Are people confused about secondary ?

[atbman]

I've always found this language a bit misleading and my only real point of disagreement with Cyclecraft.

For me, primary should have meant the normal choice of position, i.e. what is now called secondary, because that is the default position in normal traffic riding and the secondary, the second choice, i.e. well out into the lane to dissuade other vehicles from overtaking at that point.

Apart from that, I'm in agreement that there shouldn't be a specific distance, but one relative to the road design and the traffic patterns on any particular section of the highway.

 

[Origamist]

With this riding position I am blocking cars from overtaking within my lane. It feels like a poor primary or hard secondary but in my experience gets you the most overtaking room (just like in the picture).

So, with a true secondary, would you expect a car to be able to overtake in the same lane as you ? It feels like secondary is not actually possible on a road like the one above. It is just polite (or is is that less scary) to not be in the centre of the lane.

It's a good question and if I was inserting a pic into the HC about overtaking vulnerable road users I'd have put the cyclist in the centre of that lane. It would mean the driver had to fully use the opposing lane and it would support the sadly heterodox idea that cyclists can use the centre of the moving traffic lane. However, as the lane width is narrow (3m to 3.5 metres, maybe) I'd be minded to cycle in the same position as the the chap in the pic, but the traffic conditions would dictate whether I'd take primary or not. This narrowish lane is described as a "critical width" and often disadvantages cyclists.

 

[CopperCyclist]

Secondary isn't measured, it's an art form. It's the exquisite balance of being far enough out that vehicles have to slow slightly and give you a touch more room to pass, whilst being close enough in that you slip under the drivers subconscious 'angry radar', and thus don't block them or cause them to think 'I'm being held up'.

 

[BentMikey]

I've always found this language a bit misleading and my only real point of disagreement with Cyclecraft.

For me, primary should have meant the normal choice of position, i.e. what is now called secondary, because that is the default position in normal traffic riding and the secondary, the second choice, i.e. well out into the lane to dissuade other vehicles from overtaking at that point.

Apart from that, I'm in agreement that there shouldn't be a specific distance, but one relative to the road design and the traffic patterns on any particular section of the highway.

Funnily enough primary, i.e. in the middle of your lane of traffic flow, is the default cycling position in cyclecraft. Dropping left is a compromise to allow faster traffic through when it's safe. On busy wide roads, that ends up meaning staying left in secondary all the time. On a narrow country lane (singletrack), I'd be staying in the middle until passing traffic has slowed enough to allow a safe pass, and then drop left to enable their pass.

 

[ferret fur]

Funnily enough primary, i.e. in the middle of your lane of traffic flow, is the default cycling position in cyclecraft

I've always assumed that was a little bit of subtle propganda by Franklin, in an attempt to assert the cyclist's right to be on the road. I would be surprised if many people spent th majority of their time in 'primary'

 

[BentMikey]

I've always assumed that was a little bit of subtle propganda by Franklin, in an attempt to assert the cyclist's right to be on the road. I would be surprised if many people spent th majority of their time in 'primary'

I used to think that too, but it's actually just good sense. Of course the reality, with busier and wider roads, is that we all tend to spend quite a lot of time in secondary, but that's only because we're being courteous to other faster road users.

OTOH - bus lanes, dual carriageways, country lanes, I spend nearly all my time in primary there.

 

[guitarpete247]

I should have been in primary here, last Friday. I had 2 cars overtake me doing about 50. 1 before that white fencing and the 2nd just after I'd got past it. Glad I was on my way home as the brown stain could have been unpleasant

.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I am wondering if people are reading this information online and misinterpreting it. I think you could read that as 1 metre left of the left edge of the car, whereas I have always believed you need to be in the way of the car (ie left wheel track or further right) to get into a drivers conscious field of vision. This would be about 1 metre left of the centre of the car.

When I first read Cyclecraft, I interpreted it as 1m from the left edge of the cars in the man traffic flow. It is indeed ambiguous, and it would have been better if it had said 1m left of the centre of the main traffic flow.

Note that the correct interpretation means that if you are cycling just outside the door-opening zone of parked cars, then you are still in secondary position. It annoys me to see so many people saying you "should ride in primary position to avoid the door zone of parked cars". Primary position when passing parked cars is usually about 3m from the parked cars, not just outside the door zone.

 

[BentMikey]

When I first read Cyclecraft, I interpreted it as 1m from the left edge of the cars in the man traffic flow. It is indeed ambiguous, and it would have been better if it had said 1m left of the centre of the main traffic flow.

Note that the correct interpretation means that if you are cycling just outside the door-opening zone of parked cars, then you are still in secondary position. It annoys me to see so many people saying you "should ride in primary position to avoid the door zone of parked cars". Primary position when passing parked cars is usually about 3m from the parked cars, not just outside the door zone.

With so many different road widths, parking locations, and other factors, I'm not sure you can define it as a specific distance. IME, being out of the door zone of parked cars almost always means being in primary in the nearside lane. Maybe that's just a London thing, but then I've felt the same way pretty much everywhere on my travels around the southeast.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

With so many different road widths, parking locations, and other factors, I'm not sure you can define it as a specific distance. IME, being out of the door zone of parked cars almost always means being in primary in the nearside lane. Maybe that's just a London thing, but then I've felt the same way pretty much everywhere on my travels around the southeast.

Well, that's why I said usually. Perhaps I should have said typically. The main point, to put it more accurately, was that, if the cars are passing the parked cars "one car door's width away" as taught in most driving lessons[sup]1[/sup], then a cyclist riding just outside the door zone is in secondary, not primary position.

[sup]1[/sup] From what you said, though, it sound as though drivers in London have forgotten that piece of advice as well.

 

[BentMikey]

Yes, drivers in London seem to drive in the door zone fairly often, perhaps because there's often not enough space to do otherwise.

 

[ufkacbln]

..........so as to clear rubbish in the gutter and drains.

Similar to my secondary.

It therefore alters as the condition of the gutter, drains, breakdown of the kerb, overgrowing foliage etc.

Secondary (and primary) are constantly changing and determined by reading the road, reading the actions of others, and responding in a clear, planned and predictable manner.

 

[Bicycle]

Primary position when passing parked cars is usually about 3m from the parked cars, not just outside the door zone.

I'm not sure whether you're advocating this position or pointing out its practical failings.

3m from parked cars would pretty well have me riding on the opposite pavement and upsetting pedestrians in the process.

 

[mr_hippo]

Primary position, for me, is where l am in the carriageway and that deprnds on a number of factors - time of day, what day it is, traffic flow, obstructions e.g. tree roots, manholes pot holes and other things
Secondary position is sitting outside a coffee shop with a cappuchino!

What amazes me is that some cyclists do not know their route; yes, l know you can tell me how to get from your home to your place of work or from home to the outskirts but how many are aware of the constants and variables? That pinch point at the bottom of the High Street was there yesterday, is there today and will be there tomorrow so that should not be a surprise to you. Those traffic lights that you passed today will not decide to go walkabout all by themselves or will they? If your local team is playing at home, you know traffic will be heavy there and there will be strangers who do not know the way. The market is only open a few days a week so you know there will be heavy traffic on those days, same with schools.

How long does it take to learn a route and the best line to take? For some of us - only a few times cycling it but for others - never! I moved here from Bangkok about 3 months ago, most of my cycling has been heading south west but decided to venture east yesterday and explore. So what did I learn yesterday? The most important things were terrain - mainly flatish, traffic flow - starts to diminish after Hwy 205 crosses Hwy 2 at Cho Ho. The frontage road disappears as you get to the town and reappears on the outskirts (Frontage road - road that runs parallel to main highway but is separated from it by barriers but has various access points every few kilometres).

Too many cyclists are blaming the other road users for their poor cycling. If you see a car close to a pinch point, why don't you just ease up and let him pass or is your attitude "They shall not pass!" Is it worth getting all worked up and letting your blood pressure rise, just to save micro-seconds on your commute? I am not saying be meek and mild, by the way.

Confronting drivers - you catch more flies with sugar than with vinegar! I'll give you two examples; the first, i was a passenger in a Bangkok taxi which was involved in a near miss at traffic lights, the driver grabbed an iron bar from under his seat and attacked the other driver. When you confronr the other driver, is he armed? You do not know. The other incident was a few days ago, cycling back and I was passed by an old Iziussu pickup, fairly low speed and the wing mirror brushed against my leg. He stopped a few hundred metres up the road, I stopped by his car, big grin on my face and with a mixture of Thai, English and signs, said "You were a bit too close, cocker, leave me a bit more romm in future." He smiled and apologised Close - yes, worthy of a youtube moment - NO!
So, please, enjoy your cycling and don't sweat the small stuff.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I'm not sure whether you're advocating this position or pointing out its practical failings. 3m from parked cars would pretty well have me riding on the opposite pavement and upsetting pedestrians in the process.

I'm neither advocating nor criticising. The title of the topic is "Are people confused about secondary?". I responded to pshore's point about the ambiguity over where secondary position ought to be in relation to the main traffic flow. I expanded on this by pointing out a specific area in which there appears to be some confusion: the concept of primary position when passing parked cars.

As Mikey pointed out, it depends on the specific circumstances. For example, here, I am passing the parked cars just outside the door zone, in the nearside wheel tracks of the main traffic flow:

but I am still in secondary position, so this idiot squeezes through:
That one missed me by inches at speed, but who knows what will happen when the next idiot does it? So now, I move to primary position, between the wheel tracks:


If the lane were wider, I'd be even further out: 1.5m clearance from the parked cars, plus 0.5m to my centre line, plus 1m for primary position.