Re: cyclist nearly kills himself



"TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alan Holmes wrote:
>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> TripleS wrote:
>>>>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>>>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> TripleS wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Conor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, TripleS says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by Primary position?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does it mean cycling down the middle of a lane in order
>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent (or at least discourage) a driver from overtaking you?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty much. It's supposed to be slightly to the right as I
>>>>>>>>>>>> recall on a motorbike.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've noticed motorcyclists often position themselves just to
>>>>>>>>>>> the left of the centre-line as standard procedure on single
>>>>>>>>>>> carriageway roads, even when it appears to offer no advantage
>>>>>>>>>>> to them. This can be a nuisance if you're looking to overtake
>>>>>>>>>>> them* and it can give the impression that they're trying to be
>>>>>>>>>>> obstructive, though they may not be.
>>>>>>>>>>> * Yes OK, I do appreciate that normally it's the bikers who are
>>>>>>>>>>> doing the overtaking!
>>>>>>>>>> If you you look at the position of the driver, rather than the
>>>>>>>>>> vehicle, they should be occupying the same relative position on
>>>>>>>>>> the road as a car or van driver.
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure that I see the reasoning there. Whether we're
>>>>>>>>> driving cars or riding motorbikes I think keeping tucked in to
>>>>>>>>> the left as far as reasonably possible is the thing to do, though
>>>>>>>>> of course we may decide to depart from this from time to time for
>>>>>>>>> improving vision etc. There is also the point that none of us
>>>>>>>>> should be expected to
>>>>>>>>> drive/ride so close to the edge that we fall foul of all the
>>>>>>>>> rough stuff and debris that tends to accumulate there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Having said all that, I still feel the bikers take up more space
>>>>>>>>> near the centre of the road than seems appropriate.
>>>>>>>> Simple, if there's not enough space to overtake a car then there's
>>>>>>>> not enough to pass a bike. The biker adopting the commanding
>>>>>>>> position makes the car driver wanting to pass think about it
>>>>>>>> rather than trying to squeeze past and force the bike into the
>>>>>>>> gutter or worse.
>>>>>>> I'm not wanting to squeeze past or force them into the gutter or
>>>>>>> anything like that, but it does make it that bit more difficult to
>>>>>>> get a clear view past them when they are so far out into the road.
>>>>>> Just like trying to see round a car!
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not disagreeing about that.
>>>>>
>>>>> All I'm saying is that IMHO the bikers often sit too far out into the
>>>>> road, gaining no particular benefit for themselves, but what they are
>>>>> doing is making vision worse for a following driver looking to
>>>>> overtake.
>>>> They are gaining a considerable benefit for themselves. They're giving
>>>> themselves space for when some inconsiderate car driver tries to
>>>> overtake with insufficient clearance.
>>>>
>>> No they are not.

>>
>> All together now, Oh yes they are!

>
> One, perhaps all on his own: "No they are not!"
>
>> By occupying a space close to the centre-line of the
>>> road they obtain no general advantage for themselves, unless they are
>>> seeking to enhance their vision - which does not apply on a long
>>> straight road free from junctions or suchlike hazards - but still they
>>> do it.

>>
>> It is quite obvious you have never been on a bicycle, on todays roads.

>
> Not true, Alan - but in any case you seem to be ignoring the fact that I'm
> mainly talking about motorcyclists.


Well you may have missread the header, but the post started out as a post
about bicycles. without motors, propelled by pedals and feet.

Alan

>
> Best wishes all,
> Dave.
 
"TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clive Coleman. wrote:
>> In message <[email protected]>, Alan Holmes
>> <[email protected]> writes
>>> It is quite obvious you have never been on a bicycle, on todays roads.

>> Although in the past I've done thousands of miles on cycles and
>> motorcycles, I haven't ridden either for about 20 years. However past
>> experience tells me that the correct place to be is about a third of the
>> carriageway from the pavement to the centre line, allowing much faster
>> traffic to pass you safely and allowing you room to escape if some moron
>> tries to cut you up.

>
> Thank you Clive - I think that makes sense. I don't expect people on push
> bikes or motorbikes to be in the gutter all the time amongst the rough
> surfaces and general debris, but nor should they (IMHO) be taking up too
> much space and seeking to dominate the scene. Within reason it might have
> some merit at times, but there are other times when their best interests
> might be served by keeping out of the way a bit.


So they can be pushed out of the way by unruly motorists?

Some time ago I went into a branch of Halfords to enquire about an
indicator, which was fixed to the rear of a bicycle, which stuck out so that
anyone following would have to allow the cyclist a little bit of room, the
rather stupid woman who worked there told me they were dangerous, as it
prevented her from passing, which implied that she was prepared to drive so
close to the cyclist as to be dangerous!

Alan

>
> Best wishes all,
> Dave.
 
Alan Holmes wrote:
> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>> TripleS wrote:
>>>>>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> TripleS wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Conor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, TripleS says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by Primary position?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does it mean cycling down the middle of a lane in order
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent (or at least discourage) a driver from overtaking you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty much. It's supposed to be slightly to the right as I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recall on a motorbike.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've noticed motorcyclists often position themselves just to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the left of the centre-line as standard procedure on single
>>>>>>>>>>>> carriageway roads, even when it appears to offer no advantage
>>>>>>>>>>>> to them. This can be a nuisance if you're looking to overtake
>>>>>>>>>>>> them* and it can give the impression that they're trying to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> obstructive, though they may not be.
>>>>>>>>>>>> * Yes OK, I do appreciate that normally it's the bikers who are
>>>>>>>>>>>> doing the overtaking!
>>>>>>>>>>> If you you look at the position of the driver, rather than the
>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle, they should be occupying the same relative position on
>>>>>>>>>>> the road as a car or van driver.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure that I see the reasoning there. Whether we're
>>>>>>>>>> driving cars or riding motorbikes I think keeping tucked in to
>>>>>>>>>> the left as far as reasonably possible is the thing to do, though
>>>>>>>>>> of course we may decide to depart from this from time to time for
>>>>>>>>>> improving vision etc. There is also the point that none of us
>>>>>>>>>> should be expected to
>>>>>>>>>> drive/ride so close to the edge that we fall foul of all the
>>>>>>>>>> rough stuff and debris that tends to accumulate there.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Having said all that, I still feel the bikers take up more space
>>>>>>>>>> near the centre of the road than seems appropriate.
>>>>>>>>> Simple, if there's not enough space to overtake a car then there's
>>>>>>>>> not enough to pass a bike. The biker adopting the commanding
>>>>>>>>> position makes the car driver wanting to pass think about it
>>>>>>>>> rather than trying to squeeze past and force the bike into the
>>>>>>>>> gutter or worse.
>>>>>>>> I'm not wanting to squeeze past or force them into the gutter or
>>>>>>>> anything like that, but it does make it that bit more difficult to
>>>>>>>> get a clear view past them when they are so far out into the road.
>>>>>>> Just like trying to see round a car!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not disagreeing about that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All I'm saying is that IMHO the bikers often sit too far out into the
>>>>>> road, gaining no particular benefit for themselves, but what they are
>>>>>> doing is making vision worse for a following driver looking to
>>>>>> overtake.
>>>>> They are gaining a considerable benefit for themselves. They're giving
>>>>> themselves space for when some inconsiderate car driver tries to
>>>>> overtake with insufficient clearance.
>>>>>
>>>> No they are not.
>>> All together now, Oh yes they are!

>> One, perhaps all on his own: "No they are not!"
>>
>>> By occupying a space close to the centre-line of the
>>>> road they obtain no general advantage for themselves, unless they are
>>>> seeking to enhance their vision - which does not apply on a long
>>>> straight road free from junctions or suchlike hazards - but still they
>>>> do it.
>>> It is quite obvious you have never been on a bicycle, on todays roads.

>> Not true, Alan - but in any case you seem to be ignoring the fact that I'm
>> mainly talking about motorcyclists.

>
> Well you may have missread the header, but the post started out as a post
> about bicycles. without motors, propelled by pedals and feet.
>
> Alan
>


Yes I know it started out by talking about push bikes, but then
references were made to motorcyclists, and that's what I've been
referring to latterly. Sorry Alan, but is that not allowed? :)

Best wishes all,
Dave.
 
Brimstone wrote:
> TripleS wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> TripleS wrote on 23/12/2006 16:46 +0100:
>>>> I'm not disagreeing about that.
>>>>
>>>> All I'm saying is that IMHO the bikers often sit too far out into
>>>> the road, gaining no particular benefit for themselves, but what
>>>> they are doing is making vision worse for a following driver
>>>> looking to overtake.
>>> Cycling there though is the recommended position in the Government
>>> published Cyclecraft and the National Cycle Training Standards[1]. It may
>>> not have benefits that you perceive but the safety benefits
>>> are actually quite significant which is why it is taught.
>>>
>>> If vision past is that marginal its probably not safe to overtake
>>> anyway. [1] e.g. "Understand where to ride on roads being used
>>> Cyclists
>>> should not cycle in the gutter. Where there is little other traffic
>>> and/or there is plenty of room to be overtaken they may ride in the
>>> secondary position.
>>> Where the road is narrow and two-way traffic would make it dangerous
>>> for the cyclist to be overtaken by a following vehicle they may
>>> choose to ride in the primary position.
>>> If the cyclist is riding at the speed of other traffic then they
>>> should do so in the primary position. Cyclists may be wary of
>>> cycling in the primary position as this will put them in the stream
>>> of traffic when their natural instinct might be to keep away from
>>> it. However, where appropriate, it will actually offer them more
>>> protection as they will be able to see more, be seen more easily by
>>> other road users and most importantly it will prevent drivers from
>>> attempting to overtake them where the road is too narrow.
>>> If unsure, the default position is the primary position."
>>>
>>> The secondary position is half to one metre from the edge of the
>>> lane, the primary position is in the centre of the lane.
>>>

>> Well thanks for that Tony, but I would ask that we draw a distinction
>> between people on pedal cycles and those on motorbikes. We started
>> out with the push bike folks, and I've now moved on to talking about
>> the motorcyclists.
>>
>> I have no problem with anybody taking specific measures *as
>> appropriate at particular times* to protect their safety, but the
>> standard positioning of the motor cycle brigade - always out by the
>> centre-line - does not seem to me to give them any benefit all the
>> time, but they do it all the time, seemingly disregarding the
>> interests of other road users, particularly those who might seek to
>> make a perfectly legitimate and respectable overtaking move.

>
> If there's enough room to overtake what's the problem? If there isn't then
> hold back. If it was a car you'd have to wait, why should you treat a bike
> differently?
>
> Why should any one class of vehicle have to make space for another beyond
> the normal rules of safe driving?
>


I've primarily been referring to the fact that if a road user in front
of you takes up a position more to the right, it makes it more dificult
for the following driver to get a decent view past them. It can still
be done usually, but you need to go further right yourself (if it is
safe to do so) in order to get the view you want, and it takes longer to
get that view, by which time what could have been a safe overtaking
opportunity may have gone.

If there is is insufficient space (in width terms) for the overtaking,
then of course it is not on, and I've never suggested otherwise.

....and I'm not advocating anybody doing anything outside the realms of
normal safe driving, and being aware of others' wishes, and being
reasonably co-operative - as I would try to be - and I think you know that.

Best wishes all,
Dave.
 
David Taylor wrote:
> On 2006-12-21, Earl Purple <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > The correct way to behave when crossing at a traffic light is to wait
> > for the signal to change, then make sure all the traffic has stopped or
> > is clearly going to stop, and then move out. Jumping out the second the
> > signal turns red without looking first is not the appropriate course.

>
> How does this fit with what you say below?
>
> [snip]
>
> > btw, it is not always possible for a cycle to stop in 3 seconds and you
> > cannot expect cyclists to slow down as they approach green lights in
> > case they change.

>
> You cannot possibly be claiming that cyclists cannot safely stop for
> traffic lights. If you are, then I most certainly can expect them
> to slow down as they approach green lights. Or alternatively they
> can just get run over -- as you said above, jumping the light the
> second it turns red "is not the appropriate course" .


They should not get run over because before you set out on a green
light, you need to ensure that the road is clear. There will often be
traffic still turning right from the side roads. You can't drive into
them just because your light is green. In fact it makes no difference
where they are going, green means "go with caution" not "go at all
costs".

The same applies if you are a pedestrian - you proceed to cross with
caution once having ensured that all the traffic on the road has
stopped for you, or is clearly going to stop.
 
"TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alan Holmes wrote:
>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>> TripleS wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> TripleS wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, TripleS says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by Primary position?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does it mean cycling down the middle of a lane in order
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent (or at least discourage) a driver from overtaking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty much. It's supposed to be slightly to the right as I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recall on a motorbike.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've noticed motorcyclists often position themselves just to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the left of the centre-line as standard procedure on single
>>>>>>>>>>>>> carriageway roads, even when it appears to offer no advantage
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to them. This can be a nuisance if you're looking to overtake
>>>>>>>>>>>>> them* and it can give the impression that they're trying to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstructive, though they may not be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Yes OK, I do appreciate that normally it's the bikers who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing the overtaking!
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you you look at the position of the driver, rather than the
>>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle, they should be occupying the same relative position on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the road as a car or van driver.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure that I see the reasoning there. Whether we're
>>>>>>>>>>> driving cars or riding motorbikes I think keeping tucked in to
>>>>>>>>>>> the left as far as reasonably possible is the thing to do,
>>>>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>>>>> of course we may decide to depart from this from time to time
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> improving vision etc. There is also the point that none of us
>>>>>>>>>>> should be expected to
>>>>>>>>>>> drive/ride so close to the edge that we fall foul of all the
>>>>>>>>>>> rough stuff and debris that tends to accumulate there.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Having said all that, I still feel the bikers take up more space
>>>>>>>>>>> near the centre of the road than seems appropriate.
>>>>>>>>>> Simple, if there's not enough space to overtake a car then
>>>>>>>>>> there's
>>>>>>>>>> not enough to pass a bike. The biker adopting the commanding
>>>>>>>>>> position makes the car driver wanting to pass think about it
>>>>>>>>>> rather than trying to squeeze past and force the bike into the
>>>>>>>>>> gutter or worse.
>>>>>>>>> I'm not wanting to squeeze past or force them into the gutter or
>>>>>>>>> anything like that, but it does make it that bit more difficult to
>>>>>>>>> get a clear view past them when they are so far out into the road.
>>>>>>>> Just like trying to see round a car!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not disagreeing about that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All I'm saying is that IMHO the bikers often sit too far out into
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> road, gaining no particular benefit for themselves, but what they
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> doing is making vision worse for a following driver looking to
>>>>>>> overtake.
>>>>>> They are gaining a considerable benefit for themselves. They're
>>>>>> giving themselves space for when some inconsiderate car driver tries
>>>>>> to overtake with insufficient clearance.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No they are not.
>>>> All together now, Oh yes they are!
>>> One, perhaps all on his own: "No they are not!"
>>>
>>>> By occupying a space close to the centre-line of the
>>>>> road they obtain no general advantage for themselves, unless they are
>>>>> seeking to enhance their vision - which does not apply on a long
>>>>> straight road free from junctions or suchlike hazards - but still they
>>>>> do it.
>>>> It is quite obvious you have never been on a bicycle, on todays roads.
>>> Not true, Alan - but in any case you seem to be ignoring the fact that
>>> I'm mainly talking about motorcyclists.

>>
>> Well you may have missread the header, but the post started out as a post
>> about bicycles. without motors, propelled by pedals and feet.
>>
>> Alan
>>

>
> Yes I know it started out by talking about push bikes, but then references
> were made to motorcyclists, and that's what I've been referring to
> latterly. Sorry Alan, but is that not allowed? :)


Oh, go on then, I forgive you, this time!:)-)

Alan
 
Alan Holmes wrote:
> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>>>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>>> TripleS wrote:
>>>>>>>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TripleS wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, TripleS says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by Primary position?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does it mean cycling down the middle of a lane in order
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent (or at least discourage) a driver from overtaking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty much. It's supposed to be slightly to the right as I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recall on a motorbike.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've noticed motorcyclists often position themselves just to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the left of the centre-line as standard procedure on single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carriageway roads, even when it appears to offer no advantage
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to them. This can be a nuisance if you're looking to overtake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them* and it can give the impression that they're trying to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstructive, though they may not be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Yes OK, I do appreciate that normally it's the bikers who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing the overtaking!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you you look at the position of the driver, rather than the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle, they should be occupying the same relative position on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the road as a car or van driver.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure that I see the reasoning there. Whether we're
>>>>>>>>>>>> driving cars or riding motorbikes I think keeping tucked in to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the left as far as reasonably possible is the thing to do,
>>>>>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>>>>>> of course we may decide to depart from this from time to time
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> improving vision etc. There is also the point that none of us
>>>>>>>>>>>> should be expected to
>>>>>>>>>>>> drive/ride so close to the edge that we fall foul of all the
>>>>>>>>>>>> rough stuff and debris that tends to accumulate there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Having said all that, I still feel the bikers take up more space
>>>>>>>>>>>> near the centre of the road than seems appropriate.
>>>>>>>>>>> Simple, if there's not enough space to overtake a car then
>>>>>>>>>>> there's
>>>>>>>>>>> not enough to pass a bike. The biker adopting the commanding
>>>>>>>>>>> position makes the car driver wanting to pass think about it
>>>>>>>>>>> rather than trying to squeeze past and force the bike into the
>>>>>>>>>>> gutter or worse.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not wanting to squeeze past or force them into the gutter or
>>>>>>>>>> anything like that, but it does make it that bit more difficult to
>>>>>>>>>> get a clear view past them when they are so far out into the road.
>>>>>>>>> Just like trying to see round a car!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not disagreeing about that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All I'm saying is that IMHO the bikers often sit too far out into
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> road, gaining no particular benefit for themselves, but what they
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> doing is making vision worse for a following driver looking to
>>>>>>>> overtake.
>>>>>>> They are gaining a considerable benefit for themselves. They're
>>>>>>> giving themselves space for when some inconsiderate car driver tries
>>>>>>> to overtake with insufficient clearance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No they are not.
>>>>> All together now, Oh yes they are!
>>>> One, perhaps all on his own: "No they are not!"
>>>>
>>>>> By occupying a space close to the centre-line of the
>>>>>> road they obtain no general advantage for themselves, unless they are
>>>>>> seeking to enhance their vision - which does not apply on a long
>>>>>> straight road free from junctions or suchlike hazards - but still they
>>>>>> do it.
>>>>> It is quite obvious you have never been on a bicycle, on todays roads.
>>>> Not true, Alan - but in any case you seem to be ignoring the fact that
>>>> I'm mainly talking about motorcyclists.
>>> Well you may have missread the header, but the post started out as a post
>>> about bicycles. without motors, propelled by pedals and feet.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>

>> Yes I know it started out by talking about push bikes, but then references
>> were made to motorcyclists, and that's what I've been referring to
>> latterly. Sorry Alan, but is that not allowed? :)

>
> Oh, go on then, I forgive you, this time!:)-)
>
> Alan
>


Ah the old Christmas Spirit - I could do with a drop of that. Thanks
Alan. You're a gent. :)

Best wishes all,
Dave.
 
Alan Holmes wrote:

> Some time ago I went into a branch of Halfords to enquire about an
> indicator, which was fixed to the rear of a bicycle, which stuck out so that
> anyone following would have to allow the cyclist a little bit of room, the
> rather stupid woman who worked there told me they were dangerous, as it
> prevented her from passing, which implied that she was prepared to drive so
> close to the cyclist as to be dangerous!


If they're really not dangerous for other road-users,
perhaps we should all have three down each side of our
cars.
 
TripleS wrote:

>
> I've primarily been referring to the fact that if a road user in front
> of you takes up a position more to the right, it makes it more dificult
> for the following driver to get a decent view past them. It can still
> be done usually, but you need to go further right yourself (if it is
> safe to do so) in order to get the view you want, and it takes longer to
> get that view, by which time what could have been a safe overtaking
> opportunity may have gone.


This sounds as though you are following too close. Drop back, the view
improves.
 
Alan Holmes wrote:

> Some time ago I went into a branch of Halfords to enquire about an
> indicator, which was fixed to the rear of a bicycle, which stuck out so that
> anyone following would have to allow the cyclist a little bit of room, the
> rather stupid woman who worked there told me they were dangerous, as it
> prevented her from passing, which implied that she was prepared to drive so
> close to the cyclist as to be dangerous!
>



So you went tp the accessory section and collected a door mirror, with
which you then whacked her round the head...

....did she get your point?
 
Al C-F wrote:
> TripleS wrote:
>
>>
>> I've primarily been referring to the fact that if a road user in front
>> of you takes up a position more to the right, it makes it more
>> dificult for the following driver to get a decent view past them. It
>> can still be done usually, but you need to go further right yourself
>> (if it is safe to do so) in order to get the view you want, and it
>> takes longer to get that view, by which time what could have been a
>> safe overtaking opportunity may have gone.

>
> This sounds as though you are following too close. Drop back, the view
> improves.


No, I;m not following too close. The view is indeed better from further
back, but the principle still applies. If the leading vehicle (whether
on two wheels or four) is further out into the road, any view for a
following f=driver is worse than it otherwise would be, apart from
situations where you can get at interim view down the near side of them.

....and even then the N/S view is not the final one you want. You still
need confirmation that all is clear by getting a good look down the
offside before finally going for your overtake.

Best wishes all,
Dave.
 
"TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alan Holmes wrote:
>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>>>> TripleS wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TripleS wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, TripleS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by Primary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> position? Does it mean cycling down the middle of a lane
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in order
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent (or at least discourage) a driver from overtaking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty much. It's supposed to be slightly to the right as I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recall on a motorbike.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've noticed motorcyclists often position themselves just to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the left of the centre-line as standard procedure on single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carriageway roads, even when it appears to offer no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advantage
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to them. This can be a nuisance if you're looking to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overtake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them* and it can give the impression that they're trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstructive, though they may not be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Yes OK, I do appreciate that normally it's the bikers who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing the overtaking!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you you look at the position of the driver, rather than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle, they should be occupying the same relative position
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the road as a car or van driver.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure that I see the reasoning there. Whether we're
>>>>>>>>>>>>> driving cars or riding motorbikes I think keeping tucked in to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the left as far as reasonably possible is the thing to do,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of course we may decide to depart from this from time to time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> improving vision etc. There is also the point that none of us
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be expected to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> drive/ride so close to the edge that we fall foul of all the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rough stuff and debris that tends to accumulate there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having said all that, I still feel the bikers take up more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> space
>>>>>>>>>>>>> near the centre of the road than seems appropriate.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Simple, if there's not enough space to overtake a car then
>>>>>>>>>>>> there's
>>>>>>>>>>>> not enough to pass a bike. The biker adopting the commanding
>>>>>>>>>>>> position makes the car driver wanting to pass think about it
>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than trying to squeeze past and force the bike into the
>>>>>>>>>>>> gutter or worse.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not wanting to squeeze past or force them into the gutter or
>>>>>>>>>>> anything like that, but it does make it that bit more difficult
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> get a clear view past them when they are so far out into the
>>>>>>>>>>> road.
>>>>>>>>>> Just like trying to see round a car!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not disagreeing about that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All I'm saying is that IMHO the bikers often sit too far out into
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> road, gaining no particular benefit for themselves, but what they
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> doing is making vision worse for a following driver looking to
>>>>>>>>> overtake.
>>>>>>>> They are gaining a considerable benefit for themselves. They're
>>>>>>>> giving themselves space for when some inconsiderate car driver
>>>>>>>> tries to overtake with insufficient clearance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No they are not.
>>>>>> All together now, Oh yes they are!
>>>>> One, perhaps all on his own: "No they are not!"
>>>>>
>>>>>> By occupying a space close to the centre-line of the
>>>>>>> road they obtain no general advantage for themselves, unless they
>>>>>>> are seeking to enhance their vision - which does not apply on a long
>>>>>>> straight road free from junctions or suchlike hazards - but still
>>>>>>> they do it.
>>>>>> It is quite obvious you have never been on a bicycle, on todays
>>>>>> roads.
>>>>> Not true, Alan - but in any case you seem to be ignoring the fact that
>>>>> I'm mainly talking about motorcyclists.
>>>> Well you may have missread the header, but the post started out as a
>>>> post about bicycles. without motors, propelled by pedals and feet.
>>>>
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>> Yes I know it started out by talking about push bikes, but then
>>> references were made to motorcyclists, and that's what I've been
>>> referring to latterly. Sorry Alan, but is that not allowed? :)

>>
>> Oh, go on then, I forgive you, this time!:)-)
>>
>> Alan
>>

>
> Ah the old Christmas Spirit - I could do with a drop of that. Thanks
> Alan. You're a gent. :)


I know, I know, it's nice to be recognised though!:)-)

Alan
 
p.k. wrote:

> Paul Boyd wrote:


> the third error was by the cyclist passing on the left of a stationary
> vehicle


HC 139 says you can overtake on the left if you're in a multi lane
queue and the lanes to your right are moving slower than you are.
(Although I accept the extra lane of traffic was caused by error 2 and
thesituation should not have occurred) but HC 143 says not to overtake
when approaching a junction (cyclist and motorist at fault in that
case). Although these conflict where there is more than one lane at a
junction, the former is genarally accepted practice.

> and stopping at the front left comer of the car at the roundabout,


Common sense would say you're more likely to be seen if you're in front
of someone than if you're at the side (i.e. next to passenger door).
It's not something that seems to be evident these days from cars,
cyclists, pediestrians or any group of people.
 
naked_draughtsman wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>
>> Paul Boyd wrote:

>
>> the third error was by the cyclist passing on the left of a
>> stationary vehicle

>
> HC 139 says you can overtake on the left if you're in a multi lane
> queue and the lanes to your right are moving slower than you are.
> (Although I accept the extra lane of traffic was caused by error 2 and
> thesituation should not have occurred) but HC 143 says not to overtake
> when approaching a junction (cyclist and motorist at fault in that
> case). Although these conflict where there is more than one lane at a
> junction, the former is genarally accepted practice.
>
>> and stopping at the front left comer of the car at the roundabout,

>
> Common sense would say you're more likely to be seen if you're in
> front of someone than if you're at the side (i.e. next to passenger
> door). It's not something that seems to be evident these days from
> cars, cyclists, pediestrians or any group of people.


Try reading cycleraft, and then look at the behaviourn of the cyclist.

Wrong on alomost every count.

pk
 
"p.k." wrote in message
> naked_draughtsman wrote:
>> p.k. wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Boyd wrote:

>>
>>> the third error was by the cyclist passing on the left of a
>>> stationary vehicle

>>
>> HC 139 says you can overtake on the left if you're in a multi lane
>> queue and the lanes to your right are moving slower than you are.
>> (Although I accept the extra lane of traffic was caused by error 2 and
>> thesituation should not have occurred) but HC 143 says not to overtake
>> when approaching a junction (cyclist and motorist at fault in that
>> case). Although these conflict where there is more than one lane at a
>> junction, the former is genarally accepted practice.
>>
>>> and stopping at the front left comer of the car at the roundabout,

>>
>> Common sense would say you're more likely to be seen if you're in
>> front of someone than if you're at the side (i.e. next to passenger
>> door). It's not something that seems to be evident these days from
>> cars, cyclists, pediestrians or any group of people.

>
> Try reading cycleraft, and then look at the behaviourn of the cyclist.
>
> Wrong on alomost every count.
>


How many cyclists have even heard of Cyclecraft, let alone read it?

Ian
 
Ian wrote on 29/12/2006 14:59 +0100:
>
> How many cyclists have even heard of Cyclecraft, let alone read it?
>


Most all of them here I would bet.


--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 
"Ian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "p.k." wrote in message
>> naked_draughtsman wrote:
>>> p.k. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul Boyd wrote:
>>>
>>>> the third error was by the cyclist passing on the left of a
>>>> stationary vehicle
>>>
>>> HC 139 says you can overtake on the left if you're in a multi lane
>>> queue and the lanes to your right are moving slower than you are.
>>> (Although I accept the extra lane of traffic was caused by error 2 and
>>> thesituation should not have occurred) but HC 143 says not to overtake
>>> when approaching a junction (cyclist and motorist at fault in that
>>> case). Although these conflict where there is more than one lane at a
>>> junction, the former is genarally accepted practice.
>>>
>>>> and stopping at the front left comer of the car at the roundabout,
>>>
>>> Common sense would say you're more likely to be seen if you're in
>>> front of someone than if you're at the side (i.e. next to passenger
>>> door). It's not something that seems to be evident these days from
>>> cars, cyclists, pediestrians or any group of people.

>>
>> Try reading cycleraft, and then look at the behaviourn of the cyclist.
>>
>> Wrong on alomost every count.
>>

>
> How many cyclists have even heard of Cyclecraft, let alone read it?


I haven't done either!

Alan

>
> Ian
>
 
"TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Brimstone wrote:
>> TripleS wrote:
>>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>>>> TripleS wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Conor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, TripleS says...
>>>>>>>>>>

[...]> No they are not. By occupying a space close to the centre-line of
the
> road they obtain no general advantage for themselves, unless they are
> seeking to enhance their vision - which does not apply on a long straight
> road free from junctions or suchlike hazards - but still they do it.
>

Not at all.

If the cyclist is out on, or just to the left of, the centre line, it is
obvious from his road positioning that he is about to turn right or ride
into some property on the right..... so it is in order to overtake him on
the inside. :eek:)

--
IanH
 
ian henden wrote:
> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> TripleS wrote:
>>>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>>>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>>> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>>>>> TripleS wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Conor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, TripleS says...
>>>>>>>>>>>

> [...]> No they are not. By occupying a space close to the centre-line of
> the
>> road they obtain no general advantage for themselves, unless they are
>> seeking to enhance their vision - which does not apply on a long straight
>> road free from junctions or suchlike hazards - but still they do it.
>>

> Not at all.
>
> If the cyclist is out on, or just to the left of, the centre line, it is
> obvious from his road positioning that he is about to turn right or ride
> into some property on the right..... so it is in order to overtake him on
> the inside. :eek:)
>
> --
> IanH
>
>

Yes Ian, what you say there is quite fair, but I was not talking about
pedal cyclists positioning themselves perfectly correctly prior to
making a right turn.

My comments were about motorcyclists, where their normal, open road
positioning has nothing to do with making right turns, and I stand by
what I have already said on that subject.

Best wishes all,
Dave.