Why Primary?

[Origamist]

Hooray, hooray, hooray.

Welcome to the Real World.

I've always said this, you should take your blinkers off and read what I write, not what you think I represent...

 

[Origamist]

That's always been my question. It seems to be about interpretation. If "as much room as a car" means moving out into the other lane (as in the HC picture), then that's fine. If it's interpreted as distance between vehicles then it isn't.

In Spain, the 1.5m rule works well and does away with the HC's poor wording regarding overtaking cyclists and passing distances.

 

[Origamist]

There is a problem with that rule.. in short, if a car overtakes a car at 1inch, then it's ok for them to overtake a cyclist leaving 1inch.
http://croydoncyclist.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/highway-code-rule-163/

The DfT are not interested in a campaign for clarification:

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2010/01/correspondence-with-transport-for.html

 

[gaz]

The DfT are not interested in a campaign for clarification:

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2010/01/correspondence-with-transport-for.html

An intresting read and a pretty much expected reply from someone in marketing.

 

[swee'pea99]

I ride mostly in secondary - which I take to mean somewhere between two and three feet from the kerb. Seems to me that's a position that keeps me out of the crap, and gives me a bit of wiggle-room if I suddenly encounter a pothole or other hazard, but without impeding motorists who want to go faster than I can.

I have no hesitation in taking primary when I need to (preceded by a glance over the shoulder, and a signal if necessary), but I see no reason to try to live there. Winding up motorists seems to me pointless at best, dangerous at worst, and overall just plain inconsiderate to other human beans, most of whom are a lot like people.

 

[HLaB]

2. The visibility issue is interesting. You can nearly always be seen perfectly well when riding in secondary, but what is of greater importance than merely being visible is that drivers have to take more cognitive note of you and adjust their driving accordingly when you ride in the centre of the lane. When you're closer to the kerb vehicles can pass with very little or no deviation. Motorists generally prefer this...

With visibility there is a case that the primary places you more towards the centre of their field of vision whereas the secondary or closer to the kerb, places you more in their peripheral vision. Motorists generally prefer it when you are closer to the kerb because you are out of sight and out of mind

 

[BentMikey]

It might be perfectly possible to see a cyclist in the gutter, if a motorist looks there. They are more likely to look to the centre of the lane, and miss a cyclist in the gutter as a result.

 

[HLaB]

It might be perfectly possible to see a cyclist in the gutter, if a motorist looks there. They are more likely to look to the centre of the lane, and miss a cyclist in the gutter as a result.

Agreed. Unfortunately their ability to scan further afield from their central vision is also reduced by speed, making it more likely for the gutter cyclist to be missed as cars generally pass faster when they are in that position.

 

[jimboalee]

Ride mostly in a Nearside position - which I take to mean 'within the nearside tyre tracks'. Ditto, ditto.

Have no hesitation in taking a dominant position when you need to (preceded by a glance over the shoulder, and a signal if necessary), but don't try to live there.


This sounds suspiciously similar to advice I recieved when on an RAC ACU ( Auto Cycle Union ) training course for sixteen year olds riding 50cc mopeds.
As part of 'General Studies' lessons in the last year of school ( for those who were sixteen and had a Yammie Fizzie or similar; or like some girls who had Puch Maxis ).

 

[Origamist]

With visibility there is a case that the primary places you more towards the centre of their field of vision whereas the secondary or closer to the kerb, places you more in their peripheral vision. Motorists generally prefer it when you are closer to the kerb because you are out of sight and out of mind

HLaB, the difference between riding in primary and secondary is a metre or so in most cases, which is what, maybe 15 degrees or so - this is well within the stereoscopic field of view.

As I said, what is key is the cognitive response to the position of the cyclist and you and I agree on this...

 

[HLaB]

HLaB, the difference between riding in primary and secondary is a metre or so in most cases, which is what, maybe 15 degrees or so - this is well within the stereoscopic field of view.

As I said, what is key is the cognitive response to the position of the cyclist and you and I agree on this...

I forget the figures but the central field of vision is actually quite limited (IIRC only circa 12deg) but they can scan a wider area. Unfortunately this reduces with speed as does the driver's ability to scan beyond this (Tunnel Vision). Whilst for the reasonable individual (driver) this is not a problem I think we have all come across the occasional speeding numpty driver.

 

[Origamist]

I forget the figures but the central field of vision is actually quite limited (IIRC only circa 12deg) but they can scan a wider area. Unfortunately this reduces with speed as does the driver's ability to scan beyond this (Tunnel Vision). Whilst for the reasonable individual (driver) this is not a problem I think we have all come across the occasional speeding numpty driver.

I genuinely don't think visibility between primary and secondary is a significant factor - at best it's of a very, very low order. If anyone can convince me otherwise, I'd be interested to read a paper.

 

[blockend]

These discussions are predicated on a combative and idealised vision of bicycle commuting. Taken to their conclusions, the best ride-to-worker would be a 28 year old, street savvy, camera carrying road warrior, and everything would go uphill - must mostly downhill - from that ideal.

I'd argue that if utility cycling is ever going to be more than form of fashionable expression for fit young people, our national vision of the road cyclist will have to encompass a variety of approaches and abilities and drivers will need to get used to all of them.
What superficially appears to be an in-your-face attitude to cycle safety is actually pretending to be a car, an armoured, wide, fast accelerating thing which ultimately bikes can never be.

Education seems to be the answer, public information films stuffed down drivers' throats until they gag on them and they're no longer tempted to take comfort in erroneous facts about cycling and cyclists.

 

[HLaB]

I genuinely don't think visibility between primary and secondary is a significant factor - at best it's of a very, very low order. If anyone can convince me otherwise, I'd be interested to read a paper.

Agreed, I don't think its a significant factor 99.99% of the time as the vast majority of people are reasonable only with the limited number of numpties that demonstrate tunnel vision. Its just an interesting theory from my point of view. I consider that the whole overtaking procedure is completely random regardless of your position, if there's any controlling factor (for some but not all) its the presence of a vehicle in the opposing/ outside lane (if dc).

This is a quote from the earlier discussed paper (Walker 2007):

Second, we know that being at the edge of a road is a particular
problem at junctions, as motorists’ search patterns tend
to focus on more medial areas where motor vehicles are found
(e.g., Hills, 1980;R¨as¨anen and Summala, 1998).

 

[joebingo]

Hooray, hooray, hooray.

Welcome to the Real World.
Make a note of this, OP.

Noted, and I am aware that this happens (has done to me once - although I was in secondary at the time. Had a discussion with the van driver in question and ended up with him hitting me with his door. It hurt. Idiots are idiots no matter where you're positioned.), though I have a feeling you've forgotten the circumstances in my OP. Empty lane behind = no-one to piss off. Being in primary meant that my sharp veer towards the kerb wasn't a sharp veer into the kerb.

I realise that I'm coming across as defensive, but it's only because I feel like you're treating me like an 8 year old Jim.