Doubling Up On Road

[freecyclist]

Well if Freecyclist is a troll he's done a very good job of setting us against each other. This thread seems to have got extremely tetchy amongst folks that normally seem to get on quite well and civilly .

I tried intelligent debate but people seemed more intent on petty point scoring and personal attacks so wtf cant beat them join them.
And high in the order of petty peurile point scorers is our man himself redlight. What was it you called me to make a cheap cowardly point ?

 

[snailracer]

We can construct (endless) theoretical arguments about where the safest position on the road is, or whether motorists are annoyed for good reason or not, in any given situation. However, no one person has cycled enough miles, seen or been involved in sufficient accidents (otherwise they'd be dead many times over ) to determine which argument wins out in real life.

The concept of "primary" position and when to occupy it is a concept explored in detail by John Franklin, author of Cyclecraft, whose CV can be found here.

If anyone thinks their experience, knowledge or innate genius entitles them to speak with more authority than Mr Franklin, please step forward and declare your credentials.

 

[rowan 46]

We can construct (endless) theoretical arguments about where the safest position on the road is, or whether motorists are annoyed for good reason or not, in any given situation. However, no one person has cycled enough miles, seen or been involved in sufficient accidents (otherwise they'd be dead many times over ) to determine which argument wins out in real life.

The concept of "primary" position and when to occupy it is a concept explored in detail by John Franklin, author of Cyclecraft, whose CV can be found here.

If anyone thinks their experience, knowledge or innate genius entitles them to speak with more authority than Mr Franklin, please step forward and declare your credentials.

As I said earlier I have read the book and find my cycling much more comfortable since doing so. I have rarely had a close shave when taking primary it is mainly in secondary position I get close passes mainly I guess because most drivers who do close passes don't understand how much room a cyclist needs as a safe zone.

 

[freecyclist]

We can construct (endless) theoretical arguments about where the safest position on the road is, or whether motorists are annoyed for good reason or not, in any given situation. However, no one person has cycled enough miles, seen or been involved in sufficient accidents (otherwise they'd be dead many times over ) to determine which argument wins out in real life.

The concept of "primary" position and when to occupy it is a concept explored in detail by John Franklin, author of Cyclecraft, whose CV can be found here.

If anyone thinks their experience, knowledge or innate genius entitles them to speak with more authority than Mr Franklin, please step forward and declare your credentials.

Are will still able to offer an opinion though ????
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.
I am asking what would you do - ride secondary and allow the cars to overtake.
or
enforce the idea that overtaking is only permissable if cars use 100% of the opposite carriageway by riding primary to prevent overtaking.

 

[rowan 46]

Are will still able to offer an opinion though ????
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.
I am asking what would you do - ride secondary and allow the cars to overtake.
or
enforce the idea that overtaking is only permissable if cars use 100% of the opposite carriageway by riding primary to prevent overtaking.

cycling in birmingham at least chelmsley wood I have rarely ever had a car move completely into the opposite lane to overtake so I guess for me the answer is yes. But this is my decision not a drivers right. I maintain the right to move into primary should circumstances dictate. my safety comes before a car users convenience

 

[freecyclist]

cycling in birmingham at least chelmsley wood I have rarely ever had a car move completely into the opposite lane to overtake so I guess for me the answer is yes. But this is my decision not a drivers right. I maintain the right to move into primary should circumstances dictate. my safety comes before a car users convenience

yes i guess the answer for a sensible person like yourself would be yes too.
Thanks for giving an opinion and answering .
Obviously not giving up any cyclists rights to do whatever and potholes or weather conditions you would do the coomon sense thing and let the cars go past and carry on about there business , cos as you so rightly point out in the real world its rare that a car ever moves completely into the opposite lane to overtake.
Straight forward common sense answer - halleluja.

 

[rowan 46]

yes i guess the answer for a sensible person like yourself would be yes too.
Thanks for giving an opinion and answering .
Obviously not giving up any cyclists rights to do whatever and potholes or weather conditions you would do the coomon sense thing and let the cars go past and carry on about there business , cos as you so rightly point out in the real world its rare that a car ever moves completely into the opposite lane to overtake.
Straight forward common sense answer - halleluja.

to be fair I don't think that answer is substantially different from anything that's been said. the general conclusion is that primary is the default position for riding through hazards not riding per se I think it's been said time and again that where possible they let drivers through. The argument is when that point should be, at the drivers convenience. Or at a point where it's safe for the cyclist. The two are not always the same.

 

[dellzeqq]

I think we'd all agree that motorists are to blame for most crashes.
So your saying that riding primary may piss motorists off but it is in actuality safer.
Maybe and on the safety grounds i agree its valid in those circumstances. There are times i can 100% see the point in riding primary.
Its just at the extreme end where the justification for riding primary and preventing overtaking is purely ideological with no safety benefit that i have a problem.
Thats the cycling fundamentalist bit - where a cyclist adopts primary purely as part of a militant ideology with no justification through safety benefit. Like my 1/3 and 2/3 situation that i keep refering to with mrpaul.

that's the bit that exists in your imagination

 

[freecyclist]

[QUOTE 1588667"]
You allow the overtake only if It is safe. Whether the driver ends up on the other side of the road or not doesn't come into it. You've introduced your own confusion by mixing up the issues of how drivers should overtake and cyclists policing the road around them.

You've had the correct answer several times now.
[/quote]

Ok if its safe you allow the overtake using part on both carriageways.
Should the motorists overtake ?

 

[dellzeqq]

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.

circumstances alter cases. You take in to account the width of the road, forward visibility, speeds, and, critically, on a group ride, the length of the group (the longer the group, the less certain the overtake.)

Some people have pointed to training, and that's not a bad thing, but I reckon this thread has probably achieved something - you'll look at the good practice of other cyclists and appreciate the merits of it.

We all come to this from different perspectives. I'm probably as confident, assertive and patient a cyclist as you'll meet. That's down to fifty years of practice, and close on forty years of assertive riding (it's fair to say I used to crash a lot, but that was mostly about going too fast, which was foolish, and, in any case, is now beyond me).

The love of my life has been cycling for, perhaps, ten years, and has only taken to commuting in the last five or so. She is not at all assertive, and that puts her at greater risk - although that risk is diminished by the huge number of cyclists that use the same roads. When she cycles to work I usually accompany her, and act as a kind of shield - moving right when need be, signalling for two, giving car drivers the hard stare, rapping on doors when they start moving in (a commonplace on Farringdon Road) and that kind of thing. When she cycles on her own I'm like a cat on hot bricks waiting for her.....so I wish she were more like me. I wish, and I mean this sincerely, that you were more like me. You'd be better off.

And that's the thing with this thread. It isn't about us. It's about you. Right now you don't get it. You ascribe 'militancy' to people who are simply doing the sensible thing. If you put that failure of perception aside and read what's written you'll become a better, safer cyclist.

 

[freecyclist]

[QUOTE 1588670"]
If the motorist can use part of the opposing land then why can't he use all of it?

He should give a cyclist as much room as he'd give a car. If he'd move into to other lane for a car then he should for a bike.

Now, here's the important bit. As an assertive cyclist it's not your job on the road to make a driver do what he should, but it's in your interest to insist by your actions on a safe overtake whenever possible.
[/quote]

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.
As it is safe you ride secondary to allow the cars behind to overtake.
Should the cars overtake ?

 

[Andy84]

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.
As it is safe you ride secondary to allow the cars behind to overtake.
Should the cars overtake ?

If and when it safe to do so

 

[MissTillyFlop]

Theres nothing wrong with being homosexual ben.
God created us in our many and varied forms.
You are what you are.

Why are you using it a an insult, if there's nothing wrong with it?

 

[freecyclist]

[QUOTE 1588674"]
It's up to them. If you want to know what the cars should do, read the Highway Code.
[/quote]

So should the cars overtake ?

 

[MissTillyFlop]

Are will still able to offer an opinion though ????
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.
I am asking what would you do - ride secondary and allow the cars to overtake.
or
enforce the idea that overtaking is only permissable if cars use 100% of the opposite carriageway by riding primary to prevent overtaking.

I answered that question in some detail last night.