If there was compulsory training for cyclists, would that put you off cycling?

modsandmockers

brat wrote: »

Perhaps it would help if you can highlight where you have garnered the misunderstanding that some people think of the primary position as "lane-hogging".
When a vehicle is approaching from behind, it is about taking control of the lane you're in when necessary for the purpose of personal safety. Is that what you mean by "lane-hogging"? Or does the use of the word "hogging" imply some malevolence, bloody mindedness? If so, I challenge you to find any such suggestion in my posts

My understanding is that large numbers of motorists do indeed think of the primary position as ‘lane-hogging’, and, yes, it is often hard for a motorist to believe that the cyclist is not operating a policy of bloody-mindedness. It is the ‘when necessary’ bit that newly-born cyclists don’t always understand, and your posts have placed little emphasis on its importance.

armyknife

Holy thread necromancy, it's like you've got nothing better to do than post in a place you're not especially liked. :hmm:

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

My understanding is that large numbers of motorists do indeed think of the primary position as ‘lane-hogging’, and, yes, it is often hard for a motorist to believe that the cyclist is not operating a policy of bloody-mindedness.

It's well known that many motorists don't understand how and why some cyclists act for their own safety. Assertive cyclists understand that there is a potential for motorists trying (through their ignorance) to educate the cyclist do do what the motorist wants, using the bully tactics of a close pass or a horn blast rebuke, or both.

The consensus among these cyclists is that the threat from ignorant motorists' angry behaviours is significantly less than the threats posed by poor submissive positioning, namely a)not being seen until too late leaving less time to react, and b) insufficient lateral safety space.

It is the ‘when necessary’ bit that newly-born cyclists don’t always understand, and your posts have placed little emphasis on its importance.

Its another of your crock strawman theories, it doesn't deserve a response, because it's not a known or recognised issue. You just made it up.

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

Check it out - you're wrong again. Even Brat managed to understand my meaning...

But only an idiot would invent bizarrely misleading phrases instead of... just talking in everyday language! Do you smoke crack? It makes you mentally volatile and no one can understand you.

You had one point to make, it seems, about drivers being inexperience and poorly trained when negotiating cyclists. And, despite numerous other posters pointing out what a wally you're being. You just keep on. You've been told so many times why you're wrong, why you lack an awareness of road safety, how you are unable to have a coherent rational discussion, and how you resort to cheap, mindless trolling to push your combative and aggressive prejudices.

You're not convincing anyone. Go away. Ride a bike several times a week. Come back in a year when you've grasped the art of common-sense.

Tobster86

If there's any problem with the actions of novice or ill trained cyclists, it's their tendency to hug the gutter in a state of terror.

'Abuse of primary position' by novices simply doesn't exist; primary position is inherently counter-intuitive to our self-preservative aversion to running with bigger and faster vehicles, and requires training and experience to even want to execute it at all, yet alone know when to.

The extremely small minority (I've only ever seen one) of cyclists with a serious axe to grind, that ride in a lentil-fuelled state of Gaian rage, don't actually take what you would call primary position (this particular example assumed the solid white line on the right of a bus lane and screamed at everything in sight with an engine), and are probably too mentally ill to understand what they're doing at all.

modsandmockers

Im glad it wasn’t me who made the reference to mental illness, but it’s good to read a post which recognises real world practicalities.

The only ‘official’ explanation of primary positioning is in chapter 7 of CycleCraft, and, as Brat has pointed out, it is not compulsory reading for anybody except Bikeability instructors. The Highway Code steers very clear of the idea, probably for the reasons which you have pointed out - "primary position is inherently counter-intuitive to our self-preservative aversion to running with bigger and faster vehicles"

Tobster86

The highway code provides for the lowest common denominator.

It also steers clear of many aspects of advanced driving.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't be studied or practised.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

Im glad it wasn’t me who made the reference to mental illness, but it’s good to read a post which recognises real world practicalities.

The only ‘official’ explanation of primary positioning is in chapter 7 of CycleCraft, and, as Brat has pointed out, it is not compulsory reading for anybody except Bikeability instructors. The Highway Code steers very clear of the idea, probably for the reasons which you have pointed out - "primary position is inherently counter-intuitive to our self-preservative aversion to running with bigger and faster vehicles"

As Tobster said, The Highway Code offers broad strokes advice to all road users about keeping safe for the most basic driving or cycling skillset.

It does not instruct on technique, nor does it require you to do anything which requires more ability than you would have attained when passing a basic driving test.

So it doesn't teach or advise on limit point analysis, it doesn't address advanced overtaking techniques, observation links and anticipative driving, observation aids, expectations, driving plans, progressive driving, lateral positioning for view, etc etc, all of which can be added to the basic skillset to make you a better safer driver.

It does teach one to keep good space around other road users. In fact it is one of the most repeated mantras in the booklet.

A cyclist who recognises his vulnerability and wishes to do what s/he can to improve personal safety might buy a book on the subject and/or enrol in a course. Or they may simply learn techniques and strategies from their peers.

No one should deny a cyclist the right to use the entire width of the lane in which they are established. Any overtake of a cyclist by a motor vehicle within the lane in which the cyclist is established is in principle no different to a cyclist or motorcyclist filtering past a slow moving car in the same lane. If there is any doubt that the cyclist will maintain a straight and direct course in their lane, (potholes, debris, a wish to turn right etc) a motorist must accommodate that possibility by either giving them plenty of room or holding back. That is their duty of care.

Advanced cycling techniques is the recognition that some motorists occasionally need gentle reminders about that duty of care in those situations where that forgetfulness or neglect may lead to danger for the cyclist.

modsandmockers

Tobster86 wrote: »

The highway code provides for the lowest common denominator.

It also steers clear of many aspects of advanced driving.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't be studied or practised.

The comment about advanced driving techniques reminds me of a demonstration drive which I was given by an IAM trainer about 20 years ago.

The bit he was most interested in demonstrating was the idea of ‘modifying the line’ through bends in the road, largely by crossing to the wrong side of the road for a left-hand bend, and running his nearside wheels in the gutter for a right-hand bend. I was not impressed - road safety depends upon road users having a shared understanding of each others’ behaviour.

If driverless vehicles ever become a reality, it will be partly because they will never be driven by adrenalin..

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

The comment about advanced driving techniques reminds me of a demonstration drive which I was given by an IAM trainer about 20 years ago.

The bit he was most interested in demonstrating was the idea of ‘modifying the line’ through bends in the road, largely by crossing to the wrong side of the road for a left-hand bend, and running his nearside wheels in the gutter for a right-hand bend. I was not impressed - road safety depends upon road users having a shared understanding of each others’ behaviour.

Advanced driving is all about anticipation, planning smoothness and sparkle. The overriding factor is that no perceived advantage should ever compromise safety.

So it makes perfect sense to maximise the arc of a bend. It permits maximum smoothness at a speed, or allows the maximum safe speed for a bend.
There is no conflict of understanding - I can't imagine why you think there is.

If driverless vehicles ever become a reality, it will be partly because they will never be driven by adrenalin..

You're making stuff up again.

Keep taking the pills...