in the opposite carriageway.
And a single cyclist should ride in primary to prevent overtaking if 100% of the opposite carriageway is not available for overtaking. Even if overtaking would be possible if the cyclist went into secondary.
Anyway it seems like madness to me and rather disturbing that the majority seem to be convinced by it.
No wonder cyclists are unpopular.

 

[lukesdad]

The militant cycling defense of cycling 2 abreast goes - a pair of cyclists riding 2 abreast is no more difficult to overtake that a single cyclist because with either you should overtake entirely in the opposite carriageway.
And a single cyclist should ride in primary to prevent overtaking if 100% of the opposite carriageway is not available for overtaking. Even if overtaking would be possible if the cyclist went into secondary.
Anyway it seems like madness to me and rather disturbing that the majority seem to be convinced by it.
No wonder cyclists are unpopular.

What majority ? A dozen or so on a forum of thousands. Hardly a majority is it ?

 

[MissTillyFlop]

The militant cycling defense of cycling 2 abreast goes - a pair of cyclists riding 2 abreast is no more difficult to overtake that a single cyclist because with either you should overtake entirely in the opposite carriageway.
And a single cyclist should ride in primary to prevent overtaking if 100% of the opposite carriageway is not available for overtaking. Even if overtaking would be possible if the cyclist went into secondary.
Anyway it seems like madness to me and rather disturbing that the majority seem to be convinced by it.
No wonder cyclists are unpopular.

TBH, as much as anyone says otherwise, there have been very few situations I have seen where people riding 2 abreast haven't moved over when it's meant that a car (or even another cyclist can go through), as to be fair, riding with a car up your bum isn't pleasant for the driver, the cyclists or anyone else involved. It's a much a natural reflex as anything.

As I mentioned before, when you riding in a group, if there is room for a car to pass with a couple feet room, then everyone will move in timely them past.

It's not a legal requirement to do so, but the vast majority of cyclists do anyway.

 

[freecyclist]

Well if they are concerned about their safety and considerate they might stop or at least pull in........ nah ! not these road warriors, they re made of sturner stuff.

The thing is its safe to let the cars overtake if you ride in secondary, yeh. But the philosphy says that cars should not overtake unless they can do it 100% in the oncoming alne , so if theres an obstacle on the verge meaning any overtaking car would have to overtake part in the cyclists lane then technicLlly that should not be permitted.
Its safe but should not be permitted and therefore the cyclist should ride in primary as a matter of principle to assert the correct course ot things , which is if you cant do it 100% in oncoming lane im not letting you do it at all.
Imho madness.
Move to secondary - cars pass safely - everybodys happy.
I hope its just theroretical gusto and people like mr paul dont really cyle about with massive tailbacks of cars behind them.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Mr paul has said cars should not overtake a cyclist unless they can do it !00% in the opposite lane.
I am asking with reference to the above ;
If you were cycling down a road with no oncoming traffic.
Due to cars parked partly on the opposite carriageway cars attempting to overtake can only utilise 2/3rds of the opposite lane , therefore they would have to dip into your (the cyclists) lane by 1/3rd to be able to overtake.
Under mrpauls theoretical ideology an overtake should not be done under said conditions.
I am asking what would you do - ride secondary and allow the cars to overtake.
or
enforce the no overtaking by riding primary.
And for those prevaricating about potholes and suchlike theres one 2 inch pothole about 15 yards but shoudnt be a problem , fingers crossed.
anyone got the minerals to actually offer an opinion.

You haven't said how wide the carriageway is on my side of the road. (Probably lots of other important parameters missing as well.)

Oh, and you might want to read this: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

 

[col]

The militant cycling defense of cycling 2 abreast goes - a pair of cyclists riding 2 abreast is no more difficult to overtake that a single cyclist because with either you should overtake entirely in the opposite carriageway.
And a single cyclist should ride in primary to prevent overtaking if 100% of the opposite carriageway is not available for overtaking. Even if overtaking would be possible if the cyclist went into secondary.
Anyway it seems like madness to me and rather disturbing that the majority seem to be convinced by it.
No wonder cyclists are unpopular.

I would give up on this freecyclist. There is a time to use your position for safety, and a time when moving over or stopping is the sensible thing to do for all concerned. Which I believe is the normal everyday one. But your never going to get this over to some who will use all sorts of excuses as an argument not to. In real life we dont get a full lane as we are overtaken, we get a close pass most of the time. in fact most times not as close as when we filter down queues of traffic, but then thats another debate

 

[freecyclist]

What majority ? A dozen or so on a forum of thousands. Hardly a majority is it ?

Well majority of voices heard .
Maybe the normal cyclists just keep there heads down.

 

[col]

Nice to have you back

Thanks Lukesdad

 

[freecyclist]

I would give up on this freecyclist. There is a time to use your position for safety, and a time when moving over or stopping is the sensible thing to do for all concerned. Which I believe is the normal everyday one. But your never going to get this over to some who will use all sorts of excuses as an argument not to. In real life we dont get a full lane as we are overtaken, we get a close pass most of the time. in fact most times not as close as when we filter down queues of traffic, but then thats another debate

Good advice.
As you say we seldom get a full lane pass so to propose cycling in primary to deliberately prevent motorists behind from passing that could safely pass if you were in secondary seems to me to be just misguided and not to be recommended.
Anyway thanks for the voice of sanity .