Membrane said:That is repeating some rule, but you provide no argumentation as to why you believe that to be true.
Forgive me, I was hoping to avoid turning this discussion into 'pros and cons of primary position'. If you'll permit, might we agree to differ on this point in this discussion; I would be happy to discuss that in a new thread if you want to start it.
As I said this was the case at the point where the conflict occured (on the bridge): no parked cars, no junctions, good road surface, cyclist to be overtaken still too far ahead.
The bridge is reason enough to maintain primary position there, considering the visibility and traffic I'd have thought.
I'm not defending the dangerous overtake by the motorist, I'm saying that when you take a primary position, some people will squeeze by you, in some cases to "teach the cyclist a lesson". Assuming the primary position should therefore be minimized to situations where there is a real danger to the cyclist if he were in the secondary position.
I really can't agree with you there. Yeah, there will be a small minority who will squeeze past too close, but if you adopt the secondary position more often than not nearly all motorists pass too close. I thought that was fairly well established?
That way of thinking is part of the "I'll teach them road manners" attitude that in practice only results in an increase in adverserial behaviour on the roads. There are a fair number of muppets on the road, they won't be "taught manners or good sense" by other road users, human nature just doesn't work like that.
You don't ride in primary specifically to teach the guy behind some manners; but again, this will soon turn into a 'primary vs. secondary' debate, which we should perhaps start in a seperate discussion.