Inconsidererate, aggressive, but not necessarily dangerous. Report?

Throbbe

modsandmockers wrote: »

Here is a link to the published advice of the Dft, and it contains no reference to primary and secondary riding positions -

http://think.direct.gov.uk/

Yep, that's it right there, the sum total of all advice issued by the DfT. :rotfl:

I expect they sit around all day hoping that no-one notices they're not doing anything.

On further googling I realise now that while it is published by the Stationery Office it is not a DfT guidance. However, it is endorsed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), the UK Department for Transport (DfT), CTC (UK national cyclists' organisation), and the principal specialist organisations now delivering cycle training.

Presumably the latter have infiltrated the other organisation with undercover cyclists.

You can get a second hand copy for a few quid. I'd recommend you do so, if only to pass on to your grandchildren.

frisbeej

modsandmockers wrote: »

Primary and secondary riding positions were invented by cyclists for cyclists.

So what? They are a safe riding technique.

Its only you, and your deranged concept of the right of car drivers to do 65mph everywhere, that thinks cyclists should be crawling in the ditch alongside the road dragging their bikes behind them.

RichardD1970

Tilt wrote: »

Actually I was following a responsible cyclist only yesterday along a 40 mph road (very similar to the one on the footage). Somehow I could of managed to overtake him giving enough room even though there were cars coming in the opposite direction. BUT (with this thread in mind) I chose to hang back until I could give over a car's width of room. Mind you, he was riding no more than 1 metre away from the kerb.

So you admit that this thread has made you re-evaluate your driving and be more considerate to cyclists?

Result! :T

Babbawah

I'm not going to quote anyone . . . but the theme of primary and secondary positioning is very interesting and IMO worthy of much more discussion.

As a motorist, my main problem with cyclists is the fact that they can be unpredictable.

"I need to plan ahead, and I don't know what this one is going to do".

When I started riding motorcycles it was on restricted 30mph moped. You quickly learned that to stay alive you needed to 'own the lane' and not hug the kerb like you were taught !

Tilt

RichardD1970 wrote: »

So you admit that this thread has made you re-evaluate your driving and be more considerate to cyclists?

Result! :T

Not one bit. I am already considerate to all other road users including cyclists. I just assumed the cyclist I encountered may of needed as much room as the OP so I waited until I could pass him while leaving a gap you could drive a bus through.

modsandmockers

Babbawah wrote: »

I'm not going to quote anyone . . . but the theme of primary and secondary positioning is very interesting and IMO worthy of much more discussion.

When I started riding motorcycles it was on restricted 30mph moped. You quickly learned that to stay alive you needed to 'own the lane' and not hug the kerb like you were taught !

It's a good point - did your moped have an effective rear view mirror, and were you taught the importance of using it?

brat

Tobster86 wrote: »

But I also drive a BMW, and quite a high performance one at that. So to quote everyone from the western coast of the USA; whatever.

Likewise, my work cars are mostly high powered BMWs, soon all to be BMW 330s and X5s, so no-one could ever argue that I don't enjoy motoring, or that I don't see things from the motorists point of view. Look up any 'speed cam' thread where I've contributed for further evidence of that.

It seems that when you 'out' yourself as a cyclist you automatically become anti motorist. At least according to the anti cyclist fulminati...

modsandmockers

frisbeej wrote: »

So what? They are a safe riding technique.

Its only you, and your deranged concept of the right of car drivers to do 65mph everywhere, that thinks cyclists should be crawling in the ditch alongside the road dragging their bikes behind them.

Safe? I don't think so...

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

It's a good point - did your moped have an effective rear view mirror, and were you taught the importance of using it?

The way for a cyclist to get a good idea of what's behind is to look behind regularly.

I believe mirrors can, for a cyclist, be more hindrance than help.
The best way to cope with a near miss overtake is to try to stay straight. If you are forewarned by your mirror that a car is likely to pass too closely there will be a tendency to urgently move to the nearside to try to provide more space for the overtaker. This instinctive move may put you into the drains, potholes etc that your previous position was meant to avoid, which may cause you to lose control, fall, or worse still, swing back into the road.

Mirrors may also deter you from taking a good look behind at times when a physical look behind is the best option. Mirrors can be deceptive in terms of distance and approach speed. you can also miss stuff in blind spots.

My wife uses a mirror because it suits her safety instincts. She's mother duck to our flock, so she likes to shout that a car's coming so the brood can all get into line.

frisbeej

modsandmockers wrote: »

Safe? I don't think so...

You also think trains should stop at level crossings for cars...