Road Positioning

[HJ]

As far as I'm aware he does, as part of his job. Teaching kids how to ride a bike on the road in safety.

If he is teaching gutter hugging as the normal position that is not good...

60cm should be P3

"To be used as a courtesy where conditions permit, to allow other vehicles past"

There isn't anything wrong with movng further in letting faster vehicles past where safe to do so but only when that condition applies

The Secondary position is to allow other vehicles past when it is safe to do so, and as I say above the Secondary position should be 80-100cm. Gutter hugging is dangerous.

 

[Cab]

Its quite rare that 60cm would be appropriate.

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

Its quite rare that 60cm would be appropriate.

That was my point about it being a "third position" (nothing to do with dodgy politics there!)

 

[Cab]

That was my point about it being a "third position" (nothing to do with dodgy politics there!)

'Tertiary position' is rather a dangerous idea, in that it implies that theres a safe general road position. But I get where you're coming from. I'd refer to it more as 'escape position' or 'emergency position'.

 

[Origamist]

It's better not to think in terms of how far you are from the kerb, but how far you are from overtaking traffic. For example, some roads can be shared with most cars OK, but with 2.5m buses or HGVs, you either have to take a more prominent position or assume a weak secondary position (say 60cms) - these situations are problematic for cyclists.

There's some really good stuff in here about dynamic envelopes, overtaking distances and critical, narrow and wide road widths etc:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/site/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/a04_clear_space.pdf

 

[Dan B]

It's better not to think in terms of how far you are from the kerb, but how far you are from overtaking traffic. http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/site/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/a04_clear_space.pdf

^ This, exactly.

 

[jimboalee]

Where's it from?

That's the 1960s teaching.

Coruskate is closest to the mark with the recommendation of the nearside tyre tracks.

Even so, don't be surprised to see me weave round man-hole covers and potholes, on whichever side is safest at that moment.

60cm is some what close to the kerb and should be regarded as the minimum distance out, normally the secondary position (which they call P1) would be about 80-100cm out. The secondary position is always relative to the moving traffic lane, not the road edge. Riding further to the left, even if there is space, will reduce your visibility to other road users and the notice they take of you. The secondary position should only used when it will not impair your safety. Safety is always more important than convenience.

The position they give as P2, is the Primary Position this should be the normal riding position.

This can be the normal riding position, if you're on a deserted road at 04:30 when the sun is just rising on a summer's morning. Otherwise, it's in the nearside tyre tracks.

 

[Origamist]

Where's it from?

That's the 1960s teaching.

Are you referring to the Cycle England paper? If so, it's not a teaching aid for cyclists! Not for the first time, you are very confused.

 

[jimboalee]

Are you referring to the Cycle England paper? If so, it's nota teaching aid for cyclists! Not for the first time, you are very confused.

Not so.

What I should have said to keep the Site's Secret Police happy was "This is very similar to what I was told on National Cycling Proficiency lessons in the 1960s".

 

[Origamist]

Not so.

What I should have said to keep the Site's Secret Police happy was "This is very similar to what I was told on National Cycling Proficiency lessons in the 1960s".

Really? When I did my cycle proficiency in the 70s - no one mentioned "dynamic envelopes" or the dangers of critical road widths to me. I guess you must have had a forward thinking and progressive tutor back in the day.

 

[jimboalee]

Really? When I did my cycle proficiency in the 70s - no one mentioned "dynamic envelopes" or the dangers of critical road widths to me. I guess you must have had a forward thinking and progressive tutor back in the day.

Could you, for the sake of the other readers, point out on the OP's attached thumbnail where it mentions your "dynamic envelopes" and "critical road widths".

This might be confusing as any intelligent reader will be reading about P1 and P2.
P1, which is the bone of contention here, is the road position which was recommended to my school pals and I in the NCP lesson.

 

[jimboalee]

Shall I sum up "Dynamic envelope" in two sentances?


"A cyclist will occupy as much width on the road as he needs".

"It might be the whole width of the lane".

 

[Origamist]

Could you, for the sake of the other readers, point out on the OP's attached thumbnail where it mentions your "dynamic envelopes" and "critical road widths"..

I think it's more for your sake, Jim but in post #19 I posted a link to a Cycling England paper that discusses "dynamic envelopes" and "critical road widths" - I made this clear by highlighting the terms! Did you not read it? I recommend it to you. I asked if this paper (ie THE CYCLING ENGLAND paper) was what you were referring to in post #23, but you did not reply.

If any of the above post is still not clear, I'll happily clarify further.

 

[Origamist]

Shall I sum up "Dynamic envelope" in two sentances?


"A cyclist will occupy as much width on the road as he needs".

"It might be the whole width of the lane".

Must try harder. C-

 

[jimboalee]

Where's it from?

That's the 1960s teaching.

Coruskate is closest to the mark with the recommendation of the nearside tyre tracks.

Even so, don't be surprised to see me weave round man-hole covers and potholes, on whichever side is safest at that moment.



This can be the normal riding position, if you're on a deserted road at 04:30 when the sun is just rising on a summer's morning. Otherwise, it's in the nearside tyre tracks.

OK Origamist,

Where in this post did I make reference to YOUR link?

I didn't.

The thread is discussing the OP's thumbnail.

Everyone else understood that because I hadn't directly referenced your link or any other publication by name, I must be asking about the OP's opening attached thumbnail.

Why did you automatically assume I was asking about YOUR link?

5 points deducted for anticipating with an incorrect answer.

Where's it from anyway? NOT YOUR LINK, the OP's thumbnail...