CycleCraft - a discussion...

Marco_Panettone

brat wrote: »

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.

I assume you ride a road bike. Try riding a loaded-up shopper to see if primary position is still suitable.


Telling people to 'take the lane' does not make riding in front of fast-moving traffic look or feel sensible if the difference in speed is more than about 3mph. For the vast majority of short journeys that should be done by bike this would not be the case - I can hit about 15mph on my utility bike at a push (without full panniers), but it isn't sustainable and doesn't make for a relaxing ride.


Most people do not want to race the traffic or ride in front of vehicles - that's why our cycling levels are around 2% nationally. To encourage utility cycling you need to design for it and that means infrastructure, not training or advice.

silverwhistle

Tilt wrote: »

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

Drove? 2 miles? Haven't you got a bike?

JP08

brat wrote: »

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.
?

Irrespective of lighting or not, if you hit them it would be your fault for going too fast to be able to react to something in the road. Actually it would be even worse than that as the closing speed (assuming you hit someone in your lane and were not overtaking) would be less than for a stationary object.

After all, if you hit the cyclist, you'd also hit the poorly parked car with dirty reflectors, the skip that someone has removed the light from on their way back from the pub and the poor pedestrian who has tripped and fallen in the road and is sitting there a bit dazed and confused.

In fact it is very hard to come up with a reason that isn't the drivers fault for hitting anything in the road in front of them unless it entered the lane from left / right / above / below within the emergency stop distance.

Tobster86

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

I assume you ride a road bike. Try riding a loaded-up shopper to see if primary position is still suitable.

Telling people to 'take the lane' does not make riding in front of fast-moving traffic look or feel sensible if the difference in speed is more than about 3mph. For the vast majority of short journeys that should be done by bike this would not be the case - I can hit about 15mph on my utility bike at a push (without full panniers), but it isn't sustainable and doesn't make for a relaxing ride.

Most people do not want to race the traffic or ride in front of vehicles - that's why our cycling levels are around 2% nationally. To encourage utility cycling you need to design for it and that means infrastructure, not training or advice.

A confession; I recently had to cycle about three miles from the centre of town whilst carrying a bag full of BMW 5-Series engine parts, and a large painting.

I did the whole thing very slowly on the pavement, apologising to the 100 odd pedestrians, who were more interested in the artwork I was carrying (a large print of this: http://www.museumofbadart.org/coll5/image05.php)

This came up in the news today:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-31805312
which I think also calls for careful, discretionate sharing of the pavements where appropriate being legal.

The problem is these are both highly exceptional circumstances and I understand where you're coming from regarding infrastructure for those who are going faster than jogging pace, which is highly inappropriate for the pavement, but still no where near vehicular traffic speeds.

Billy-no-Money

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

I assume you ride a road bike. Try riding a loaded-up shopper to see if primary position is still suitable.
.... .... ....
Most people do not want to race the traffic or ride in front of vehicles - that's why our cycling levels are around 2% nationally. To encourage utility cycling you need to design for it and that means infrastructure, not training or advice.

Exactly. The advice in Cyclecraft is just a way of dealing with poor driving standards and roads prioritised for cars. Rather like advice on avoiding becoming a victim of crime. Far better to do something about the crime.

I know how to keep myself safe on the roads and some of the thinking behind Cyclecraft is useful to me; but it doesn't help me when I'm tired or carrying a heavy load. No, instead over time I've discovered all sorts of cut-throughs and detours that avoid the bits of road that cause me the most stress; some of those are official cycling routes, but there's nothing to tell me in any useful way when I'm on the road.

Also there are places where I believe Cyclecraft is no use at all; e.g. my route to work goes through the area where the M55 motorway ends in Blackpool, but it doesn't just end - it degrades into dual-carriageway A-roads with sliproads,fast roundabouts and no footpaths (I believe pedestrians often have an even worse time of it). I've found an (unsigned) way round it and negotiate the last roundabout on a bypass cycle path (even though it's covered in glass because car drivers can't even see each other, never mind bikes); but there's no way I'm riding those junctions and relying on Primary and a bit of hi-viz to protect me. This isn't because there are some incompetent drivers who just need some help; rather in that situation the MAJORITY of drivers will not expect a bike because in their heads they're still on a motorway.

This is the problem I have; in slow traffic doing maybe 13 - 18mph I ride in primary and go with the flow. At some junctions I accelerate in front of the cars to control my own safety. But most of the time these measures are unnecessary and not useful, and in some places they're impossible to put into action.

I'd rather see the car tamed in general than focus just on cycling facilities; I shouldn't have to see a young mother with a pushchair and a child in hand having to run across a 70mph dual carriageway to get from her home to the nearest bus stop.

brat

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

I assume you ride a road bike. Try riding a loaded-up shopper to see if primary position is still suitable.


Telling people to 'take the lane' does not make riding in front of fast-moving traffic look or feel sensible if the difference in speed is more than about 3mph. For the vast majority of short journeys that should be done by bike this would not be the case - I can hit about 15mph on my utility bike at a push (without full panniers), but it isn't sustainable and doesn't make for a relaxing ride.


Most people do not want to race the traffic or ride in front of vehicles - that's why our cycling levels are around 2% nationally. To encourage utility cycling you need to design for it and that means infrastructure, not training or advice.

Commuting and shopping makes up about 10 to 15% of my weekly mileage, while 95% of my leisure rides are on roads like this which was part of today's 90 miler. Taking a controlling position on roads such as this is a given. Most traffic on roads like this are not going particularly quickly and are expecting to have to slow or stop for oncoming cars. It's the exception rather than the rule for me to ride on roads where you can relax into a constant passive secondary position.

brat

Billy-no-Money wrote: »

Exactly. The advice in Cyclecraft is just a way of dealing with poor driving standards and roads prioritised for cars. Rather like advice on avoiding becoming a victim of crime. Far better to do something about the crime.

I know how to keep myself safe on the roads and some of the thinking behind Cyclecraft is useful to me; but it doesn't help me when I'm tired or carrying a heavy load. No, instead over time I've discovered all sorts of cut-throughs and detours that avoid the bits of road that cause me the most stress; some of those are official cycling routes, but there's nothing to tell me in any useful way when I'm on the road.

Also there are places where I believe Cyclecraft is no use at all; e.g. my route to work goes through the area where the M55 motorway ends in Blackpool, but it doesn't just end - it degrades into dual-carriageway A-roads with sliproads,fast roundabouts and no footpaths (I believe pedestrians often have an even worse time of it). I've found an (unsigned) way round it and negotiate the last roundabout on a bypass cycle path (even though it's covered in glass because car drivers can't even see each other, never mind bikes); but there's no way I'm riding those junctions and relying on Primary and a bit of hi-viz to protect me. This isn't because there are some incompetent drivers who just need some help; rather in that situation the MAJORITY of drivers will not expect a bike because in their heads they're still on a motorway.

This is the problem I have; in slow traffic doing maybe 13 - 18mph I ride in primary and go with the flow. At some junctions I accelerate in front of the cars to control my own safety. But most of the time these measures are unnecessary and not useful, and in some places they're impossible to put into action.

I agree. You simply cannot be prescriptive regarding position and strategy, because cycling on the road involves so many individual variables such as bike type, fitness, road topography, traffic volumes, time of day, confidence, ability, experience etc. A safer strategy for one person may not be safe or advisable for another.

I also agree that some roads are just too dangerous to cycle.
When I'm out with my wife and girls, I guess we ride at an average speed of 12 mph along the flat. They don't share my confidence. I would not feel at all comfortable taking them on any major roads with moderate to heavy traffic. We don't need to do that, so we don't. We tend to stick to quiet roads and paths.
I'll take on some high traffic volume roads, but only infrequently.

Tilt

JP08 wrote: »

Irrespective of lighting or not, if you hit them it would be your fault for going too fast to be able to react to something in the road. Actually it would be even worse than that as the closing speed (assuming you hit someone in your lane and were not overtaking) would be less than for a stationary object.

This isn't always the case.

http://www.whtimes.co.uk/news/death_of_welwyn_garden_city_violinist_a_tragic_accident_says_coroner_1_1115588

Tilt

silverwhistle wrote: »

Drove? 2 miles? Haven't you got a bike?

Yes but it was dark and I don't have any lights...;)

brat

JP08 wrote: »

Irrespective of lighting or not, if you hit them it would be your fault for going too fast to be able to react to something in the road. Actually it would be even worse than that as the closing speed (assuming you hit someone in your lane and were not overtaking) would be less than for a stationary object.

After all, if you hit the cyclist, you'd also hit the poorly parked car with dirty reflectors, the skip that someone has removed the light from on their way back from the pub and the poor pedestrian who has tripped and fallen in the road and is sitting there a bit dazed and confused.

In fact it is very hard to come up with a reason that isn't the drivers fault for hitting anything in the road in front of them unless it entered the lane from left / right / above / below within the emergency stop distance.

I did say dependent on circumstances, and there are, as you've rightly said, some circumstances where no blame should be apportioned to a motorist.

I agree that the motorist should be able to stop in the distance they can see to be clear. In theory, if a dark object ahead of them is either stationary or moving ahead in the same direction, they should be able to see it in time and avoid it.
In practice, certainly in criminal cases, it's extremely unlikely that a car driver would be prosecuted if, while driving otherwise normally, he or she failed to see an unlit, unreflective dark object on a dark unlit road. In a civil sense there would be some liability, I'm sure, but I don't think it would be too high a percentage.

If however the unlit cyclist was somewhere like Picadilly Circus at night time, a motorist wouldn't be excused from hitting them merely on the basis that they didn't see them because they were unlit.