Inconsidererate, aggressive, but not necessarily dangerous. Report?

Tilt

brat wrote: »

For that opinion to have value, it needs to be based on the available facts. Your interpretation of Tobsters position as a 'primary position' is where you're going wrong.

My opinion (as stated) was based on the footage provided by the OP. The footage suggests that the OP was cycling (and has since been confirmed) in 'primary position' and in my opinion, it was not necessary for him to do so. But having said that, unlike you, my opinion is merely from a member of Joe public with no expertise like yours.

brat wrote: »

What you have done is completely change your view from post #123 which said,

"The camera was attached to the LEFT hand side of the handle bar meaning that it would provide the impression that the car was closer than it actually was."

You now have decided to agree with all others that this analysis was wrong.

I don't believe I have changed my view at all. The only "view" that has possibly changed was the view from the camera. As I have stated (more than once) in the absence of any part of the bike captured in the footage, it's is practically impossible to relate how close the BMW actually was when it passed. For example, IF the camera had been attached to the right hand handle grip of the bike and the BMW had passed as close as it did in the footage, then yes indeed I would agree that it was too close.

The fact the camera was attached to the left of the centre of the bike, the centre of the picture could give an impression of other objects (and the surroundings) being more to the left than they actually are as the viewer will assume that the centre of the picture is where the centre line of the bike is.

At the end of the day, just because you don't agree with someone's opinion (or don't want to agree), dosn't necessarily make you right no more than my opinion makes me right.

Tilt

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Your understanding is correct. So do you accept the op was riding in the track of a vehicles nearside wheel which is about 1/3 of the way across the lane?.

Well no simply because that I seem to recall somewhere in the thread that the OP has confirmed that he was riding in 'primary position' (I don't really want to trawl though all the posts to find it, but I will if really necessary). That being the case, from the footage, it suggests that this was unnecessary.

Norman_Castle wrote: »

It may be a few years since you've cycled, but all motorists need to understand and accept cyclists correct use of the primary position. I suspect many motorists view it as a cyclist being difficult and wrong, or just an inconvenience to them.

Yes without question, the CORRECT use of primary position by a cyclist in the appropriate conditions SHOULD be respected by all motorists. BUT as I live in a predominantly rural area, I occasionally see how SOME motorists have a lack of understanding and respect when passing horses so what chance have they got understanding how and when to overtake a cyclist?

modsandmockers

brat wrote: »

What this thread has shown to me clearly is that there are a few (Tilt, M&M, Babbawah) who stubbornly refuse to completely exonerate the cyclist in this situation.

I have long had my doubts about about primary and secondary riding positions, and I think they were invented by the cycling ‘intelligentsia’ in order to justify the cycling !!!!!’s stubborn refusal to accept the reality of their own vulnerability.

I can find no reference to the idea in the highway code, nor in the DSA driving test syllabus, so it is hardly surprising that motorists do not universally understand why cyclists feel free to deliberately hold up the traffic. And, since there is no compulsory test of cyclists’ competence, there is no way of knowing what level of understanding any cyclist has. If I was a Bikeability instructor, I would have great difficulty in trying to convince an inexperienced cyclist that it is ever a good idea to ride in the middle of a traffic lane with a queue of motor vehicles panting for a chance to overtake.

I found this on p25 of the National Standard for driving cars and light vans - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/377670/national-standard-for-driving-cars-and-light-vans.pdf

Knowledge & Understanding Requirements You must know and understand…. g. the rules that apply to other road users, particularly drivers of large vehicles or vulnerable road users such as cyclists and motorcyclists, and the position that they may select on the road as a result

Please note that the item does not refer to making progress on a straight and open road - it refers to the need for road users to position themselves correctly prior to turning right, etc.

I also found this, which displays a refreshing dose of common sense - https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/the-primary-position-putting-uk-cyclists-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place/ - here are some extracts...


“To repeat, I think that as things currently stand, taking the ‘primary position’ will probably decrease the overall risk a cyclist faces, because it encourages more consideration from the majority of drivers. But in a minority of instances, it actively increases the danger. Obviously it is hard to weigh up the relative advantages and disadvantages of the primary position, vis-à-vis the old ‘keep to the left’ advice – but if the number of impatient and outright dangerous motorists increases, I think it is almost certain that the primary position becomes less and less safe”

“And this brings me to the other problem I have with the ‘primary position’. No-one seems to have told U.K. drivers about it. Putting yourself out in the middle of the road can, in my experience, appear to some drivers as an act of deliberate provocation. They don’t have a clue what you are doing”

“The U.K.’s official safe cycling strategy can appear perverse and unreasonable to the average motorist – because they haven’t been told about it. The only people who know about ‘Cyclecraft’ are a tiny minority of the already tiny minority of people who cycle”

As a driver, I rarely had any problem at all with cyclists - I always kept myself aware of what was happening behind me and alongside me, and I frequently acted as a shield for a tunnel-visioned cyclist by preventing other drivers from overtaking. The thing that !!!!es me off now that I am a vulnerable pavement user is the number of cyclists who frequently get in my way on a narrow and busy stretch of pavement which is within a 20mph zone.

Retrogamer

It's a pretty simple concept.

If you're on a piece of road where you think a vehicle overtaking you would be dangerous then you move to the primary position to discourage and prevent the dangerous maneuver from happening.

It's a defensive strategy that wouldn't need to be used if motorists didn't try to overtake cyclists in dangerous situations.

Secondary position will move you out further from the kerb for various reasons such as poor cycling surface, or to increase your visibility for drivers.
If you turn a sharp left hand corner you'll see the cyclist sooner the further out from the kerb they are.

Just some examples of why they're used.
Just over a year ago when i was getting back into cycling from a very long time away from it i never understood why cyclists done such things either.

My experiences cycling on the road changed my opinions quite quickly.
My advice is if you want to better understand something you should give it a good yourself.

Norman_Castle

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilt
Well no simply because that I seem to recall somewhere in the thread that the OP has confirmed that he was riding in 'primary position' (I don't really want to trawl though all the posts to find it, but I will if really necessary). That being the case, from the footage, it suggests that this was unnecessary.

Tobster86 wrote: »

Clarifications:
-Secondary position, as is actually really clear from the footage. The camera is mounted about 5cm offset left from the centre of the handlebars;.

The op stated they were in the secondary position. Clearly visible in the footage to everyone but you.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

For example, IF the camera had been attached to the right hand handle grip of the bike and the BMW had passed as close as it did in the footage, then yes indeed I would agree that it was too close.

There's still confusion here Tilt. Can we clarify that when you talk about the right hand side of the bike, do you mean the normal concept of right hand side of a vehicle - ie when you're sat on it, your right hand goes on the right hand side of the handlebar?

If you do, your above comment again makes no sense.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

I have long had my doubts about about primary and secondary riding positions, and I think they were invented by the cycling ‘intelligentsia’ in order to justify the cycling !!!!!’s stubborn refusal to accept the reality of their own vulnerability.

You have a screw loose, don't you? Seriously?

The primary and secondary positions are positions that accomplished, confident, assertive cyclists should use to improve their safety on the road. Their actions are not designed to conflict with motorists or to hold them up. A primary position will allow a cyclist to see and be seen more clearly, and it also allows the cyclist to control the lane, in much the same way as a slow car or a tractor might do by virtue of their width. I often use it to deter motorists from considering blind bend overtakes, and I might reinforce it by holding out my right arm with my palm facing back. It's important to acknowledge their patience when they do get to pass safely.

The secondary position is the position to use when cyclists are using a road where they are likely to be overtaken fairly regularly. My normal secondary position may range from 0.5/0.6 metres from the kerb (usually when I'm riding along open straight wide NSL S/C roads that I know are pot hole free) to 1 metre in most other situations.

Other road users don't need to be familiar with these positions. They just need to use their commonsense, patience and personal responsibility, and recognise that it makes sense for the cyclist ahead to be doing what they're doing. In turn they need to fully adopt the HC instruction to give cyclists PLENTY of room when overtaking and to give cyclists at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.

Tobster86

Tilt wrote: »

Well no simply because that I seem to recall somewhere in the thread that the OP has confirmed that he was riding in 'primary position' (I don't really want to trawl though all the posts to find it, but I will if really necessary).

You'd better start trawling for it then because people are universally disagreeing with you, including the person you claim made that statement.

You might be a while.


Wait a minute, I found it:

Tobster wrote:

I was definitely riding right down the middle of the road, in primary position for no reason whatsoever, and Tilt is in no way a complete bell end.

tight_scotsman

Tobster86 wrote: »

You'd better start trawling for it then because people are universally disagreeing with you, including the person you claim made that statement.

You might be a while.


Wait a minute, I found it:

The plot thickens

armyknife

tight_scotsman wrote: »

The plot thickens

It's the only way the poster will understand it.