Biggest Threats to Cyclists?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

boliston wrote: »

It is dangerous to cycle less than about 3 feet from the kerb as if someone starts to overtake and then misjudges the amount of room they have and you are too close to the kerb you are basically "toast" as you have nowhere left to go.

As a cyclist with 35 years of accident free cycling behind me, I couldn't disagree more.

I t has always been safer to cycle as close to the kerb as possible, while staying out of the gutter of course, as this allows cars more room to overtake safely.

In my experience, cars pass you with a greater safety margin the further over to the left you ride, the closer to the centre you are the more risk you put yourself and other road users in.

This current fad of militant cyclist "middle of the road-ism" is going to get people hurt and killed for no reason, and it is deeply counterproductive for increasing tolerance of and respect towards cyclists from other road users.

As well as being downright rude and inconsiderate.

PintAndAPie

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Only militant cyclists would think the "secondary position" is the one to the far left of the lane.

The primary lane position for all road users should be the one that shows consideration to other users, assists in the free and safe flow of traffic, and minimises risks caused by frustration.

For cyclists, that is the left, not blocking the centre.

As a cyclist, Hamish, I'm sure you are aware that the primary and secondary positions as described are recommended by Bikability, the national standard for cycling proficiency, published by that well known band of militant cyclists the 'Department of Transport'. Anarchy in the UK!

andydiysaver

PintAndAPie wrote: »

As a cyclist, Hamish, I'm sure you are aware that the primary and secondary positions as described are recommended by Bikability, the national standard for cycling proficiency, published by that well known band of militant cyclists the 'Department of Transport'. Anarchy in the UK!

if cyclists were capable of speeds that warranted their safety in front of a motor vehicle that can easily be 20 times heavier than them plus cycle, or in the case of an HGV hundreds of times heavier, then they'd have half an argument for their arrogant and stupid behaviour, I've read some militant cycle blogs about controlling traffic - what are we doing here? we're forcing our will on vehicles capable of going 20 times faster and weighing 20 times more, we're dismissing outright the possibility that these things are capable of any harm to us whatsoever, and we're attempting to take moral high ground in doing so


wake up you idiots, roads are dangerous, stop trying to punch above your weight!

andydiysaver

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

This current fad of militant cyclist "middle of the road-ism" is going to get people hurt and killed for no reason, and it is deeply counterproductive for increasing tolerance of and respect towards cyclists from other road users.

As well as being downright rude and inconsiderate.

yes correct and it's pathetic really when you consider that the ultimate sacrifice is frequently being made in order to further a militant point. I don't care enough about driving to be prepared to die for it, who threw the psycho switch in your heads to make cycling such a passion that death is preferable to common sense?

aleph_0

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Only militant cyclists would think the "secondary position" is the one to the far left of the lane.

The primary lane position for all road users should be the one that shows consideration to other users, assists in the free and safe flow of traffic, and minimises risks caused by frustration.

For cyclists, that is the left, not blocking the centre.

But cyclists *are* part of the flow, not blocking the flow.

Following your logic: What you think drivers should do in locations where drivers mainly impede the progress of cyclists? (I can think of locations where this is true, and (not that it matters), cyclists far outnumber drivers)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So in your mind it's appropriate to impede the progress of other traffic through lane blocking because you think a driver might not give you enough room one day?

No. I fully advocate following Highway Code Rule 169, and would drop into the secondary position, or, if necessary, pull over, if a queue started to form. For example, if I'm cycling on a fast road, then secondary would clearly be inappropriate, but if a vehicle had slowed behind me, then I would move across. In lighter traffic, the more skilled driver anticipates the situation in advance, and slows down slightly so they meet me when there is a gap in oncoming traffic.

I do think it's appropriate to ride in a position that discourages overtaking when overtaking would break HC Rules 165-167, though.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

PintAndAPie wrote: »

As a cyclist, Hamish, I'm sure you are aware that the primary and secondary positions as described are recommended by Bikability, the national standard for cycling proficiency, published by that well known band of militant cyclists the 'Department of Transport'. Anarchy in the UK!

Yep.

Damn bunch of commies that have clearly been infiltrated by cyclo-militants!!!:D

Seriously though, the previous Cycling Proficiency training served generations of cyclists very well and was always based on keeping as much separation as possible between car and cyclists.

"Cycle on the left" was a familiar call from instructors to children over many decades.

This new fad for militant lane hogging through bikeability is largely a result of anti-car and pro-cyclist political interference, is a deeply regressive step that only rarely has a place on modern roads, and has been overemphasised in the new training styles, and is often misinterpreted/abused as a license to be inconsiderate.

I have absolutely no doubt that as a cyclist, I am safer to myself and other road users as far to the left as possible, no matter what the current batch of politically motivated propaganda may say.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

aleph_0 wrote: »

But cyclists *are* part of the flow, not blocking the flow.

Not round here they're not.

I live in a hilly area where cyclists are lucky to be travelling much above 5 mph, with a long line of traffic ready and able to do 30mph building up behind them.

I fully advocate following Highway Code Rule 169, and would drop into the secondary position, or, if necessary, pull over, if a queue started to form.

In my neck of the woods that would be all the time.

So I return to my previous position.....

andydiysaver

and my neck of the woods - the roads are clogged as it is, and I think in most places this is now the case, and you also get more cyclists at rush hour when everyone's trying to get to work on time, not next week- so what you don't want is sacrifices for the holy cause pulling stupid tricks in the centre of a road at 5mph!


I haven't got a cycle but I have cycled. and I'd just not do that. it's lunacy, If anyone had told me pulling out In front of a car was a good idea I'd suggest that they'd need sectioning, what's next? the new way of crossing roads? "controlling" cars by leaping out in front of them , then making it to the other side?


there is such lack of reality in these idiot cyclists and their ideas- I can only hope that they don't find out the hard way we have a point. I mean that too - I wouldn't wish death on anyone, even deluded people who belong on a mental health section code!

PintAndAPie

andydiysaver wrote: »

if cyclists were capable of speeds that warranted their safety in front of a motor vehicle that can easily be 20 times heavier than them plus cycle,

Exactly what speed do cyclists have to achieve to warrant their safety? You seem to have decided that certain law abiding road users do not deserve to be safe. How pathetically arrogant.

andydiysaver

PintAndAPie wrote: »

Exactly what speed do cyclists have to achieve to warrant their safety? You seem to have decided that certain law abiding road users do not deserve to be safe. How pathetically arrogant.

again pint and pie, it's not my fault nor my arrogance that you and your flimsy legs cannot go as fast as a car made 30 years ago! Mine can't either, tour de france champ to be can't either, it's not personal, and you cannot blame me for that, you cannot call me arrogant for that because I am just stating fact , or did I miss something there?


The petrol engine generates power at a rate we humans cannot - it's that simple, these are high energy hydrocarbons we do not stand a chance trying to reproduce that explosive cycle via means of biological muscle reaction - it's a fact of life, so try and be an adult about it, grow up, and don't start calling me arrogant when all I've done is point out the truth!