BBC helmet cam film to explore cyclist-motorist conflict

[Gooner Mad Dog]

Watched the programme rights and wrongs on both sides, but as daily commuter Walthamstow to Whitehall ( almost 11 miles ) there are lots of occasions when motorists could just be more patient. In France if car and bike collide , Car is it at fault, lots more pateience shown there, separation Dutch style only real solution though.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Watched the programme rights and wrongs on both sides, but as daily commuter Walthamstow to Whitehall ( almost 11 miles ) there are lots of occasions when motorists could just be more patient. In France if car and bike collide , Car is it at fault, lots more pateience shown there, separation Dutch style only real solution though.

This argument is clearly a veiled attack on Arsene Wenger and his reluctance to spend real money. I can read between the lines.

I take your point, but I think the real issue is his autocratic style and his inability to give SB full control over the way he coaches the defence.

Despite your lack of faith in the man, I think they should stick with Wenger.

I agree with you about the Dutch solution. A couple of young creative players from Ajax would do the trick.

 

[Gooner Mad Dog]

Whole load of continental talent would be ideal as UK a talent free zone, a footballing desert due to way kids coaches schools and grass roots soccer run in UK. 66 never again.

 

[fudgepanda]

Indeed. But who (outside the cycling community) would have watched a RoSPA training film?

There is a case to be made for advising motorists on how to pass safely and when to hold back - I quite agree. But I do not relish the thought of ten thousand new cyclists with little experience of traffic thinjking they can swan along in the middle of a lane because the man on the telly said so.

This is not an anti-cyclist rant...

Although I don't do it now, I have held an ADI badge (Approved Driving Instructor) since 1987, and still hold it so keep up on the subject casually just to keep my hand in. Well before I got back into cycling I used to tell my pupils that they should give a cyclist as much room as they would a stationary car - as a bare minimum. I used to tell them that a cyclist's head was probably going to be in the region of 6' from the ground and if he/she hit a pot hole the rider could be thrown sideways into the road with the head being 6'-ish into the road. So, if possible give them a couple of metres.

My employer for the last 8 years is part of the "public" sector and a couple of years ago decided to introduce bikes for us to get round a large site. They sent someone on a training course to train us and one of the things that came over quite strongly was called (I think) the Primary Position, several feet from the kerb. I understand the rationale behind this but personally it makes me feel very vulnerable. When I'm riding I tend to ride in what I consider to be an appropriate position for the situation, mostly just outside the grids on the left but rarely much wider unless the road conditions are really bad.

This is partly because I feel comfortable there and partly because I'm aware of not wanting to antagonise drivers. I don't think that makes me a wimp, but I'd rather rant on here about how close a driver got to me than have my obituary written.

 

[gaz]

Although I don't do it now, I have held an ADI badge (Approved Driving Instructor) since 1987, and still hold it so keep up on the subject casually just to keep my hand in. Well before I got back into cycling I used to tell my pupils that they should give a cyclist as much room as they would a stationary car - as a bare minimum. I used to tell them that a cyclist's head was probably going to be in the region of 6' from the ground and if he/she hit a pot hole the rider could be thrown sideways into the road with the head being 6'-ish into the road. So, if possible give them a couple of metres.

My employer for the last 8 years is part of the "public" sector and a couple of years ago decided to introduce bikes for us to get round a large site. They sent someone on a training course to train us and one of the things that came over quite strongly was called (I think) the Primary Position, several feet from the kerb. I understand the rationale behind this but personally it makes me feel very vulnerable. When I'm riding I tend to ride in what I consider to be an appropriate position for the situation, mostly just outside the grids on the left but rarely much wider unless the road conditions are really bad.

This is partly because I feel comfortable there and partly because I'm aware of not wanting to antagonise drivers. I don't think that makes me a wimp, but I'd rather rant on here about how close a driver got to me than have my obituary written.

You aren't meant to ride in primary all of the time. It's a position you take when people shouldn't be overtaking you or if you want to make your self more visible.
Most riding is done in a position labeled as Secondary. Which is nearer to the side of the road.

 

[fudgepanda]

You aren't meant to ride in primary all of the time. It's a position you take when people shouldn't be overtaking you or if you want to make your self more visible.
Most riding is done in a position labeled as Secondary. Which is nearer to the side of the road.

Thanks for that Gaz, that's what happens when you have a lousy instructor

 

[TheLondonCyclist]

Thanks for that Gaz, that's what happens when you have a lousy instructor

It's common sense. The instructor should be fired.

 

[summerdays]

Wrong.

You are supposed to ride in primary most of the time. The clue's in the name - "primary". It's the primary position to ride in.

Primary makes it clear that you are part of the traffic. As Franklin says:

“The primary riding position should be your normal riding position when you can keep up with traffic, when you need to emphasize your presence to traffic ahead, or when you need to prevent following drivers from passing you unsafely.”

Now I interpret that differently to you ... there are 3 when's in that sentence, which change the balance of the sentence (for me).

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

Now I interpret that differently to you ... there are 3 when's in that sentence, which change the balance of the sentence (for me).

Users bolding seems to stop short of the first "when" cutting half of the sentence out.

I read it as.

When your speed matches that of traffic around you
When approaching things like junctions/lights
When approaching pinchpoints like islands/speed ramps blah blah

I do not ride "primary" all of the time

 

[summerdays]

All three of those will apply in the sort of urban cycling that many of us do.

I agree but not all the time even in urban traffic which I do cycle in - in Bristol. I use both secondary and primary position and happily move between the two as the situation changes.

 

[PK99]

You aren't meant to ride in primary all of the time. It's a position you take when people shouldn't be overtaking you or if you want to make your self more visible.
Most riding is done in a position labeled as Secondary. Which is nearer to the side of the road.

As I've said before, the terminology is not the best.

"You aren't meant to ride in primary all of the time.......most riding is done in a position called secondary" is as logical to the non cyclist as clipping into clipless pedals.

 

[gaz]

Wrong.

You are supposed to ride in primary most of the time. The clue's in the name - "primary". It's the primary position to ride in.

Primary makes it clear that you are part of the traffic. As Franklin says:

Did I say you where not meant to ride in it most of the time? I think I said something different.

Does Franklin ever say that it's called the Primary position because that is the one you must ride in most of the time?

Hmm, all I can see is the following on page 86, last paragraph

Motorists primarily give attention to that part of the highway where there is risk to themselves: they are not nearly so good at noticing anything outside their path. This zone of maximum surveillance is often very narrow, especially at higher speeds - it does not extend to much more than the moving traffic lane that the driver is following, plus the moving traffic lanes that are most likely to conflict with the driver's own movement. For you to be safest as a cyclist, you must normally ride within this zone of maximum surveillance, not outside it.

Is it called primary because that is primarily where drivers are looking?
The last sentence is an interesting one, as he states this is a position you must normally ride in. Which may suggest that it is called primary because of that.

 

[gaz]

Try reading Cyclecraft. Frankling is quite clear why is is called primary.



Nice try - but no prize. Read the chapter without your bias goggles on...

So I have to read the whole book to find out? Can't you just say which page so everyone can look it up and bow down to your almighty understanding of cyclecraft.?

 

[gaz]

Why don't you make a positive contribution and find out for yourself and post it to your blog? You'll then have a proper reason then to direct people to it.

Haha.

not

 

[gaz]

Try reading Cyclecraft. Frankling is quite clear why is is called primary.



Nice try - but no prize. Read the chapter without your bias goggles on...

To add, Franklin says that where you position yourself is dependent to situations you are in and as such there is no right or wrong answer as to which you cycle in the most. You can cycle for miles with absolutely no need to cycle in a primary position.