CycleCraft - a discussion...

armyknife

tight_scotsman wrote: »

Out of my depth ? Now we are being silly. It amazes me how some men in tights seem to think that if you don't prance around on a bike your opinion is wrong.
like I say my 30 odd years experience has kept me out of bother with idiots on bikes. So I don't need a prat like you brat giving me advice on how to deal with them.

I think if you'd really tried you could have got some more invective into this post.

You've an issues with you masculinity, don't you.

tight_scotsman

armyknife wrote: »

I think if you'd really tried you could have got some more invective into this post.

You've an issues with you masculinity, don't you.

Sure whatever

brat

tight_scotsman wrote: »

You can dictate all you want I will overtake when I decide it is safe without endangering you or me or anyone else.
If you don't like the answer then don't ask the question

So, despite all of tight's bluff and bluster, he will let a cyclist dictate what's safe and what's not, because actually there's not a lot he can do about it without committing offences.

Tight, you will become a better driver when you properly understand why the cyclist puts himself in this position. It will improve your attitude to other road users because it will resolve the frustration that a lack of understanding can create.

tight_scotsman

brat wrote: »

So, despite all of tight's bluff and bluster, he will let a cyclist dictate what's safe and what's not, because actually there's not a lot he can do about it without committing offences.

Tight, you will become a better driver when you properly understand why the cyclist puts himself in this position. It will improve your attitude to other road users because it will resolve the frustration that a lack of understanding can create.

You can rant all you like mate. It won't change a thing. My experience will keep me safe. I will continue to treat idiots like yourself with the contempt you obviously deserve.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

So, despite all of tight's bluff and bluster, he will let a cyclist dictate what's safe and what's not, because actually there's not a lot he can do about it without committing offences.

Tight, you will become a better driver when you properly understand why the cyclist puts himself in this position. It will improve your attitude to other road users because it will resolve the frustration that a lack of understanding can create.

Hmm. I'll never "properly understand" why "the" cyclist puts himself in a position where he is likely to be seriously injured by squeezing through a narrow gap between 2 large vehicles in stop-start traffic or undertaking a left indicating HGV while approaching a junction, both of which you can see happen on an hourly basis in central London.

Obviously because I'll never understand why they do it, I won't be a better driver then

RustyChainset

modsandmockers wrote: »

Maybe cyclists should wear a sign on their backs saying ‘I have read CycleCraft, and I will tell you when to overtake’.

Unfortunately, I would guess that most of them would be lying - as spokesrider says, most of the hot air that is generated by the arguments about secondary and primary riding positions is probably created by secondhand hearsay. Apart from me, spokesrider is the only poster who has offered a direct quote from CycleCraft, and I can’t recall any of the cyclists on here showing any kind of appreciation of the fact that CycleCraft falls a long way short of recommending the inflexible, dogmatic and aggressive behaviour which so many UK cycling evangelists choose to adopt.

I’ve read Cyclecraft, and it makes perfect sense. The bit about road positioning is pretty much what I said to my offspring 20 years ago ie; “Sometimes it’s a good idea to look at the car driver’s eyes, and give a clear sign of what you are about to do. Sometimes, it’s even a good idea to block the path of the car whilst you complete your ‘manoeuvre’. But don’t do it all the time, and always try to make sure the car driver knows what you are doing.”
I agree with you that some latter-day cyclists have cherry-picked the idea of lane-hogging (as you call it), without fully investigating the theory behind it.

armyknife

tight_scotsman wrote: »

Sure whatever

Glad you agree with me; therapy is available to deal with some of your issues.


For instance what motivates you to seek out a his group of people here, of whom you don't appear to have much in common with and then attempt to belittle them?

Maybe because somewhere else, perhaps on a motoring forum or perhaps in your marriage, you're bullied or dominated and so by posting here you're trying to compensate for your feelings of inadequacy or inferiority?

esuhl

tight_scotsman wrote: »

It amazes me how some men in tights seem to think that if you don't prance around on a bike your opinion is wrong.

It amazes me how disgustingly obese, balding, chain-smoking, couch potatoes with personal hygiene issues seem to think that if they belch loudly enough and intimidate women with lecherous remarks, that everyone else is wrong.

I don't think any sensible person would listen to stupid oafs like you.

(See how we can both rely on stereotypes to move the debate along nicely?)

tight_scotsman wrote: »

You can dictate all you want I will overtake when I decide it is safe without endangering you or me or anyone else.

Ha ha! You can't have your cake and eat it! When a cyclist moves to the primary position to prevent your reckless and dangerous overtake, you're going to be the one who decides whether to overtake?!

I suppose, when your wife orders you to come home from the pub, you refuse to obey her whilst simultaneously deciding for yourself to come home! :rotfl:

modsandmockers

Rotor wrote: »

This thread has been the calmest and most rational and reasonable debate on cycling I think I have ever read on MSE. Keep it up guys!

Dream on...

brat

Tilt wrote: »

Hmm. I'll never "properly understand" why "the" cyclist puts himself in a position where he is likely to be seriously injured by squeezing through a narrow gap between 2 large vehicles in stop-start traffic or undertaking a left indicating HGV while approaching a junction, both of which you can see happen on an hourly basis in central London.

I understand why he does it, but I also, like you, understand that he's a fool for doing it, because the potential risks to himself are high.

Obviously because I'll never understand why they do it, I won't be a better driver then

It's not quite the same example as the one we're discussing Tilt, is it?

You seem to be grasping that cyclists have a right to be in the primary position, but that they should move to the secondary if a) their safety is not compromised and b) other road users would be inconvenienced by their holding a primary position.

Improving your understanding of why some cyclists do this will in turn improve your attitude towards them. A bad attitude is the biggest danger on the road, so any improvement on that has bound to help your driving.

Well done!