CycleCraft - a discussion...

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

For many years, I have been saying to anyone who would listen (not many!) that road users mostly assess any perceived hazard in terms of the threat which they face themselves, rather than the threat which they pose to other road users.

Why should you think this? Where's your evidence for it? It sounds completely untrue. It's true that a driver's instinctive emergency response to a hazard may often have a 'self preservation' prioritisation aspect to it, but to suggest that drivers don't give consideration to the safety of other road users when normally negotiating any hazard is insane.

The recognition that a motorist's 'instinctive emergency response' might cause him to consider self preservation over the safety of others is a good reason why cyclists need to make themselves visible by placing themselves in a good visible position on the road, not hugging kerbs and verges. This gives a driver much more time to react and make a considered (rather than instinctive) manoeuvre.

modsandmockers wrote: »

If I am correct, then it explains why car drivers etc routinely ‘edit out’ the presence of a cyclist in an otherwise clear path, and also why cyclists fail to understand why they sometimes appear to be invisible to bigger and stronger road users.

This has to be one of the silliest paragraphs I've ever read on this forum. Not only is it a complete non sequitur from the previous paragraph's strawman proposition, but it attempts to normalise the absurdest of notions that a driver will be too busy saving themselves from the next minor road hazard that they'll simply "edit out" (!!!!!!!!!) any other highly visible avoidable hazards that are not a threat to their health or safety.

Bizarre in the extreme!!

modsandmockers wrote: »

So I was particularly interested in this bit of John Franklin’s book ‘CycleCraft’, which is a kind of bible/koran for today’s cyclists -

Again an absurd comparison. Compare it to "Roadcraft" if you will, or "Mind Driving", but not to a couple of dodgy books which try to shoehorn an arbitrary set of beliefs into a highly suspect collection of myths, fabrication, mistranslations, and downright gobbledegook. :A

modsandmockers wrote: »

Cyclecraft wrote:

“Motorists primarily give attention to that part of the road where there is risk to themselves: they are not nearly so good at noticing anything outside their path. This zone of maximum surveillance is often very narrow, especially at high speeds - it does not extend to much more than the moving traffic lane that the driver is following, plus the moving traffic lanes that are most likely to conflict with the driver’s own movement. For you to be safest as a cyclist, you must normally ride within this zone of maximum surveillance, not outside it.”

I strongly disagree with the final sentence - riding in that zone 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.

You fundamentally misunderstand the concept of 'the primary position.' It is not designed to inconvenience motorists for no reason. It has a multiple function, including
a) providing a cyclist with the best views of the road ahead.
b) (along with the secondary position) providing other road users with the earliest view of them to give motorists more time to react to them.
c) give the cyclist the positional advantage to 'take the lane' if there is insufficient space for a vehicle to pass safely within that lane.

Yesterday's ride took me on various different roads. One was this road which I talked about on the other thread.
On this (5 metre) road, my default road position was wherever in the road provided me with the best view of the road ahead with safety as the paramount caveat to that position.





Compare that to this 9/10 metre wide 'A' road which I used yesterday for 5 miles.
It's a 60 mph long, straight, clear road, where I'm every bit as visible sticking to the 'secondary' position rather than 'primary'. Holding a primary position along this road would be madness, and would rightly earn you much anger and annoyance from passing motorists. A secondary position, about 0.5m out from the road edge line, is the ideal position. It allows motorists to pass on the slenderest of overtaking arcs even when there are oncoming cars, and it provides decent wiggle room for the cyclist.



The secret of good safe cycling is to learn to adapt to the circumstances to best enhance your safety. It's about knowing how other road users think (or often don't think), and maximising safety using your rights on the road, your positional awareness and your knowledge of the behaviour and possible attitudes of other road users.

modsandmockers wrote: »

CycleCraft has managed to establish itself as some kind of authority on cycling skills, but not all experienced cyclists agree with all of its recommended cycling techniques.

As I've tried to clarify, some cyclists are not assertive or confident and will position themselves in the submissive position that car drivers think they would like us to be in. They place all of their safety in the hands of the car driver. Cyclecraft is about moving on from that stage to understand how and why motorists drive the way they do, and how best to take a safety advantage from that understanding. The assertive techniques are not for the 'guarded' cyclist, generally because they are too timid and fearful of motor vehicles to be able to do it safely.

John Franklin IIRC is not a fan of holistic cycling infrastructure and argues that it is bad for cycling and for overall safety. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that, and I'm sure Marco will have an opinion on it, Cyclecraft has codified many of the best techniques for safe assertive road cycling.

Cycrow

Unfortunately some drivers see cyclists as an inconvenience and holding them up regardless of whats actually happening.

one time i was riding down a road, it was a single lane, one way road, not that wide, not really wide enough for a cyclist and car to be side by side saftefy. So i was riding in primary position.

i was on the road for about 5 mins, and for the whole time the car behind was leaning on his horn and shouting at me to get out of the way. Even thou i was doing on average 22mph, and its a 20mph limit. And at no point on that road was i more than 5 meters behind the car infront of me.

The guy infront of me who i was following even had a go at me for holding him up

Throbbe

Cycrow wrote: »

Maybe schools need to take the same approach.

The smaller, weaker kids need to be segregated so they dont become victims of the bigger, stronger bullies

We should also ensure women are kept out of sight of men and only allowed out in public under protective costody of a man in case they should get sexually assaulted.

brat

Cycrow wrote: »

Unfortunately some drivers see cyclists as an inconvenience and holding them up regardless of whats actually happening.

one time i was riding down a road, it was a single lane, one way road, not that wide, not really wide enough for a cyclist and car to be side by side saftefy. So i was riding in primary position.

i was on the road for about 5 mins, and for the whole time the car behind was leaning on his horn and shouting at me to get out of the way. Even thou i was doing on average 22mph, and its a 20mph limit. And at no point on that road was i more than 5 meters behind the car infront of me.

The guy infront of me who i was following even had a go at me for holding him up

+1, albeit the 20mph road I often use is one lane each direction. I often follow cars through at speeds up to 25mph, only to be passed aggressively often with a long horn parrp or a hand gesture when the road widens and changes to a 30mph limit.

At least they are aware of our presence when they do stuff like that. Such driver ignorance will hopefully be addressed when the new roadsigns talked about earlier become more commonplace.

Marco_Panettone

The principles of Vehicular Cycling, as promoted through the ideas in Cyclecraft are a tool for people to use in hostile riding environments. It is what is taught in Bikeability, and it does have a place. Cycle training provides some of the skills and confidence to ride on our roads as they are. However, as this thread is showing, there's little point only teaching one subset of road users. Many drivers state that people should only be allowed to ride on roads with appropriate training, then complain that these same people are actually following what they've been taught.


Franklin can say what he likes about high-quality, protected infrastructure being 'bad for cycling' or 'dangerous' but he does so without any evidence. The country with the best infrastructure for cycling is also the country with the greatest proportion of journeys by bike. If infrastructure was 'bad for cycling', how does Franklin explain the Netherlands?


Anyway, since when did training, licences and insurance ACTUALLY work to improve people's behaviour on the roads? There are millions of trained and licenced drivers out there breaking the law and driving in a manner that is dangerous to other people. Maybe if we just ask nicely again they'll listen this time....

Tobster86

As I said before, the money and physical space does not exists to consistently provide the infrastructure you suggest; yet the existing infrastructure has been designed (and in some cases, evolved over quite some time) to accommodate many different vehicles of different sizes, speeds and movement characteristics.

ALL of the problems and conflicts come from simple human misbehaviour: impatience, aggression, unpreparedness to share.

No one has ever been late to work 'because they got stuck behind a cyclist'.

Hence my assertion that dedicated infrastructure only appeases those that don't want to share the road with cyclists (who are generally bad drivers that are probably belligerent to ALL other road users), and desensitises other drivers to the needs to cyclists in areas that don't get the infrastructure, due to reducing exposure to them.

What's the cycling situation like in rural Netherlands out of interest?

esuhl

Tobster86 wrote: »

What's the cycling situation like in rural Netherlands out of interest?

Not sure if it's true, but I remember hearing that most villages are linked by cross-country cycle-ways that are away from the roads.

Motorists in Amsterdam seemed a lot more relaxed and courteous towards cyclists.

Marco_Panettone

Tobster86 wrote: »

As I said before, the money and physical space does not exists to consistently provide the infrastructure you suggest; yet the existing infrastructure has been designed (and in some cases, evolved over quite some time) to accommodate many different vehicles of different sizes, speeds and movement characteristics.

ALL of the problems and conflicts come from simple human misbehaviour: impatience, aggression, unpreparedness to share.

No one has ever been late to work 'because they got stuck behind a cyclist'.

Hence my assertion that dedicated infrastructure only appeases those that don't want to share the road with cyclists (who are generally bad drivers that are probably belligerent to ALL other road users), and desensitises other drivers to the needs to cyclists in areas that don't get the infrastructure, due to reducing exposure to them.

What's the cycling situation like in rural Netherlands out of interest?

Have a read as to the situation in the Netherlands, and why you're wrong: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-excuses-in-one-post.html


You say that it's "simple human misbehaviour", but don't propose anything that might change it or evidence to show that it works. 'More education' for people who have already been sufficiently trained to operate a motor vehicle safely and legally? And how would that prevent misjudgements, mistakes or continuing bad behaviour?

High quality infrastructure allows EVERYONE to cycle - look at the demographic of bike users in the UK and you see predominantly young, fit males ages 18-35, this is simply not the case in Amsterdam, or Copenhagen, or the growth of cycling in Seville.


As to the 'desensitisation' of drivers, are you also in favour of allowing cycling on motorways?

fred246

I think the bit that people don't talk about is the motor industry. If you look at wikipedia motor industry in various countries Holland and Denmark have none. The motor industry employs thousands in production, sales, repairs etc. Tax from fuel is massive. As I have said if the government have the money to spend on train lines and wars then they should be able to afford a bit of road modification. However they would lose jobs and income as a result.

tight_scotsman

The Dutch produce some of the best Trucks as buses / coaches in the world