Primary secondary position -good or bad for cycling driving?
Discussion
saaby93 said:
What better judgement?
I followed the links and still couldn't see where the stats or a report show where the gutter primary secondary strategy is safer than normal cycling
It IS normal cycling, its just that somebody has invented terminology for it. That's the way i was taught to cycle on my cycling proficiency in the 80's.I followed the links and still couldn't see where the stats or a report show where the gutter primary secondary strategy is safer than normal cycling
But if you've never done any training, never done advanced driver training or aren't a cyclist then you wouldn't realise that....
saaby93 said:
WinstonWolf said:
What better judgement?I followed the links and still couldn't see where the stats or a report show where the gutter primary secondary strategy is safer than normal cycling
M-SportMatt said:
It IS normal cycling, its just that somebody has invented terminology for it. That's the way i was taught to cycle on my cycling proficiency in the 80's.
But if you've never done any training, never done advanced driver training or aren't a cyclist then you wouldn't realise that....
It may depend who was doing the teaching or progression since.But if you've never done any training, never done advanced driver training or aren't a cyclist then you wouldn't realise that....
When did gutter become other than where there was a real gutter at the edge of the road?
If youre keeping left and the drains are flush with the surface, you can still keep left although not necessarily so far left all the time you're riding through them all, if there are any.
Its the moving right of that into secondary position, but as first choice riding centre lane primary position that seems to come through from cyclecraft.
Is it really safer to be out there? Or do we take it unquestioningly?
M-SportMatt said:
saaby93 said:
What better judgement?
I followed the links and still couldn't see where the stats or a report show where the gutter primary secondary strategy is safer than normal cycling
It IS normal cycling, its just that somebody has invented terminology for it. That's the way i was taught to cycle on my cycling proficiency in the 80's.I followed the links and still couldn't see where the stats or a report show where the gutter primary secondary strategy is safer than normal cycling
But if you've never done any training, never done advanced driver training or aren't a cyclist then you wouldn't realise that....
I was taught it in the 80s as well. Even the "normal" woman cyclist upthread isn't cycling in the gutter.
saaby93 said:
M-SportMatt said:
It IS normal cycling, its just that somebody has invented terminology for it. That's the way i was taught to cycle on my cycling proficiency in the 80's.
But if you've never done any training, never done advanced driver training or aren't a cyclist then you wouldn't realise that....
It may depend who was doing the teaching or progression since.But if you've never done any training, never done advanced driver training or aren't a cyclist then you wouldn't realise that....
When did gutter become other than where there was a real gutter at the edge of the road?
If youre keeping left and the drains are flush with the surface, you can still keep left although not necessarily so far left all the time you're riding through them all, if there are any.
Its the moving right of that into secondary position, but as first choice riding centre lane primary position that seems to come through from cyclecraft.
Is it really safer to be out there? Or do we take it unquestioningly?
has anything changed other communication, i.e. the internet, for example Youtube video comments seem to suggest people take a side and then add watching a given video to their opinion of a group, a lot more discussion and polarisation of opinions.
I hate it when cyclists block your progress so avoid doing it when cycling myself, the only time I "take the lane" is on blind bends to dissuade risky overtakes that will bring the driver into conflict with oncoming traffic, then swerve and take me out, I get the impression that there are the following reactions to this
1/ Good, cant get past, will just have to wait, avoids that tricky decision.
2/ Cant get past, wonder whats for tea
3/ Just going past, no aggression, trusting in the force
4/ f
kING CYCLIST IN MY WAY HOW DARE HE, I MUST DRIVE PAST REGARDLESS EVEN IF IT MEANS CERTAIN DEATH, ANYTHING LESS WOULD BE A TRAVESTY AND HE WOULD HAVE WON.
I hate it when cyclists block your progress so avoid doing it when cycling myself, the only time I "take the lane" is on blind bends to dissuade risky overtakes that will bring the driver into conflict with oncoming traffic, then swerve and take me out, I get the impression that there are the following reactions to this
1/ Good, cant get past, will just have to wait, avoids that tricky decision.
2/ Cant get past, wonder whats for tea
3/ Just going past, no aggression, trusting in the force
4/ f
kING CYCLIST IN MY WAY HOW DARE HE, I MUST DRIVE PAST REGARDLESS EVEN IF IT MEANS CERTAIN DEATH, ANYTHING LESS WOULD BE A TRAVESTY AND HE WOULD HAVE WON.M-SportMatt said:
saaby93 said:
M-SportMatt said:
Saaby, can you stop denying what you posted? Post 1 says its common to see cyclist in the middle holding up a long line of traffic.....i've quoted it, its still there and you're repeatedly denying it.
it doesnt say thatM-SportMatt said:
Are you schizophrenic or stupid?
I guess youre looking in a mirror talking to yourselfsaaby93 said:
. It's not uncommon to see a bike in centre of lane ( primary position) keeping an HGV or car behind with a long queue behind, rather than pulling over to let the queue pass.
J4CKO said:
has anything changed other communication, i.e. the internet, for example Youtube video comments seem to suggest people take a side and then add watching a given video to their opinion of a group, a lot more discussion and polarisation of opinions.
I hate it when cyclists block your progress so avoid doing it when cycling myself, the only time I "take the lane" is on blind bends to dissuade risky overtakes that will bring the driver into conflict with oncoming traffic, then swerve and take me out, I get the impression that there are the following reactions to this
1/ Good, cant get past, will just have to wait, avoids that tricky decision.
2/ Cant get past, wonder whats for tea
3/ Just going past, no aggression, trusting in the force
4/ fkING CYCLIST IN MY WAY HOW DARE HE, I MUST DRIVE PAST REGARDLESS EVEN IF IT MEANS CERTAIN DEATH, ANYTHING LESS WOULD BE A TRAVESTY AND HE WOULD HAVE WON.
there's at least anotherI hate it when cyclists block your progress so avoid doing it when cycling myself, the only time I "take the lane" is on blind bends to dissuade risky overtakes that will bring the driver into conflict with oncoming traffic, then swerve and take me out, I get the impression that there are the following reactions to this
1/ Good, cant get past, will just have to wait, avoids that tricky decision.
2/ Cant get past, wonder whats for tea
3/ Just going past, no aggression, trusting in the force
4/ f
kING CYCLIST IN MY WAY HOW DARE HE, I MUST DRIVE PAST REGARDLESS EVEN IF IT MEANS CERTAIN DEATH, ANYTHING LESS WOULD BE A TRAVESTY AND HE WOULD HAVE WON.5) Why's that cyclist tried to block when it's clear to pass? and may be leading to some of the angst
Without the gutter, primary, secondary thing, would some cyclists (it's not everyone) try to block?
Who's to decide when 'taking the lane' is appropriate? Is that the issue?
saaby93 said:
J4CKO said:
has anything changed other communication, i.e. the internet, for example Youtube video comments seem to suggest people take a side and then add watching a given video to their opinion of a group, a lot more discussion and polarisation of opinions.
I hate it when cyclists block your progress so avoid doing it when cycling myself, the only time I "take the lane" is on blind bends to dissuade risky overtakes that will bring the driver into conflict with oncoming traffic, then swerve and take me out, I get the impression that there are the following reactions to this
1/ Good, cant get past, will just have to wait, avoids that tricky decision.
2/ Cant get past, wonder whats for tea
3/ Just going past, no aggression, trusting in the force
4/ fkING CYCLIST IN MY WAY HOW DARE HE, I MUST DRIVE PAST REGARDLESS EVEN IF IT MEANS CERTAIN DEATH, ANYTHING LESS WOULD BE A TRAVESTY AND HE WOULD HAVE WON.
there's at least anotherI hate it when cyclists block your progress so avoid doing it when cycling myself, the only time I "take the lane" is on blind bends to dissuade risky overtakes that will bring the driver into conflict with oncoming traffic, then swerve and take me out, I get the impression that there are the following reactions to this
1/ Good, cant get past, will just have to wait, avoids that tricky decision.
2/ Cant get past, wonder whats for tea
3/ Just going past, no aggression, trusting in the force
4/ f
kING CYCLIST IN MY WAY HOW DARE HE, I MUST DRIVE PAST REGARDLESS EVEN IF IT MEANS CERTAIN DEATH, ANYTHING LESS WOULD BE A TRAVESTY AND HE WOULD HAVE WON.5) Why's that cyclist tried to block when it's clear to pass? and may be leading to some of the angst
Without the gutter, primary, secondary thing, would some cyclists (it's not everyone) try to block?
Pica-Pica said:
Ares said:
cb1965 said:
The trouble is that the pro cycling lobby are, these days, generally a militant lot who do not accept that anything a cyclist does is wrong and put forth the general opinion that all motorised vehicle drivers are incompetent.
Such bullst. I know and ride with 100s of cyclist. Not one is what I would class as militant, nor have a holier than though attitude, nor "put forth the general opinion that all motorised vehicle drivers are incompetent".Like it or not, there is many many times more aggression shown towards cyclist than from them. With people walking our plant having your above quoted opinion, there is little wonder.
And that is before highlighting that you are confusing commuters and 'people on a bike' with cyclists. It's a bit like saying taxi drivers various foibles are indicative of all drivers.
cb1965 said:
You're wasting your time with Ares (I think his username is an anagram of what he is btw) as he is part of the problem not the solution!
Very mature, and ignorant. 
Tell me why I am part of the problem (on the basis you don't even know me...?). Or is it a pig ignorant assumption that merely because I am a cyclist as well as a driver, I must be part of the problem?
Ares said:
Pica-Pica said:
Ares said:
cb1965 said:
The trouble is that the pro cycling lobby are, these days, generally a militant lot who do not accept that anything a cyclist does is wrong and put forth the general opinion that all motorised vehicle drivers are incompetent.
Such bullst. I know and ride with 100s of cyclist. Not one is what I would class as militant, nor have a holier than though attitude, nor "put forth the general opinion that all motorised vehicle drivers are incompetent".Like it or not, there is many many times more aggression shown towards cyclist than from them. With people walking our plant having your above quoted opinion, there is little wonder.
And that is before highlighting that you are confusing commuters and 'people on a bike' with cyclists. It's a bit like saying taxi drivers various foibles are indicative of all drivers.
WinstonWolf said:
Ares said:
Pica-Pica said:
Ares said:
cb1965 said:
The trouble is that the pro cycling lobby are, these days, generally a militant lot who do not accept that anything a cyclist does is wrong and put forth the general opinion that all motorised vehicle drivers are incompetent.
Such bullst. I know and ride with 100s of cyclist. Not one is what I would class as militant, nor have a holier than though attitude, nor "put forth the general opinion that all motorised vehicle drivers are incompetent".Like it or not, there is many many times more aggression shown towards cyclist than from them. With people walking our plant having your above quoted opinion, there is little wonder.
And that is before highlighting that you are confusing commuters and 'people on a bike' with cyclists. It's a bit like saying taxi drivers various foibles are indicative of all drivers.
Who did you include in your WE if youre not a normal cyclistAres said:
Very mature, and ignorant.
Tell me why I am part of the problem (on the basis you don't even know me...?). Or is it a pig ignorant assumption that merely because I am a cyclist as well as a driver, I must be part of the problem?
Because, like so many of your type, you're in utter and complete denial. Tell me why I am part of the problem (on the basis you don't even know me...?). Or is it a pig ignorant assumption that merely because I am a cyclist as well as a driver, I must be part of the problem?
cb1965 said:
Ares said:
Very mature, and ignorant.
Tell me why I am part of the problem (on the basis you don't even know me...?). Or is it a pig ignorant assumption that merely because I am a cyclist as well as a driver, I must be part of the problem?
Because, like so many of your type, you're in utter and complete denial. Tell me why I am part of the problem (on the basis you don't even know me...?). Or is it a pig ignorant assumption that merely because I am a cyclist as well as a driver, I must be part of the problem?
Fair though after that supposed two sides example
Can we get this back on track about whether the way primary and secondary cycling techniques are being used is giving cyclists a bad press and leading to corresponding worse attitude from too many motorists ? Certainly a different attitude than to what are thought normal cyclists that dont use so called blocking manoeuvres.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff