take a test??

[col]

I won't ride in an unsafe road position to avoid this 'conflict' of which you speak. Nor really should anyone ask me to. I'll move over where it is safe to allow faster traffic to overtake, but I'll stick to riding by cyclecraft.

Really, training cyclists all to ride thus wouldn't create conflict, its the ingrained wrong belief in motorists that cyclists should be submissive that would cause conflice. But, of course, thats not how they would see it...

I think its more like a slower vehicle shouldnt block faster vehicles if it can be helped,it just happens to be a bike thats slower.If it was some other form of transport that goes our speeds,the reaction would be the same i think.

I suppose thats what the difference is between us,im willing to slow or even pullover,to allow faster vehicles to progress,you call it being submissive,i call it manners,polite cycling,safe cycling even,after all,i am the slower vehicle and dont see a problem with giving way when needed to faster vehicles.

 

[Cab]

Not everyone who cycles can go the speeds a regularly training cyclist can go,i dont think the councils and governments would hold their hands up and change things very quickly,all that would happen is cyclists would be called even more, and clashes with motorists would increase.

Indeed. Which is why those motorists who are likely to get angry at cyclists, the ones who complain that we're not trained, really wouldn't want us to be trained at all.

 

[Cab]

Well, it's true, I do find myself riding in primary more in central London, but not always. What's more, I find that the traffic still isn't held up by me, and is in fact considerably slower on average.

Thats my experience too, but I suspect that like me you're shifting at a half decent pace.

I think your assertions are wrong, in that peak motor vehicle speeds will be reduced by the cyclists riding properly, and the average speed of the traffic will go up slightly because of the cyclists smoothing everything out. I think most people would welcome this together with the new and better cyclist behaviour.

You raise an interesting point, and I'll give it some thought. My instinct, based on what I see regularly in Cambridge, is that you're wrong. We've got enough cyclists here such that sometimes you'll see a dozen all on the same road, all of them being assertive, and if three or four of those cyclists are slow then traffic (including other cyclists stuck in it) moves at the speed of the slowest bikes, which causes tailbacks to juntions, which are then flowing more slowly than they were designed to leading to the traffic there not moving at all. I see it happen here, it seems the inevitable result if all slower cyclists behaved thus.

I still think you're being counter-productive with your clever "sound bite". It's snappy and gets attention, but it's very divisive and is further enhancing the them and us, and that makes life worse for us all. Most of us on here are also drivers, not freaking beardy weirdy car haters.

I haven't got a beard, and I'm not freaking. Although I'd love to know what that means.

And while I don't particularly hate cars there is a subset of intolerant motorists I have no time for at all. They tend to be the angry ones who believe we should be taxed and trained

I don't put forward the 'gridlock' thing as a soundbite; my observations and my instincts tell me thats what would happen, its only a tiny overstatement.

 

[Cab]

I think its more like a slower vehicle shouldnt block faster vehicles if it can be helped,it just happens to be a bike thats slower.If it was some other form of transport that goes our speeds,the reaction would be the same i think.

Granted. But of course you only allow overtaking when it is safe to do so. So, in heavy traffic, you can move over and allow overtaking when there is enough of a gap, but really if you're a bike in primary position you probably won't have to, its only safe to overtake when theres no traffic on the other side and then theres a gap anyway. It is the expectation that cyclists should move over to allow unsafe overtaking that is the problem; just 'cos a cyclist is slower than a car, that doesn't make dangerous overtaking reasonable.

I suppose thats what the difference is between us,im willing to slow or even pullover,to allow faster vehicles to progress,you call it being submissive,i call it manners,polite cycling,safe cycling even,after all,i am the slower vehicle and dont see a problem with giving way when needed to faster vehicles.

I'll also move over to allow overtaking when it is safe and appropriate; please, hilight where I have said otherwise.

It is the habitual positioning of cyclists in a secondary or sub-secondary position on roads where primary would be safer that is the problem. Thats more dangerous and, regrettably, in most places in the UK thats considered ordinary cycling.

 

[tdr1nka]

Its to do with the speed of slower cyclists and just how many more you'd see claiming primary as opposed to cycling close to or on the pavement. Standing in London recently it occurred to me that the only way that the traffic was working at all was by the slower cyclists being right in the gutter, allowing fast and close (basically illegal) overtaking as the norm rather than the exception. If there is traffic on both sides of the road and not sufficient space to safely pass a cyclist in secondary position without running in to oncoming traffic (normal city street) then it is not possible to overtake safely, and the solution is not to move over to the lefta bit more, it is to claim primary. Get all the slower cyclists out in the middle of the lane and a lot of cities suddenly start moving at 11mph, not as a mean speed but as a peak speed.

TY Cab, this is exactly what cycling in London is like.
To be fair, where there are bus lanes and red routes you are less likely to be shoved to the gutter, but where there are no bus lanes and row upon row of parked cars then you have to hold a strong primary position.

The impatient motorist simply views a cyclist as an obstruction, as they would if you were slower car or a bus pulling out.
They have no comprehension, or care even, as to why you might cycle in this manner other than you being provocative or out to deliberately slow them down.

The real fact is tho, the av. speed in London traffic is 12mph, so getting more intermediate cyclists to ride primary wouldn't change traffic speed that much but would further enrage countless motorists, which kinda shows the demographic that really needs to be further tested.

 

[BentMikey]

You raise an interesting point, and I'll give it some thought. My instinct, based on what I see regularly in Cambridge, is that you're wrong. We've got enough cyclists here such that sometimes you'll see a dozen all on the same road, all of them being assertive, and if three or four of those cyclists are slow then traffic (including other cyclists stuck in it) moves at the speed of the slowest bikes, which causes tailbacks to juntions, which are then flowing more slowly than they were designed to leading to the traffic there not moving at all. I see it happen here, it seems the inevitable result if all slower cyclists behaved thus.

Ah, now I see this differently. I see queues at nearly every junction, and if the cars were to go slower between junctions, they'd simply wait less time in the queue at the next junction. That would likely make any tailbacks shorter. At the least, I would expect little or no change in average motor vehicle speed. At best, I would expect a little more efficiency at junctions because of the reduced queues, and thus a small average speed increase.

Even the slower cyclists here are generally at least as fast on average as the cars.

 

[Cab]

The real fact is tho, the av. speed in London traffic is 12mph, so getting more intermediate cyclists to ride primary wouldn't change traffic speed that much but would further enrage countless motorists, which kinda shows the demographic that really needs to be further tested.

In the very worst traffic in many of our cities you're right, cyclists would make little difference being right in the middle at 12mph (and BM made the point that they might even out the flow a little, which is no bad thing). But theres heavy traffic and heavy traffic. My experience is that assertive slower cyclists do seem to slow things up and cause tailbacks; they're well within their rights to do so (and should be encouraged to cycle appropriately), but of course not everyone is quite so sympathetic with them.

 

[Cab]

Even the slower cyclists here are generally at least as fast on average as the cars.

Which is a key difference between those places with the most heavy traffic and the ones where traffic is heavy but not totally congested. On some routes in Cambridge my average speed is much faster than the cars, on some others its a lot slower; where you get a stream of assertive slower cyclists, you're slowing the traffic right down to that of the most congested traffic. Effectively, if the streets (including lights, junctions etc.) are designed to keep traffic flowing faster than that then you end up, more or less, with gridlock.

As an aside, we've got several streets here where thats the traffic planners intention. Talking to the county council traffic planners about the width of some roads in the city a couple of years back, it transpires that some of them are kept narrow such that cyclists reduce the mean speed of motorists. Of course what happens is that you get terrified cyclists hugging the gutter with taxis screaming past inches from them, having first bullied the cyclist into sub-secondary positions. Usually a glance back from primary at the taxi behind you and the driver then knows you're not to be bullied like that, its a system for controlling traffic speed that actually depends upon enough cyclists being assertive to make it work. Which, for the most part, is why it doesn't

 

[BentMikey]

Except that you made the point that the slower cyclists cause tailbacks of motorvehicles at junctions, unless I've misunderstood. My point is that these same slower cyclists are acting to reduce queueing time and length.

 

[BentMikey]

You raise an interesting point, and I'll give it some thought. My instinct, based on what I see regularly in Cambridge, is that you're wrong. We've got enough cyclists here such that sometimes you'll see a dozen all on the same road, all of them being assertive, and if three or four of those cyclists are slow then traffic (including other cyclists stuck in it) moves at the speed of the slowest bikes, which causes tailbacks to juntions, which are then flowing more slowly than they were designed to leading to the traffic there not moving at all. I see it happen here, it seems the inevitable result if all slower cyclists behaved thus.

Here's the bit I'm thinking of. Given some of your other posts, you might also mean tailbacks behind the cyclist, and then not at junctions?

 

[Cab]

Except that you made the point that the slower cyclists cause tailbacks of motorvehicles at junctions, unless I've misunderstood. My point is that these same slower cyclists are acting to reduce queueing time and length.

Slower cyclists in primary tend to cause tailbacks to junctions, with the knock on effect that fewer vehicles get through leading to more or less static traffic.

So, for example, if I turn left from Milton Road on to Arbury Road, I've got a short distance before parked cars in front of me, and I've usually got traffic on the other side of the road. An assertive cyclist (like me) will take a strong primary and prevent overtaking there, because it ain't safe. I might be going at 17mph (on average, from a standing start and not hurrying).

Most slower cyclists will be right in the gutter around the corner, then they're desperately looking for a way out into the traffic to get past the parked cars. If instead the slower cyclist does the right thing, gets into primary because it just ain't safe to allow overtaking there, then a good five or six vehicles that might have passed haven't, and the whole stream of traffic is stuck behind him at 11mph. Knowing that junction well, I know that when this happens something like half of the number of cars that normally get through at red can do so. Because thats a left filter lane that means that when its busy the lane then fills up and traffic backs right up to the roundabout way further back.

In some traffic situations slower cyclists mediate traffic speed and keep things nice and even. In others, assertive slow cyclists (most especially when there are plenty of them) grind traffic to a stop. I don't blame them for it, it isn't their fault that there are loads of cars clogging up the roads and they certainly shouldn't ride dangerously to free up the traffic. But my observation is that the effect can be rather frustrating for the motorists, and rather clogging on the road.

A few such cyclists do nothing bad for traffic flow. When you see lots of slow assertive riders things seem to change, except of course in exceptionally heavy traffic (which in some parts of London and some other city centres is the norm).

 

[BentMikey]

I'm not so sure that's the case for the more common sorts of junctions and traffic flows most of us ride in.

 

[tdr1nka]

Cab, correct me if I'm wrong but do cycles out number cars in Cambridge?

 

[BentMikey]

LOL! When I wrote my first post on this topic I thought hackers is going to like this!

 

[Cab]

I'm not so sure that's the case for the more common sorts of junctions and traffic flows most of us ride in.

Try getting a few mates to help you out, cycle about assertively but slowly, see what happens.