BBC helmet cam film to explore cyclist-motorist conflict

[BentMikey]

My point is that Cyclecraft is often mentioned on here in relation to primary/secondary etc.and at the end of the day it is just a book with no legal significance. It's great if someone reads it and believes it makes them a better cyclist but it also seems to make them more militant in that if it is in Cyclecraft then it has to be right and seems to change their attitude to other road users. We all have to share the same road space and I believe that means we should all be thoughtful and considerate to other road users.
Motorists are not aware of the primary/secondary terminology, all they know from the highway code is that cyclists should keep to the left, there should be pressure on the government to get the Highway Code and the Theory test changed so that it reflects why a cyclist will take a certain road position.

Why are you assuming Cyclecraft teaches inconsideration, militancy and lack of thoughtfulness towards others? Seriously, I just can't understand your bad attitude towards a very good book, full of wisdom. You're really only telling us about your own attitude towards other road users via a bit of projection, and your comments don't reflect much about Cyclecraft at all.
I see you've just slid past and avoided the point made earlier that it doesn't matter at all that a particular motorist has or hasn't read cyclecraft.

Nope I haven't and doubt I ever will.

Haven't read the highway code? Cyclecraft, which you haven't read either it seems, doesn't conflict with the highway code at all. On the contrary, they re-inforce each other.

 

[cd365]

Why are you assuming Cyclecraft teaches inconsideration, militancy and lack of thoughtfulness towards others? Seriously, I just can't understand your bad attitude towards a very good book, full of wisdom. You're really only telling us about your own attitude towards other road users via a bit of projection, and your comments don't reflect much about Cyclecraft at all.
I see you've just slid past and avoided the point made earlier that it doesn't matter at all that a particular motorist has or hasn't read cyclecraft.


Haven't read the highway code? Cyclecraft, which you haven't read either it seems, doesn't conflict with the highway code at all. On the contrary, they re-inforce each other.

I did not say Cyclecraft teaches them things, I said it seem to make some cyclists more militant. That is my opinion gained from the impression that I have gleaned off some people on this forum.
I did not say that it makes them inconsiderate or thoughtless, that was my own personal opinion of how we should be on the roads, do not try and twist what I have said.

I didn't slide past the motorist reading cyclecraft comment, my point is that motorists do not know the terminology used like primary/secondary in cyclecraft and since it is not required driving reading then they never will unless they take up cycling and try to get involved in it more than just riding a bike so until it is put in the Highway Code then we as cyclists should not really expect a motorist to understand why a cyclist has taken what they will perceive to be an aggressive or inconsiderate riding line, like I said a lot of motorists believe that a cyclist should ride to the left and some believe we should actually be in the gutter. If that was what they were told then why should they now know different? Because we want them to? This is the real world, unless they are shown or told differently then they won’t know and as far as I am aware there is no national campaign explaining this. The BBC program would have been a great place to highlight this but it failed to do so.

It is quite a few years since I read the Highway Code. Cyclecraft, nope not read it. Where did I say it conflicts with the highway code? I said the Highway Code needs to be updated to contain information that is in cyclecraft, e.g terminology like primary/secondary

 

[cd365]

You are Pete Townsend AICMFP

huh?

 

[cd365]

Ahh, my apologies,I was a bit slow on the uptake there.
Though in my defence I wasn't even born when My generation was released.

 

[BentMikey]

I'll say it again - whatever a motorist knows or doesn't know about Cyclecraft is irrelevant. All a motorist needs to do is follow the highway code, and he/she will never need to come into conflict with a cyclist following cycle craft. To be absolutely frank, a good motorist won't even come into conflict with a poorly behaved cyclist either.

It's easier than an easy thing:

Your assuming that a cyclist not sticking to the side of the road in the gutter is "taking an aggressive/inconsiderate line" is indicative of your own attitude towards the road. Perhaps you might benefit from more reading of the HC and Cyclecraft, and less Olympics level leaping to conclusions?

 

[benb]

I'll say it again - whatever a motorist knows or doesn't know about Cyclecraft is irrelevant. All a motorist needs to do is follow the highway code, and he/she will never need to come into conflict with a cyclist following cycle craft. To be absolutely frank, a good motorist won't even come into conflict with a poorly behaved cyclist either.

It's easier than an easy thing:

Love the comments in that video!

 

[cd365]

I'll say it again - whatever a motorist knows or doesn't know about Cyclecraft is irrelevant. All a motorist needs to do is follow the highway code, and he/she will never need to come into conflict with a cyclist following cycle craft. To be absolutely frank, a good motorist won't even come into conflict with a poorly behaved cyclist either.

Your assuming that a cyclist not sticking to the side of the road in the gutter is "taking an aggressive/inconsiderate line" is indicative of your own attitude towards the road. Perhaps you might benefit from more reading of the HC and Cyclecraft, and less Olympics level leaping to conclusions?

And I will say it again my point is IMHO that there are cyclists who believe that because they have read cyclecraft that motorists should also understand terminology used in the book, they don't and won't until things change in the HC. There are many instances posted on here of a cyclist taking primary position and coming into conflict with a motorist who took that position correctly but the motorist does not understand why because it has not been explained to them why.

Again you are trying to twist my words, you seem to do that a lot. I said "we as cyclists should not really expect a motorist to understand why a cyclist has taken what they will perceive to be an aggressive or inconsiderate riding line", this is how a lot of non-cycling motorists perceive the primary riding position. Where did I mention that I believed that primary was aggressive/inconsiderate? Maybe you should learn to read what people write rather than twisting things around. I do not feel the need to read cyclecraft because I already know how to ride on a shared use road having 25 years car and motorbike experience and 35 years cycling experience (with a lot of time off admittedly). To use a company car I also have to do an annual online driving competency test similar to the Theory Test which I pass easily each year so believe my knowledge of the Highway Code is good enough.

 

[Jezston]

Love the comments in that video!

Quite! "You'll never win an argument against a cyclist, They're a bunch of narrow minded twats, typical minority group."

I think that sentence alone says an awful lot about the commenter

 

[sheddy]

I've only just seen this re the skewed courier race. Apologies for being late to the table
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/dec/13/war-britains-roads-fake

 

[BentMikey]

cd365, I think you ought to read cyclecraft, and or take some cycling lessons. Despite your experience, it seems very likely to me that you'll learn a thing or two, especially since you keep leaping to unwarranted and incorrect conclusions about Cyclecraft.

I also like to think I have loads of experience, but I'm not too arrogant to spend time learning, nor to spend time regularly reconsidering my point of view. It's one of the main uses of cameras, for me at least. I go back and look at every point of conflict, and consider what I could have done better, no matter what the motorist did wrong, if anything.

Let me say once again - nobody cares if motorists know nothing about cyclecraft. Most drive very well according to the highway code, and it's only a tiny minority that behave inappropriately. Even these would be fine if they just followed the highway code. It's not rocket science, it's what you agreed to when you applied for your driving licence.

 

[snorri]

I also remember doing my cycle proficiency test many years ago and was taught to ride on the left,

That is how young people were taught to cycle, most of us modify our behaviour as we mature, cycling behaviour should be no different..
Cyclecraft was at one time subtitled 'Skilled cycling techniques for adults'. I believe this was because the techniques described were considered unsuitable for young people who might well lack the self confidence and assertiveness necessary to carry them through safely.

 

[Andrew_P]

I completely see where cd365 is coming from and I am not sure whyhe needs or anyone else for that matter to read Cyclecraft. It seems to me that saying on a forum that "primary is the default position" is pretty meaning less at best and outright dangerous if some newbie reads it and takes it at literal value.

I also think the cd365 has a point about primary when used "as a default position" all the time will only end up with a wound up motorist in <lack> of control of a 1.5 ton of metal sitting behind tailgating or trying to push pass.

By all means suggest a newbie to read the book when they are looking for advice but posting and bolding as reg did regarding primary being the default (and the bolding leads to it reading as all the time) could lead to someone cycling all the time in the nearside trye track mark, regardless of traffic conditions which imo is pretty hazardous "default postion"

 

[cd365]

cd365, I think you ought to read cyclecraft, and or take some cycling lessons. Despite your experience, it seems very likely to me that you'll learn a thing or two, especially since you keep leaping to unwarranted and incorrect conclusions about Cyclecraft.

I also like to think I have loads of experience, but I'm not too arrogant to spend time learning, nor to spend time regularly reconsidering my point of view. It's one of the main uses of cameras, for me at least. I go back and look at every point of conflict, and consider what I could have done better, no matter what the motorist did wrong, if anything.

Let me say once again - nobody cares if motorists know nothing about cyclecraft. Most drive very well according to the highway code, and it's only a tiny minority that behave inappropriately. Even these would be fine if they just followed the highway code. It's not rocket science, it's what you agreed to when you applied for your driving licence.

I am not making any conclusions about Cyclecraft, my comments were about some cyclists who have read it and the way they can come across on forums. Most of the things I have read on this forum which mentions advice given in Cyclecraft I do anyway, there are probably some things it mentions that I don't do but I possibly wouldn't anyway. I ride in a way that keeps me safe and so far has served me well, if it ain't broke why fix it? This is nothing to do with arrogance but I know my own skills and abilities and try to ride accordingly.

 

[BentMikey]

I completely see where cd365 is coming from and I am not sure whyhe needs or anyone else for that matter to read Cyclecraft. It seems to me that saying on a forum that "primary is the default position" is pretty meaning less at best and outright dangerous if some newbie reads it and takes it at literal value.

I also think the cd365 has a point about primary when used "as a default position" all the time will only end up with a wound up motorist in <lack> of control of a 1.5 ton of metal sitting behind tailgating or trying to push pass.

By all means suggest a newbie to read the book when they are looking for advice but posting and bolding as reg did regarding primary being the default (and the bolding leads to it reading as all the time) could lead to someone cycling all the time in the nearside trye track mark, regardless of traffic conditions which imo is pretty hazardous "default postion"

Hmm, should you really be willfully misinterpreting the "primary as default comment" like that? It was made pretty clear several times and many posts ago that it doesn't mean taking the lane unreasonably as you're describing.

Your final paragraph reads as though you think the nearside tyre track is primary. It's probably closest to secondary, actually, although that will depend on road width and traffic flow. Primary is the centre of the flow of traffic, which usually corresponds to the middle of the nearside lane, not the left hand tyre track.

 

[BentMikey]

I am not making any conclusions about Cyclecraft, my comments were about some cyclists who have read it and the way they can come across on forums. Most of the things I have read on this forum which mentions advice given in Cyclecraft I do anyway, there are probably some things it mentions that I don't do but I possibly wouldn't anyway. I ride in a way that keeps me safe and so far has served me well, if it ain't broke why fix it? This is nothing to do with arrogance but I know my own skills and abilities and try to ride accordingly.

Unwillingness to learn and improve is not something to be proud of, IMO. Having not read cyclecraft, and making such unwarranted conclusions about its contents leaves you on very shaky grounds when it comes to debating. Your credibility here is not strong, IMO.