Doubling Up On Road

[briantrumpet]

You really do need to take a more balanced view.

That would be admirable if it weren't for the unbalanced nature of the consequences of poor judgement:

Cyclist makes poor judgement and allows bad overtake: cyclist gets wiped out
Car driver makes bad judgement and overtakes at wrong time: cyclist gets wiped out.
Cyclist makes poor judgement and holds traffic up for a bit longer than necessary: no-one gets hurt, but incurs the wrath of ill-informed drivers.

In those circumstances, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect cyclists to put their safety first, before worrying whether an impatient car driver might or might not get wound up by their action. Of course, ideally, the cyclist will make the right judgement at all times, and all drivers will respect those judgements. But we're all human and sometimes make poor judgements - but isn't better that those judgements err on the side of caution, given the catastrophic potential of getting it wrong?

 

[montyboy]

That would be admirable if it weren't for the unbalanced nature of the consequences of poor judgement:

Cyclist makes poor judgement and allows bad overtake: cyclist gets wiped out
Car driver makes bad judgement and overtakes at wrong time: cyclist gets wiped out.
Cyclist makes poor judgement and holds traffic up for a bit longer than necessary: no-one gets hurt, but incurs the wrath of ill-informed drivers.

In those circumstances, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect cyclists to put their safety first, before worrying whether an impatient car driver might or might not get wound up by their action. Of course, ideally, the cyclist will make the right judgement at all times, and all drivers will respect those judgements. But we're all human and sometimes make poor judgements - but isn't better that those judgements err on the side of caution, given the catastrophic potential of getting it wrong?

You make a very good point and I a compelling argument.

 

[briantrumpet]

You make a very good point and I a compelling argument.

Steady on, chap. This isn't how internet debates are supposed to go!

 

[montyboy]

Why did you call me Toryboy?

I have never made any posts that would give any indication of my political persuasion.

I think that this is your third post today where you have made a claim about me without any evidence whatsover. Why is that?

Stephen, this isnt the first time I have had to pull you up on this.

Answer please.

 

[Poacher]

In order it goes, my safety, your safety, my convenience, your convenience.

Generally, I'd agree, but occasionally I'd put somebody else's safety above my own - it depends on the risks involved; and I often put somebody else's convenience above my own. There are no hard and fast rules on this, unlike in freecyclist's world.

 

[benb]

But isnt that the point, you should care if the motorist thinks you are being aggresive?

If he thinks that you are being aggressive it is likely that you will meet with a similar position. If he thinks you are preserving your safety he is likley to support your manouvre.

It's not up to me to try and guess how my cycling will be interpreted. If, through their own ignorance or stupidity, a driver decides to interpret my correct taking of primary as an aggressive manoeuvre, that's their problem.

Are you saying I shouldn't take primary when appropriate, just in case a driver takes it the wrong way?

 

[montyboy]

[QUOTE 1589481"]
But having a cheap pop is? Simple question that Monty's posed imo.
[/quote]


I dont think you understand the rules here .

Its okay to make personal insults that have no relevance to the topic or without any subsatnce in fact. However, if you ask someone to justify their remarks and you are not part of the "group" then someone will take issue with you.

 

[montyboy]

It's not up to me to try and guess how my cycling will be interpreted. If, through their own ignorance or stupidity, a driver decides to interpret my correct taking of primary as an aggressive manoeuvre, that's their problem.

Are you saying I shouldn't take primary when appropriate, just in case a driver takes it the wrong way?

No, what I am saying is that if you take primary when it is not appropriate this may be construed as being aggresive and is likely to be met with a poor response.

 

[Bicycle]

What I am saying is that if you take primary when it is not appropriate this may be construed as being aggressive and is likely to be met with a poor response.

+1

 

[montyboy]

[QUOTE 1589491"]
And that's where I disagree with you. It's the driver's attitude that brings the aggression, not the correct actions of the cyclist. We've all experienced poor drivers getting stroppy when they shouldn't.
[/quote]


How can you describe the actions of a cyclist taking the primary when it is not appropriate as being "correct"?

 

[Bicycle]

[QUOTE 1589491"]
And that's where I disagree with you. It's the driver's attitude that brings the aggression, not the correct actions of the cyclist. We've all experienced poor drivers getting stroppy when they shouldn't.
[/quote]


I'm not sure I'm convinced by this argument.

First, I'm not sure we can generalise with any confidence about whose attitude generates (or brings) aggression.

Secondly, a cyclist might rub along better with other road users by bearing in mind that most drivers are unfamiliar with both the reason for and the wider acknowledgement of the taking of Primary Position.

On this forum we've had contributors saying that members of the emergency services attending an incident had no idea what Primary Position was. We had a serving police officer saying on these pages that he'd heard of it only in recent weeks. Many, many drivers know nothing of the concept of Primary Position. These are the people with whom we cyclists share the highway.

Many cyclists will think that OJT for motorists by getting into Primary and letting the following driver figure it out for themselves is a good idea.

That may or may not be so, but if the use of Primary is not understood by the driver, or if it is inappropriate in the circumstances, then the driver might see it as an agressive move.

 

[montyboy]

[QUOTE 1589494"]
I haven't. What I'm saying is that poor drivers will become aggressive regardless of the appropriateness of the position. Conversely, good drivers will have the patience to allow a cyclist to take primary when it's not necessarily best and choose not to become aggressive.
[/quote]


I dont disagree with any of the above.

It did appear you were disagreeing when you responded to the previous post. Sorry if i misunderstood.

 

[Bicycle]

[QUOTE 1589494"]
What I'm saying is that poor drivers will become aggressive regardless of the appropriateness of the position. .
[/quote]


I know plenty of poor drivers who do not have an aggressive bone in their body.

 

[montyboy]

I know plenty of poor drivers who do not have an aggressive bone in their body.

My mother is shocking but she wouldnt want to fight you!

 

[snailracer]

How can you describe the actions of a cyclist taking the primary when it is not appropriate as being "correct"?

But both cyclist and motorist will consider themselves correct, and as there is no third party to judge, surely the following vehicle must give way to the leading vehicle?