BBC helmet cam film to explore cyclist-motorist conflict

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

So let me get this straight:

You're arguing with User, and accusing him of a dishonest quote from Cyclecraft, when you haven't even read the relevant section or the book?

I have, and both of us are telling you that User's post is an efficient and accurate synopsis of the advice in that part of the book. Your position is unsupportable.

Once again..

“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.”

The primary riding position is in the centre of the lane (the most left-hand lane on multi-lane roads)

This is the quote broken down as it was intended to be read.

“The primary riding position should be your normal riding position,

1. when you can keep up with traffic,
2. when you need to emphasize your presence to traffic ahead,
3. or when you need to prevent following drivers from passing you unsafely.”

Therefore "The primary riding position should be your normal riding position" if you meet some listed criteria.

Therefore a "Primary" position - is not/can not be your position all of the time and in cases (newbies/disabled/children/pensioners) for example who can't match speed with traffic around them) simply can't ride according to the book(if the book truly is the correct way to cycle) and shouldn't be in the middle of the road.


This book you love so much really does have an elitist tone about it.

 

[BentMikey]

The book I love so much? Should you really be jumping to yet another wrong assumption? Cyclecraft is a very good book, but I don't agree with everything it and John Franklin stand for. It's also definitely not elitist at all, it's aimed squarely at normal cyclists in normal clothes.

Again, you need to read the book before you can leap to the wrong assumption you did when quoting User's post. Taking a step back, it seems very silly to be arguing about something that you've already admitted you haven't read and don't know about.

Here's a further incorrect assumption:

Once again..
(newbies/disabled/children/pensioners) for example who can't match speed with traffic around them) simply can't ride according to the book(if the book truly is the correct way to cycle) and shouldn't be in the middle of the road.

I suggest you read the book and do a little thinking before putting your foot in your mouth on your keyboard again.

 

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

The book I love so much? Should you really be jumping to yet another wrong assumption? Cyclecraft is a very good book, but I don't agree with everything it and John Franklin stand for. It's also definitely not elitist at all, it's aimed squarely at normal cyclists in normal clothes.

Again, you need to read the book before you can leap to the wrong assumption you did when quoting User's post. Taking a step back, it seems very silly to be arguing about something that you've already admitted you haven't read and don't know about.

Here's a further incorrect assumption:


I suggest you read the book and do a little thinking before putting your foot in your mouth on your keyboard again.

Mikey. The quote is there for all to read. My dissection of the quote is there for all to read,some people have agreed,some people have questioned it directly themselves. I do not need to read the whole book,in order to question the use or logic of a quote from within it. You could tell me to read the book until you are blue in the face, quite frankly I have read enough of it to gauge that I have zero desire to waste £15.99 on it.

I find it strange that you are so keen to address my reading of the book, but not as keen to address the dissection of the quote. Dissection which gives it a totally different meaning than that implied by Users bolding.

 

[gambatte]

Therefore a "Primary" position - is not/can not be your position all of the time and in cases (....children....) for example who can't match speed with traffic around them) simply can't ride according to the book (if the book truly is the correct way to cycle) and shouldn't be in the middle of the road.

Quick - get onto the Department for Education. Bikeability's been taught incorrectly to our kids!!

Personally I'd prefer my kids in the middle of the lane, pissing off a motorist. Than gutter hugging and pavement hopping, or in secondary all the time encouraging dodgy passes.

 

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

Quick - get onto the Department for Education. Bikeability's been taught incorrectly to our kids!!

Personally I'd prefer my kids in the middle of the lane, ****ing off a motorist. Than gutter hugging and pavement hopping, or in secondary all the time encouraging dodgy passes.

May well be anecdotal but I know many kids, none of them can match the speed of traffic around them.

Should they still be in the middle of the road in "primary"?

 

[Boris Bajic]

Quick - get onto the Department for Education. Bikeability's been taught incorrectly to our kids!!

Personally I'd prefer my kids in the middle of the lane, ****ing off a motorist. Than gutter hugging and pavement hopping, or in secondary all the time encouraging dodgy passes.

Two of my three children did Bikeability training and I was glad they did. I saw nothing wrong with it and much that was helpful.

The third would have done it, but the regime at their school changed and the training went.

All three (now 13 to 19 years old) ride with enthussiasm and have ridden on the road from a young age.

I would much rather they took secondary position in most circumstances (even now when the older two cruise happily at 20mph+) than took primary.

I'm surprised you'd like your kids to ride in the middle of the lane. I admire your bottle but am surprised nonetheless. Where do they ride and what ages are they? There may be places where it makes sense, but as a general rule I can't think of one. All of mine have been happy riding alone to friends' houses up to 10 miles away from the age of 12 - and rather farther now they are older. They are not kept on a short leash, but I would not like them to ride along in primary.

Mine ride fast A-Roads and narrow lanes in the Marches and in Central London. In both locations it would worry me if kids took the centre of the lane, even if they had been riding from a young age.

 

[BentMikey]

Boris, it's true that the faster you ride, the easier/safer/better it is to take the lane. Some slightly grey area situations would see most of us ride more secondary at lower speeds, and more primary at higher speeds, for example. OTOH, some situations pretty much require primary no matter what your speed, that or get off and walk the pavement. Fair enough?

 

[gaz]

Boris, it's true that the faster you ride, the easier/safer/better it is to take the lane. Some slightly grey area situations would see most of us ride more secondary at lower speeds, and more primary at higher speeds, for example. OTOH, some situations pretty much require primary no matter what your speed, that or get off and walk the pavement. Fair enough?

Indeed, when I'm moving slower than the rest of the traffic I use the cycle lane here. But when traveling faster or at the same speed as them I control the lane.

 

[benborp]

This probably won't help.

The sentence and numbered points being argued over include the word 'or'. This makes them a number of individual conditions under which adopting a primary position would be considered normal. If the sentence used the word 'and' then it could be argued that they constituted a set of criteria that should be met before it would be considered 'normal' to adopt a primary position. But it doesn't, so they don't, and it also doesn't need to be argued that the sentence precludes the adoption of primary position in all other circumstances.

The section quoted is a summary of the points made over three or so pages of the main text. As with the Roadcraft handbook, bullet points and highlighted principles are used to make the substance of Cyclecraft digestible. This allows 'normal' riders to develop their skills on the road with reference to the principles outlined without a word for word, photographic memory of the text being necessary. Franklin stresses that cyclists need to be flexible in order to deal with the current road environment and that the structured advice included in Cyclecraft doesn't amount to a set of rules to be followed. Cyclecraft presents a set of skills that can be utilised by the rider as best suits them and for this reason Frnklin often presents compromises and alternatives that different riders can use in the same circumstances. Driving manuals, with their prescriptive rules and systems can appear remarkably slim compared to Cyclecraft.

I think Franklin's use of the terms primary and secondary is an attempt to overcome many people's perception and experiences that riders should stay as far left as possible at all times. I also think his choice of terms is a cognitive 'leg-up' to help riders utilise their ability to vary road position effectively. Establishing that cyclists can legitimately choose to cycle in the traffic flow and move left as need be may be more effective as a training principle than the alternative. Moving right into a primary position can be a daunting manoeuvre and a difficult skill to introduce that many might shy away from. Franklin's terminology goes some way to alleviating that fear.
Practically, riding by default in primary and moving into secondary as appropriate may be no different to riding by default in secondary and moving right when necessary, equally the transposition of the terms would make no difference; however the phrasing and outline of road position as in Cyclecraft may be the most effective way of introducing the concept to cyclists such that the greatest number are able to carry that information through into appropriate practice.

 

[Andrew_P]

Without a doubt I wouldn't want my Daughter trying to ride in primary all the time.

Riding in primary being a default constant position is pretty dangerous, not only winding people up for no reason but also encouraging close passes due to frustrating a motons progress. I am all for protecting yourself using primary on country lanes, pinch points and two in to one lane traffic lights but really those advocating primary as default would you really stick your back side in primary on a dual carriageway or a busy A Road?

 

[BentMikey]

Without a doubt I wouldn't want my Daughter trying to ride in primary all the time.

Riding in primary being a default constant position is pretty dangerous, not only winding people up for no reason but also encouraging close passes due to frustrating a motons progress. I am all for protecting yourself using primary on country lanes, pinch points and two in to one lane traffic lights but really those advocating primary as default would you really stick your back side in primary on a dual carriageway or a busy A Road?

I'm slightly confused by that - I'm not sure anyone is suggesting riding in primary all the time?

 

[Andrew_P]

I'm slightly confused by that - I'm not sure anyone is suggesting riding in primary all the time?

Well I thought you, Reg, Gambette and Franklin were?

 

[BentMikey]

Ah, not at all. I would have thought the myriad of related posts from today would have made that completely obvious. For example:

Well, both Gaz and User are right in that the default riding position is primary, but also that life on UK roads results in us spending most of our riding time in secondary. Secondary isn't the default, it's the position we'll use to be nice to other road users, when we're happy to make a compromise towards others' convenience. Franklin isn't saying anything different to your final sentence.

User's other post is appropriate here:
1 My safety
2 Your safety
3 My convenience
4 Your convenience

(it's an Andy Gates quote IIRC).

For example:
On a wider road, when my safety isn't a particular issue, I'll ride secondary as your convenience has the most importance.
Passing parked cars or going through a junction, and my safety takes priority, so I take primary there.
Narrow country lane, single lane traffic, and I'll take the lane the whole way along. If a car turns up behind, I'll most likely pull over at a passing place to let them past.

Fair enough?

 

[benborp]

People that call primary their 'default' position are not advocating riding in primary at all times. I frequently ride in primary on busy A roads. I don't ride on many dual carriageways but I will often ride in primary when I do. This does not mean that on these roads I will always ride in primary at all times. I can change my position at will and I do so as the situation demands. Treating primary as a default position allows a cyclist to recognise when their safety and convenience is best served by riding there. I don't feel that reserving primary position as a manoeuvre for special occasions is the most effective way of using the position's advantages.
Many aspects of cycling on today's infrastructure are counter-intuitive. We must learn from experience, continually develop the strategies that we use to deal with specific situations and also recognise that those situations and the skills we use will not necessarily develop linearly. It's also important to recognise that what works for one of us may not work for another and the environments in which we cycle are all different.

 

[gambatte]

I'm surprised you'd like your kids to ride in the middle of the lane. I admire your bottle but am surprised nonetheless. Where do they ride and what ages are they? There may be places where it makes sense, but as a general rule I can't think of one. All of mine have been happy riding alone to friends' houses up to 10 miles away from the age of 12 - and rather farther now they are older. They are not kept on a short leash, but I would not like them to ride along in primary.
Mine ride fast A-Roads and narrow lanes in the Marches and in Central London. In both locations it would worry me if kids took the centre of the lane, even if they had been riding from a young age.

11 and 9 the 2 that are out. Just on local estate roads. I went and go out with them and got them the highway code. They've both done bikeability.

Quick - get onto the Department for Education. Bikeability's been taught incorrectly to our kids!!

Personally I'd prefer my kids in the middle of the lane, ****ing off a motorist. Than gutter hugging and pavement hopping, or in secondary all the time encouraging dodgy passes.

I wouldn't want them in primary or secondary all the time. But on local estate roads I'd much rather they were in primary the majority of the time. Middle of the lane makes them more visible to side roads, drivers coming out of their driveways and with the number of parked cars and speed calming measures it makes sense to me that they default to primary rather than constantly moving back into secondary after every restriction.

(BTW loco Gambatte, not Gambette)