CycleCraft - a discussion...

Tilt

modsandmockers wrote: »

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.

Agreed. But I thought I would mention what I saw tonight because the first encounter was 2 cyclists rising side-by-side on an 'A' road when the thread is about 'CycleCraft'.

modsandmockers

Tilt wrote: »

Agreed. But I thought I would mention what I saw tonight because the first encounter was 2 cyclists rising side-by-side on an 'A' road when the thread is about 'CycleCraft'.

The outer cyclist would probably have told you that he/she was acting in the interests of road safety by shielding the bike with no lights. I would guess that neither cyclist has ever heard mention of primary and secondary riding positions.

Tilt

modsandmockers wrote: »

The outer cyclist would probably have told you that he/she was acting in the interests of road safety by shielding the bike with no lights. I would guess that neither cyclist has ever heard mention of primary and secondary riding positions.

And no doubt Brat and Co will say that would be perfectly legal, fine and good practice for the outside rider to take 'primary position' to safeguard the cyclist without lights. :cool:

brat

Tilt wrote: »

And no doubt Brat and Co will say that would be perfectly legal, fine and good practice for the outside rider to take 'primary position' to safeguard the cyclist without lights. :spam:

And as usual, you would be wrong.

frisbeej

modsandmockers wrote: »

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

No there isn't.

modsandmockers

Tilt wrote: »

And no doubt Brat and Co will say that would be perfectly legal, fine and good practice for the outside rider to take 'primary position' to safeguard the cyclist without lights. :cool:

Tilt - take heart from the fact that your experience and judgment helped you to protect three cyclists from the potential results of their own stupidity!

Tobster86

Tilt wrote: »

So tonight (about an hour ago) I drive about 2 miles to the local McDonald's

Why am I not surprised?

Tilt wrote: »

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...

You're actually expecting anyone here to defend their actions?

They were clearly numpties. If I were cycling among them they'd have been shouted at to 'get some lights'.

Side by side riding, despite being legal, I don't like, for the same reason I don't like side by side driving. For large groups there are practical purposes to it; but I am and only ever have been a solo cyclist.

modsandmockers

Tobster86 wrote: »

They were clearly numpties. If I were cycling among them they'd have been shouted at to 'get some lights'

But who would you blame if you crashed into them?

And how would you describe the incident on your insurance claim form?

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

The outer cyclist would probably have told you that he/she was acting in the interests of road safety by shielding the bike with no lights.

Seems likely.

modsandmockers wrote: »

I would guess that neither cyclist has ever heard mention of primary and secondary riding positions.

Possibly, but that shouldn't matter. They are not required to know it. They are not required to practise it. When confident enough, it will make them safer.

Primary is not a position of conflict. It's a position from which conflict can be avoided. It may incorrectly be seen by some as an obstructive position, a position cyclists put themselves in to exert their power on other road users to hold them up unnecessarily.

This misunderstanding of the theory can (as seen with tight scotsman's responses) lead to confusion and anger, and, in his particular case, a sense that his perceived superiority is being challenged.

I'm currently cycling between 120 and 200 miles per week (depending on shifts and weather). My use of the primary and secondary positions makes me feel much safer and much more in control of my safety. I wouldn't dream of cycling any other way. It also provides motorists with much more defined passing opportunities in the appropriate situations, and I believe most of them are grateful for that.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

But who would you blame if you crashed into them?

Would you apportion some blame on the cyclist who had no lights at night? I would.
Would you apportion some blame on the motorist who failed to see the cyclist? I would, dependent on circumstances and available ambient light.

modsandmockers wrote: »

And how would you describe the incident on your insurance claim form?

:huh:
I'd use plain english. What's your choice?