CycleCraft - a discussion...

[Deleted User]

fred246 wrote: »

modsandmockers you are cerebrally challenged. I don't think this forum is the best place for you.

Cyclecraft is published by HMSO as a cycling supplement to the Highway Code. It is required reading for trainee cycle instructors, and is used as the basis for the National Cycle Training syllabus. The author John Franklin is a qualified cycle instructor, and a registered forensic expert witness on cycling.

Any idiot with half a brain can see that neither Franklin nor modsandmockers are suggesting that motorists deliberately run down smaller vehicles.

Here's a sign in Fountain Street, Manchester, the advice from Cyclecraft is starting to appear on street furniture:

modsandmockers

Retrogamer wrote: »

It can't be that simple, otherwise it would have been done by now.

The roads are already in a poor state of repair (at least around my area) and councils have no money to fix them without thinking about the amount of money it would cost by re-designing the infrastructure.

It's extremely simple. But, as you say, unaffordable.

jack_pott wrote: »

Cyclecraft is published by HMSO as a cycling supplement to the Highway Code. It is required reading for trainee cycle instructors, and is used as the basis for the National Cycle Training syllabus. The author John Franklin is a qualified cycle instructor, and a registered forensic expert witness on cycling.

Any idiot with half a brain can see that neither Franklin nor modsandmockers are suggesting that motorists deliberately run down smaller vehicles.

Here's a sign in Fountain Street, Manchester, the advice from Cyclecraft is starting to appear on street furniture:

The statement that 'cyclists ride centrally in narrow lanes' is about as useful as ... ummmm - I can't decide - a traffic cop in a traffic-free zone?

esuhl

Still trolling, I see.

modsandmockers wrote: »

I strongly disagree with the final sentence - riding in that zone [the primary position] will undoubtedly increase a cyclist’s chance of being seen, but I am not convinced that it will improve the cyclist’s chances of being treated with any kind of respect.

It hardly takes a genius to see that a cyclist's sensible position on the road won't affect any mysterious (yet completely irrelevant) sense of "respect" that a driver has for them.

If a driver is sane and respects road users, he/she will understand the clear positioning of the cyclist and find it easy to anticipate their actions.

If a driver is incompetent or dangerous, the primary position at least makes them visible. Contrary to popular belief, motorists don't generally like to murder people (even the ones that shout a lot), so the safety benefits of increased visibility far outweigh any potential risk that the driver behind is a homicidal maniac who will run you over if you get in his way.

You really need to develop a sense of perspective. You neither drive nor cycle. So... what's the underlying cause of your inner conflict?

tight_scotsman

I gave up on that other thread. Was just going around in circles.

I don't cycle but I will try to get a copy of cyclecraft. Maybe it might help me see where cyclists are coming from.
Although I have driven HGV/PSV for over 30 years but I'm not above learning something new.

Like I stated before on these forums I actually care about vulnerable road users wether it's a cyclist a motorcyclist, inexperienced and learner drivers. We all have a responsibility towards each other.

I can see where the poster mods is coming from with some off his points and totally disagree with some.

like why should a cyclist decide when it's safe to overtake ? Should a drivers skill and experience not be the judge of that?

The answer in my opinion lies in Education of ALL road users especially novice cyclists on the danger of being so vulnerable. and novice drivers on how cyclists are vulnerable.

Tobster86

tight_scotsman wrote: »

like why should a cyclist decide when it's safe to overtake ? Should a drivers skill and experience not be the judge of that?

You really have to do a bit of cycling to properly appreciate primary and secondary position. All they do is signal intention to following vehicles (I'm proceeding ahead, please pass when safe; vs I'm manoeuvring/avoiding a hazard, please do not pass) - generally, although there are special cases.

The oncoming carriageway is not affected by the cyclist. It's not the same as a car driver swerving into the opposite lane to prevent someone overtaking.

Gutter hogging is useless to everyone. It signals 'I'm terrified; squeeze past as soon as possible'.

Mids_Costcutter

tight_scotsman wrote: »

like why should a cyclist decide when it's safe to overtake ? Should a drivers skill and experience not be the judge of that?

Because the cyclist is the one being placed at greater risk.

tight_scotsman wrote: »

The answer in my opinion lies in Education of ALL road users especially novice cyclists on the danger of being so vulnerable. and novice drivers on how cyclists are vulnerable.

Agree, but driver training needs to include cycling awareness e.g. why cyclists need to occupy the primary position at times. Education is of course only part of the solution. Enforcement is also crucial. Traffic police numbers in England and Wales though have fallen 23% in the last four years. Of course police forces have seen cuts to their numbers across the board, but traffic police numbers have also fallen as a proportion of total police numbers.

tight_scotsman

I'm nor saying the primary position is wrong. I saying some drivers will see this as a provocative stance " you will overtake when I deem it safe to do so"
That's where education comes into it on both sides..

Have a look on YouTube for magnatom. A cyclist with a helmet cam. Nice enough guy but can be very antagonistic.
It's this sort of cyclist (who in my opinion goes looking for trouble and getting himself into avoidable confrontations) needs to realise that his overreactions just make things worse for everyone.

Norman_Castle

tight_scotsman wrote: »

like why should a cyclist decide when it's safe to overtake ? Should a drivers skill and experience not be the judge of that?

The answer in my opinion lies in Education of ALL road users especially novice cyclists on the danger of being so vulnerable. and novice drivers on how cyclists are vulnerable.

Drivers should be competent in judging when it is safe to overtake but many seem compelled to overtake cyclists regardless of any sound reasoning. I've had cars drive dangerously close behind at speed then hurriedly and pushily overtake, simply to join the back a clearly visible queue of cars which I then pass literally seconds later. I've had vans revving behind me trying to force me to pull out of junctions which I know they wouldn't do if I was in my car.
Some motorists simply disregard cyclists as road users. Any education should include explaining the validity of cyclists as road users.

If HGVs treated cars in the same way some car drivers treat cyclists motorists would be outraged. The same drivers would consider overtaking a cyclist as safe as long they didn't hit the cyclist, ignoring the potential to seriously injure them by passing too close or too fast. Often the time gained by not waiting to overtake safely will be irrelevant or non existent as they will just arrive at the next delay a few seconds sooner.

I'm lucky enough to live close to a large nature reserve so the vast majority of my cycling is off road. When cycling on the road I'm using my 30+ years experience as a motorist and motorcyclist to judge whats safe. Its often only when you are cycling that you recognise how poor some drivers are.

Richard53

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Its often only when you are cycling that you recognise how poor some drivers are.

As a motorcyclist for 43 years, a car driver for 44 years and a cyclist for longer than that, I couldn't agree more. If a cyclist acts stupidly (and they do), it's an irritation. If a car driver acts stupidly, it can be lethal.


'Some' does not equal 'all', or even 'most', of course.

esuhl

tight_scotsman wrote: »

like why should a cyclist decide when it's safe to overtake ? Should a drivers skill and experience not be the judge of that?

If you'd cycled much, you'd realise that some drivers do not have the skill and experience to overtake safely. They aren't putting THEIR life in danger by hitting a cyclist, so they don't really care.

In an ideal world, drivers could be relied upon to never have an accident or near-miss. Unfortunately, this isn't the real world. Even if the majority of drivers are sensible, many aren't. And those who are less skilled/experienced can be assisted by a cyclist riding in the primary position when appropriate.

I'm generally hesitant to use the primary position. But I've lost count of the number of times cars have narrowly missed oncoming traffic by trying to overtake on a blind bend.

I remember nearly being wiped out by an overtaking white van in a rush to get past. If I'd been cycling in the primary position (as I should have been), he would have had no option but to wait until it was safe to pass.

tight_scotsman wrote: »

I'm nor saying the primary position is wrong. I saying some drivers will see this as a provocative stance " you will overtake when I deem it safe to do so"
That's where education comes into it on both sides..

Well, some drivers will see the existence of a bicycle to be provocative! If it's unsafe to overtake