CycleCraft - a discussion...

Norman_Castle

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.

All road users decide for themselves when it is safe to overtake. Hopefully they make the right decision. If a cyclist or any vehicle is physically blocking the road then there is no option to overtake. It will not be your decision. This is the reason for and purpose of the primary position.

Marco_Panettone

At the risk of spoiling a good internet argument about the concept of decision-making....
A road-user can only decide upon their own actions. A driver behind a cyclist (road positioning is irrelevant) is the one who 'decides' whether or not to attempt to overtake. This may or may not be a safe decision, or a good one. However, it IS the driver that makes the choice. The cyclist can influence that decision with their road positioning in the hope the driver will make a decision that does not put the cyclist into a position of harm.


Putting your personal safety into the hands of someone else is what Vehicular Cyclists advocate. Personally I prefer a system of 'sustainable safety' where it doesn't matter what every single driver you ever encounter chooses to do. People make mistakes, and when these mistakes have a direct effect on my safety I'd like more than a sign, or a camera, or 'a bit more education' on my side.

tight_scotsman

armyknife wrote: »

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?

Aye whatever......fanny

silverwhistle

tight_scotsman wrote: »

This is why I have issues with the so called primary position. A complete novice dictating when it's safe for me to overtake. Never heard such nonsense in my life.

You've been reading these threads and yet you still don't know what the primary position is? How do you know they are a complete novice? You should also have noted that it's often the novices who hug the kerb when that can be dangerous behaviour, for reasons which have also been explained. More than once.

I treat every cyclist as a novice that way I won't take it for granted he knows what he is doing.

Good! I do the same with every road user, including pedestrians and loose dogs. I also assume stupidity, and that doesn't matter what mode of transport I'm using.

modsandmockers

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

At the risk of spoiling a good internet argument about the concept of decision-making....
A road-user can only decide upon their own actions. A driver behind a cyclist (road positioning is irrelevant) is the one who 'decides' whether or not to attempt to overtake. This may or may not be a safe decision, or a good one. However, it IS the driver that makes the choice. The cyclist can influence that decision with their road positioning in the hope the driver will make a decision that does not put the cyclist into a position of harm.


Putting your personal safety into the hands of someone else is what Vehicular Cyclists advocate. Personally I prefer a system of 'sustainable safety' where it doesn't matter what every single driver you ever encounter chooses to do. People make mistakes, and when these mistakes have a direct effect on my safety I'd like more than a sign, or a camera, or 'a bit more education' on my side.

I’ve complained before about the increasing tendency for cyclists to avoid the impossibility of vehicular cycling by riding on the pavement, and I’ve thought of a joint campaign tactic for hard-done-by cyclists and increasingly-hard-done-by pedestrians.

In congested areas, let cyclists take over the pavements, whilst pedestrians take to the blacktop

In the UK (and probably also elsewhere - even Holland?), the whole question of road user behaviour and priorities becomes more and more contentious. The idea of my campaign would be to highlight the illogicality of trying to spread three disparate forms of locomotion over two types of pathway (roads and pavements).

The UK authorities (not to mention the population at large) are never going to get serious about providing a Dutch style of bike tracks, and it is a waste of time trying to persuade them otherwise. But sometime sooner or later something somewhere is going to have to give.

Johnmcl7

modsandmockers wrote: »

The UK authorities (not to mention the population at large) are never going to get serious about providing a Dutch style of bike tracks, and it is a waste of time trying to persuade them otherwise. But sometime sooner or later something somewhere is going to have to give.

I disagree about it being a waste of time as there's never going to be any change if no-one tries (local council have given into pressure here and built some great new cycling infrastructure). Plus as you say something has to give so I'd say rather than a waste of time, it's inevitable there will have to be a change in attitudes towards cycling (it's staggering the amount of people who come into this forum just to post the stereotypical anti-cyclist rants). Cities are already past breaking point with congestion problems, London has missed targets on improving air quality, oil prices are low at the moment but they'll be on the increase again and we have the health issues of an ageing population and increasing obesity. The more people are encouraged to cycle particularly for short journeys in dense city areas, the more these problems are reduced.

John

Altarf

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Any links to show this?

Edit. Ive looked but can only find advice saying pedestrians can cross or push bikes in area intended for cyclists but are otherwise expected to stay on the pedestrian side of the segregation line.

Highway Code Rule 62.

The only "Must" is for the cyclist when using a shared footpath to keep to their side, there is no "Must" for the pedestrians.

And from a cycling site - http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/

modsandmockers

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

I disagree about it being a waste of time as there's never going to be any change if no-one tries (local council have given into pressure here and built some great new cycling infrastructure). Plus as you say something has to give so I'd say rather than a waste of time, it's inevitable there will have to be a change in attitudes towards cycling (it's staggering the amount of people who come into this forum just to post the stereotypical anti-cyclist rants). Cities are already past breaking point with congestion problems, London has missed targets on improving air quality, oil prices are low at the moment but they'll be on the increase again and we have the health issues of an ageing population and increasing obesity. The more people are encouraged to cycle particularly for short journeys in dense city areas, the more these problems are reduced.

John

The anti-cyclist rants are no more stereotypical than the pro-cyclist rants, but thanks for a thoughtful reply.

Your point about short journeys in dense city areas is a good one, but a Dutch-style bikeway system has nothing at all to offer in that environment. How close to a dense city area is your local council’s new infrastructure?

As you say, a change of attitude is what is required, but cycling is not the only option. If driverless cars ever become a serious possibility and offer a viable alternative to Boris Bikes, then I think that bicycles will not be allowed anywhere near them.

Vehicular cycling in dense city areas is not a guaranteed good way to improve the health and well-being of the obese!

Tilt

So tonight (about an hour ago) I drive about 2 miles to the local McDonald's and on the way there (along an 'A' road), I encounter 2 cyclists riding side-by-side. The one on the n/s has no lights on so who is legitimately riding in primary and secondary position and why?

On the way back I pass a single cyclist on the same road without any lights on at all.

Don't suppose the pro-cyclists want to discuss this...

modsandmockers

Tilt wrote: »

So tonight (about an hour ago) I drive about 2 miles to the local McDonald's and on the way there (along an 'A' road), I encounter 2 cyclists riding side-by-side. The one on the n/s has no lights on so who is legitimately riding in primary and secondary position and why?

On the way back I pass a single cyclist on the same road without any lights on at all.

Don't suppose the pro-cyclists want to discuss this...

Tilt - it is common to see motor vehicles with defective lights, even though (unlike bikes) effective lighting is a requirement for the design and construction of motor vehicles irrespective of the time of day etc.

All road users get hacked off by other road users from time to time, and there's not really much point in endlessly bickering about individual events. All road users are at risk at all times, which is probably why they get so worked up every time they experience a near-miss. Motor vehicle drivers are encouraged to adopt the techniques of 'Defensive Driving', but cyclists frequently say that 'Assertive Biking' is the way to go.

There is almost universal agreement that bikes and cars need to be segregated, and the sooner the better.