New cycle proficiency test

davetrousers

Causing an obstruction to other road users is recommended now?

Crikey

maninthestreet

davetrousers wrote: »

Causing an obstruction to other road users is recommended now?

Crikey

Indeed - seems the original suggestion was made for no other reason than some misguided attempt to assert a cyclists right to use the road to other road users.

BillScarab

davetrousers wrote: »

Causing an obstruction to other road users is recommended now?

Crikey

So on a single carriagewya road a car tunring right is "creating an obstruction" is it? It's no different to that in practice.

The reason for it is to stop idiots in cars trying to squeeze past where there isn't room and causing accidents.

rca779

maninthestreet wrote: »

Indeed - seems the original suggestion was made for no other reason than some misguided attempt to assert a cyclists right to use the road to other road users.

So what is the problem with asserting a cyclists right to use the road to other road users?

I ride my bike to work each day and I have always used the secondary position, about 50cm from the curb. I am sick to eath of cars overtaking and practically taking the skin of my elbows as they pass so close. I think I will be adopting the primary position as recommended from now on.

juno

rca779 wrote: »

So what is the problem with asserting a cyclists right to use the road to other road users?

I ride my bike to work each day and I have always used the secondary position, about 50cm from the curb. I am sick to eath of cars overtaking and practically taking the skin of my elbows as they pass so close. I think I will be adopting the primary position as recommended from now on.

It's a subconscious thing. Drivers see you've only left 50cm of room on one side, so assume you only need 50cm of room on the other when they pass you. If you leave 1m, they assume you need more room and overtake further away.

Redman30

juno wrote: »

It's a subconscious thing. Drivers see you've only left 50cm of room on one side, so assume you only need 50cm of room on the other when they pass you. If you leave 1m, they assume you need more room and overtake further away.

It also gives you some room to manoeuvre for when said idiot comes past and hits you with his wing mirror. I cycle and drive, drivers dont give cyclists enough room, and cyclists dont help themselves by some of the routes they take. There's a country road near me (60mph limit) which is fairly twisty/turney but not sharp bends, I've had to practically emergency stop when coming round a bend and being faced by a cyclist wobbling along at 5mph in the middle of the road.

Saying that, as a cyclist who averages about 20/25mph on the flat if not faster, I take up the aggressive position 1m from the curb - I find it makes certain drivers consider the fact that I'm actually there.

Of course, the wobbly folk who pootle along at speeds I can walk faster than, well they don't count as cyclists to me really - these are the ones who shouldn't be on the road

rpc

Redman30 wrote: »

It also gives you some room to manoeuvre for when said idiot comes past and hits you with his wing mirror. I cycle and drive, drivers dont give cyclists enough room, and cyclists dont help themselves by some of the routes they take.

Agreed. It isn't about causing an obstruction - it's about being safe on the road. To me, the concept of "primary position" is about taking the space you are entitled to rather than relying on drivers to give it to you. Part of this involves cyclists using their brains and cycling responsibly.

Same roads, same rights, same rules.

rpc.

johnfarquhar74

rca779 wrote: »

My eldest son (age 11) has just completed his cycle proficiency course run by Hampshire council at his school.

Well done, and yet a few folk who post on here say it doesn't happen, but should, now it does and it's wrong??

rca779 wrote: »

He was taught that the cyclist has as much right on the road as a car.

In actual fact I'd pedantically argue that as cyclists apparently don't need licenses or RFL they had more rights, plus there's the evolution of the road user which places cyclists just behind pedestrians and horse drawn vehicles, but we won't go there:cool:

rca779 wrote: »

While all this makes perfect sense, I don’t think the average motorist has been made aware of this new behaviour and I can see it could cause a lot of frustration and even lead to possible road rage.

Wouldn't say the 'average' motorist is unaware, perhaps only those that haven't leafed through their highway code since it started getting published in colour
Whilst I don't think your son has been taught anything wrong I would advise him (and you) to treat these instructions as advisory and not mandatory, if he doesn't fell comfortable on the road, pull off. Although he may well be in the right, it's cold comfort when you're visiting A&E due to other road users ignorance.
Hopefully though, and as statistics show, cycling is a fairly safe and healthy mode of transport and you son gets out there and puts some miles under his belt, experience is the one thing that keeps me safe out there!

rmiller

I must give praise for you in having your son take the test in the first instance.

I am a commuter on bicycle myself, and I see quite alot of youngsters who don't know the rules of the road and don't know how dangerous it is. And although there needs to be some harmony between drivers and cyclists, I think these tests are a good step in the right direction but like it's been said...

good on paper but not really in practice.

sequence

You just need to apply some common sense. Sitting in the middle of the lane to turn right is not the best idea in some situations and a very sensible idea in others, it's up-to the rider to decide which.