Cyclecraft: Exceptions

Tony Raven said:

Quoted message said:

Methinks he wants to be able to argue 'all these experienced cyclists
disagree with CycleCraft, so it must be rubbish'. I'm very carefully not
replying.

Me too.

--
Tony

Blimey, not you too? 😉

No, it's more a case of trying to show that if so many experienced and
knowledgeable cyclists can't pick holes in cyclecraft, then that's a
pretty indication that there aren't many there. There were really
only a tiny minority of people I've seen make comments such as "I
cringe whenever I read the words 'primary position'". Personally I
think that's stupid and not paying attention to what the book is
saying, and I'm irked that otherwise sensible people should dismiss
what I think is such a good book without due cause and without any
reasoning behind their comments.

You can see my opinion here:
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/book_reviews.html

LSMike wrote on 01/07/2007 09:16 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

Quoted message said:

Methinks he wants to be able to argue 'all these experienced cyclists
disagree with CycleCraft, so it must be rubbish'. I'm very carefully not
replying.

Me too.

--
Tony

Blimey, not you too? 😉

It was my New Year's Resolution to find something to agree with Simon on
at least once a month ;-)

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

LSMike wrote on 01/07/2007 09:16 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

> Methinks he wants to be able to argue 'all these experienced cyclists
> disagree with CycleCraft, so it must be rubbish'. I'm very carefully
> not replying.
Me too.

Blimey, not you too? 😉

It was my New Year's Resolution to find something to agree with Simon on
at least once a month ;-)

Don't listen to Tony, he's always wrong. All you need to do it read my
wisdom, my moderation, my good sense and my encyclopaedic technical
knowledge, and reverse everything I say, and that's what Tony thinks.

Smiley? what smiley?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

There are no messages. The above is just a random stream of
bytes. Any opinion or meaning you find in it is your own creation.

in message <[email hidden]>, LSMike

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

Methinks he wants to be able to argue 'all these experienced cyclists
disagree with CycleCraft, so it must be rubbish'. I'm very carefully not
replying.

Oooh, you should know me better by now Simon!

Well, OK, if I'm wrong I apologise. That's how I read it.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Want to know what SCO stands for?
;; http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030605

Simon Brooke wrote on 01/07/2007 10:20 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Don't listen to Tony, he's always wrong.

You're right!

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Pete Biggs said:

Roger Merriman said:

Pete Biggs <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A horn may well be useful for asserting your right of way and
assisting your convenience, but you can prevent potential collisions
by slowing down or stopping until it is obvious that the driver has
seen you. Therefore it is not necessary to have a horn to be *safe*.

no but the same could be said for a car or bike or well any thing on
the road really.

That's right. The difference is that

some

Quoted message said:

car drivers aren't willing to drive in
such a way that they would be safe without a horn.

My experience remains that much less than 2% of drivers of motor
vehicles in and around Preston are arses.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

LSMike said:

No, it's more a case of trying to show that if so many experienced and
knowledgeable cyclists can't pick holes in cyclecraft, then that's a
pretty indication that there aren't many there. There were really
only a tiny minority of people I've seen make comments such as "I
cringe whenever I read the words 'primary position'". Personally I
think that's stupid and not paying attention to what the book is
saying, and I'm irked that otherwise sensible people should dismiss
what I think is such a good book without due cause and without any
reasoning behind their comments.

On my drive to work, I routinely pass a chap cycling up the A6 through
Westhoughton who uses the white edge of road marking as a lane marker. I
am so often tempted to wind my window down and tell him to get in to the
primary or even secondary positions.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Ekul Namsob said:

My experience remains that much less than 2% of drivers of motor
vehicles in and around Preston are arses.

I'd have said around 5% - I reckon about 1 in 20 cars on a particular
stretch on my commute go past dangerously. Elsewhere on the route is
less bad, but an [censored] is still an [censored] even if he is only dangerous in
some circumstances, imo.

Unfortunately, 5% still means a lot or arses in close proximity
twice a day, and it only takes one to kill you.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Pete Biggs said:

Roger Merriman said:

Pete Biggs <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A horn may well be useful for asserting your right of way and
assisting your convenience, but you can prevent potential collisions
by slowing down or stopping until it is obvious that the driver has
seen you. Therefore it is not necessary to have a horn to be *safe*.

no but the same could be said for a car or bike or well any thing on
the road really.

That's right. The difference is that car drivers aren't willing to drive in
such a way that they would be safe without a horn.

~PB

um, no the point is the horn is not that useful, very rare to need in in
urban places, i certinaly never need to. while narrow lanes nr my folks
it is useful to warn of your approch.

roger

Ian Smith said:

Ekul Namsob said:

My experience remains that much less than 2% of drivers of motor
vehicles in and around Preston are arses.

I'd have said around 5% - I reckon about 1 in 20 cars on a particular
stretch on my commute go past dangerously. Elsewhere on the route is
less bad, but an [censored] is still an [censored] even if he is only dangerous in
some circumstances, imo.

Unfortunately, 5% still means a lot or arses in close proximity
twice a day, and it only takes one to kill you.

Indeed. My point, however, is that comments such as "car drivers aren't
willing to drive in such a way that they would be safe without a horn "
are unhelpful in that they tar the other 95 to 98% of drivers with the
same brush and lead some people to the conclusion that they would be
better off in a car.

Cheers,
Luke
--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 06:07:57 -0000, LSMike <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It's because there have been a very few experienced cyclists who have
IMO unfairly dismissed Cyclecraft. I started a similar topic on an
internet forum some time ago, and the result was nothing. One came up
with one situation where he had a good alternative to the Cyclecraft
option, but it wasn't necessarily significantly better, and the
cyclecraft option was still perfectly valid, as well as it being
debateable as to which one was the better solution.

Well, John's a friend so I'd be bound to speak up for him anyway, but
in the end everything in Cyclecraft amounts to: use your head, here's
an example to help you along. That's why it holds up so well in so
many real-world situations.

Now try this: what is the single best piece of advice you've ever
seen, in Cyclecraft or anywhere else?

For me, it's this: the key to being seen is to put yourself where
people are actually looking. Quoted this to plod the other day when
proffered the TFL "don't ride up the left hand side of a lorry you
muppet" flyer. He liked it.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Simon Brooke writted:

Quoted message said:

my moderation,

KaBOOM! <looks down at smoking hole where Sarcasm Detector used to be>

Colin McKenzie said:

I don't think it's a good plan to rely on an Air Zound working, being
heard, and being acted upon in the right way, to save your life. The
priority in these cases is the emergency stop or swerve.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

When it is useful is earlier, when you still have a little time, and
if the driver responds right you might be able to keep going.

This is a matter of convenience and driver education, but rarely life
or death. So I agree with John Franklin that an Air Zound is not going
to avert a collision,

But I don't agree with him that they "have no purpose".

Quoted message said:

but I also agree with you that it is useful for
asserting right of way. I have one(1).

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2

Simon Brooke said:

Methinks he wants to be able to argue 'all these experienced cyclists
disagree with CycleCraft, so it must be rubbish'. I'm very carefully not
replying.

I felt that was rather unlikely from LSMike, so had no problem engaging
in discussion.

When I first read Cyclecraft the only advice I didn't like was the bit
about negotiating slip roads while riding on a dual carriageway. It was
a situation that I didn't have any experience of (still don't) and had
never given any consideration to, but when I thought about it properly
and started looking at slip roads as I passed them in a car it didn't
take me long to realise that the CC advice was absolutely right.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2

LSMike said:

I can see both points of view TBH. I have an AirZound on my
recumbent, because there it's easy to use the brakes and hit the horn
in the same moment, so it's very useful in just the way you describe.

Here's a picture:
http://www.londonskaters.com/cycling/images/P7010314.JPG

in message <[email hidden]>, Mark
('pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid'😉

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke writted:

Quoted message said:

my moderation,

KaBOOM! <looks down at smoking hole where Sarcasm Detector used to be>

We aim to please...

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; When all else fails, read the distractions.

Quoting LSMike <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I'm interested specifically in situations where you would behave
differently than cyclecraft recommends. Try to make as concise a
description as possible as to what the situation is, and how your
treatment differs from cyclecraft.

Cyclecraft recommends an odd approach to slip roads. I prefer to take the
normal line any other vehicle would use.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?
Today is First Sunday, Presuary - a weekend.

Danny Colyer said:

Quoted message said:

Methinks he wants to be able to argue 'all these experienced cyclists
disagree with CycleCraft, so it must be rubbish'. I'm very carefully not
replying.

I felt that was rather unlikely from LSMike, so had no problem engaging
in discussion.

When I first read Cyclecraft the only advice I didn't like was the bit
about negotiating slip roads while riding on a dual carriageway. It was
a situation that I didn't have any experience of (still don't) and had
never given any consideration to, but when I thought about it properly
and started looking at slip roads as I passed them in a car it didn't
take me long to realise that the CC advice was absolutely right.

After spending a hair-raising afternoon [1] negotiating the horrible
"expressways" in Runcorn, I returned home and read Cyclecraft's advice
on sliproads. I was interested to see that I had intuitively done
what the book advised........ as it was the only way I could see to
avoid being mown down!

[1] I didn't spend all afternoon in Runcorn, but it is the
dual-carriageways that stick in my mind.

Judith

Simon Brooke said:

Don't listen to Tony, he's always wrong. All you need to do it read my
wisdom, my moderation, my good sense and my encyclopaedic technical
knowledge, and reverse everything I say, and that's what Tony thinks.

Smiley? what smiley?

Are you from Minnesota as well?

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"This seems like a case where we need to shoot the messenger."
(Charlie Kaufman on Cypherpunks list)

David Damerell said:

Cyclecraft recommends an odd approach to slip roads. I prefer to take
the normal line any other vehicle would use.

Including on the fastest and busiest dual carriageways, with slip roads
alongside for many dozens of yards and speed differences of 60 mph between
yourself and the cars?

~PB