Why do some cyclists use the entire lane, use fog horns, and flashing lights?????????

RichardD1970

prowla wrote: »

If you are driving to the speed of the traffic, then you are not inconveniencing the other road users, so there isn't a particular issue regarding whether you keep to the left or not.

However, motorbikes driving close and shining their headlights in your mirrors is also bad mannered. (I guess we need another "Why do motorcyclists ..." thread for that though.)

In the case of the HC picture though, I would still look to give the cyclist plenty of room as I passed, but if they are in the middle of the lane rather than keeping left, it may be that there isn't space to the right to do so (eg. parked cars, etc.). So the cyclist in that picture is riding safely and considerately, and the motorist is overtaking likewise; that's the way it should be.

So it not, as you stated earlier, an all encompassing rule?

Unfortunately most, if not all, modern motorcycles have headlights that are permanently on.

The point about the picture is that regardless of position of the cyclist you can't overtake safely (as defined by the picture) if there is oncoming traffic, so would be forced to make an unsafe overtake, which is why the primary position might be employed. Obviously no need for it in that picture as the motorist has waited until there is a gap in the oncoming traffic to make their manoeuvre.

Norman_Castle

prowla wrote: »

OK, so you adopt the secondary position 90% of the time and the "primary" position 10% of the time.

That kind of contradicts the normal meaning of the words "primary" and "secondary", but if that is what is being advocated, then it seems sensible to me, ie. you keep to the left unless you have to move out

The terms, primary and secondary positions are based on the safest options. Not the amount of time they are used.
Cycling in the primary position is the safest for the cyclist but the cyclist should move to the secondary position when its safe to do so to allow more room for vehicles to pass.

prowla

Norman_Castle wrote: »

You're embellishing the keep to the left rule with your interpretation of its purpose. Does the highway code insist road users keep to the left to allow faster vehicles to pass or is that something you've added?.

The picture you keep referring to from the highway code shows the cyclist is in the secondary position.. As the picture is intended to show a car overtaking safely and the primary position is used to avoid unsafe overtaking having the cyclist in the primary position in the picture would be incorrect and defeat the object of the picture!.

There is an issue regarding whether you keep to the left or not regardless of your speed. It helps avoid head on collisions.

No, it doesn't insist that you do it to allow faster vehicles to pass, it simply says to keep to the left; however, it only becomes relevant in that scenario, since if the cyclist were travelling at the speed limit of the given road, the following vehicles (be they cycles, motorbikes, cars, lorries, or Sherman tanks) would have no reason or right to overtake.

An issue only arises when a significantly slower vehicle/bike is hogging the centre of the road (sorry, "primary position") and holding up the traffic.

In the picture, it shows a road where the cyclist is being courteous and obeying the keep to the left rule.

prowla

Norman_Castle wrote: »

The terms, primary and secondary positions are based on the safest options. Not the amount of time they are used.
Cycling in the primary position is the safest for the cyclist but the cyclist should move to the secondary position when its safe to do so to allow more room for vehicles to pass.

So, the cyclist should primarily be in the secondary position and only secondarily occupy the primary position when it is unsafe to be in the secondary position.

prowla

RichardD1970 wrote: »

So it not, as you stated earlier, an all encompassing rule?

Unfortunately most, if not all, modern motorcycles have headlights that are permanently on.

The point about the picture is that regardless of position of the cyclist you can't overtake safely (as defined by the picture) if there is oncoming traffic, so would be forced to make an unsafe overtake, which is why the primary position might be employed. Obviously no need for it in that picture as the motorist has waited until there is a gap in the oncoming traffic to make their manoeuvre.

It is an all-encompassing rule, but it only becomes an issue if the vehicle which isn't obeying the rules of the road and keeping to the left is inconveniencing the other road users.

If the traffic is flowing freely, then they may be disobeying the rules, but it's not materially affecting anybody.

eg. On a 40 mph road, if you're going at 40, then I'll keep my distance behind you; but if you are going at 20, then you should allow me to pass, and I will do so when it's safe. You don't have to jump off the road (unless there is a cycle path, of course!), or bounce along through the drains, manhole covers, etc, but you should keep to the left. It's quite simple and courteous.

I was driving along a road today, and I noticed that the speed bumps and manhole covers were located along the centre of the lane; perhaps they should do that along all roads - that'd make the so-called "primary position" distinctly sub-optimal!

armyknife

I must be doing something wrong as I got several waved or smiled 'thank you's from motorist this evening on my ride.

edit:
Oh and on some of the narrow* lanes I was definitely taking the primary position at times, typically so as to get a better view of any upcoming cars coming in the opposite direction.

Of course then going hard into the left, still didn't stop a couple of motorists from forcing me to all but stop, I'd guess they 'thought' I should be moving into the crumbling and potholed road edge/embanking, though not somewhere those two seemed keen on testing their 4 wheel drive themselves.


*Only wide enough for one vehicle to proceed.

Hedgehog99

trinidadone wrote: »

wow, really sorry you had all those bad experiences. Do you live in a big city???

A city, yes, but not a particularly big one. Just one where the layout and road-user attitudes cause conflict (e.g the road-rage was because of the lack of a traffic light for cyclists leaving a cycle route at roadworks). I've had better experiences in bigger cities like London & Liverpool, but that was a while ago, before the recent years of the awful lorry-cyclist collisions in London.

Glad you find cycling more enjoyable in your neck of the woods.

Norman_Castle

prowla wrote: »

So, the cyclist should primarily be in the secondary position and only secondarily occupy the primary position when it is unsafe to be in the secondary position.

No. Cycling in the primary position is the safest for the cyclist and should be used when possible but the cyclist should move to the secondary position when its safe to do so to allow more room for vehicles to pass.

Norman_Castle

prowla wrote: »

No, it doesn't insist that you do it to allow faster vehicles to pass, it simply says to keep to the left; Correct. Well done. however, it only becomes relevant in that scenario, since if the cyclist were travelling at the speed limit of the given road, the following vehicles (be they cycles, motorbikes, cars, lorries, or Sherman tanks) would have no reason or right to overtake. Again, you've added your interpretation that the keep left rule exists to assist overtaking. Where does it say this in the highway code?

An issue only arises when a significantly slower vehicle/bike is hogging the centre of the road (sorry, "primary position") and holding up the traffic. "The traffic" presumably includes you as a motorist, who is being held up by someone "hogging the centre of the road" which you don't like so choose to interpret the keep left rule to benefit you.

In the picture, it shows a road where the cyclist is being courteous and obeying the keep to the left rule.They're obeying the keep left rule by not riding on the opposite side of the road.

Viewing the highway from kerb to kerb, which rule in the highway code instructs road users to drive on the left?.

If someone is driving on the right hand side of the road into oncoming traffic which primary rule from the highway code are they ignoring?

trinidadone

Hedgehog99 wrote: »

A city, yes, but not a particularly big one. Just one where the layout and road-user attitudes cause conflict (e.g the road-rage was because of the lack of a traffic light for cyclists leaving a cycle route at roadworks). I've had better experiences in bigger cities like London & Liverpool, but that was a while ago, before the recent years of the awful lorry-cyclist collisions in London.

Glad you find cycling more enjoyable in your neck of the woods.

Again, sorry to hear. hopefully the authorities where you are will look at improved road layouts for all road users.

To be honest, i actually am not a cycle user. I would like to try though, but I just dont feel safe enough to try and cycle in the capital, even with the blue lanes here, which do seem to stop and start suddenly. There is alot of building work happening with segregated lanes, so I am waiting to see how these pan out.