Primary secondary position -good or bad for cycling driving?

[saaby93]

About say 20 years ago you'd be able to go out on your bike or in your car, mix with traffic come home again and little drama about cycling
Today you can go out in a car with the most unassuming of drivers until they catch up with a ' cyclist ' and 'arrogant taking up all the road'. What's going on?

There've been a few threads on here where cycling position has proved contentious

If you're in a car following say a slow tractor (if they still exist) the tractor should pull over from time to time to help traffic behind make progress.

Many cyclists today keep left of the road and let the traffic behind decide when it's safe to over take, or might even pull over to let traffic past (partly if it feels uncomfortable having a queue behind)

With primary ( and secondary) positioning it's the cyclist trying to decide when the vehicle behind can over take. 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.
Like everything there's a time and a place but who is to decide the place.

There's an article on wikipedia about how the concept became prevalent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling
Trouble is it's written in American and the inside of a road means the middle and the outside, nearest the verge

It talks of Primary being the default position and moving to Secondary to allow traffic behind to pass, i.e. the cyclist controls the road space
whereas in the past a bike would have been deferential kept left to middle-ish if nothing about and moved or kept left if there was anything behind

Is the taking control good or bad for cycling? Is it helping people try cycling, or does it feel confrontational
When you're out cycling or driving how does it seem to you?

[saaby93]

WinstonWolf said:

Another point about kerb hugging, when you encounter a pothole you can only avoid it by moving into the stream of traffic or coming to a dead halt. In the secondary and primary positions you have more choice of how to avoid hazards. Typically it's far safer to make avoiding manoeuvres away from the traffic.

With the roads getting worse every day the kerb is a really unsafe place to be.

Mind you, there seem to be just as many potholes in the wheel track lines as near the kerb.
Many cyclists in London seem to be unaware of the danger of potholes when hugging the kerb to squeeze up the underside of traffic
Perhaps that makes your point

[saaby93]

motco said:

A person on a bicycle:-

How does that work without a rear mudguard?

[saaby93]

wst said:

The problem with keeping "left of middle-ish" is all the crud that drops between the wheel tracks. When on a bike the options are "left track" or "right track" and the left one is often unsuitable because people don't have great spatial awareness...

Isnt left of left safer again because if a driver hasnt seen the bike theyre likely to miss

Has anyone found any stats if its possible or something on whether it is safer to keep to one side or to hold centre ground?
And probably in what circumstances?
In city streets where they have road narrowings and there's deliberately no room for both as a vehicle cant straddle the lane markings

[saaby93]

WinstonWolf said:

Nope, it's safer to be seen in the first place.

There's loads of info out there if you're genuinely interested.

Where is it
The three terms 'gutter' 'primary position' 'secondary position' seem to have come out of a book called Cyclecraft.
Every time you try to find the source of the terms you end up back there.
Have you found anything that tests those concepts to say they're any better than normal rules - keep over to the left, where how far to the left depends on the type of road and what else is about, and we've seen in another thread keeping to the right in an offside slip.

[saaby93]

WinstonWolf said:

saaby93 said:

WinstonWolf said:

Nope, it's safer to be seen in the first place.

There's loads of info out there if you're genuinely interested.

Where is it
The three terms 'gutter' 'primary position' 'secondary position' seem to have come out of a book called Cyclecraft.
Every time you try to find the source of the terms you end up back there.
Have you found anything that tests those concepts to say they're any better than normal rules - keep over to the left, where how far to the left depends on the type of road and what else is about, and we've seen in another thread keeping to the right in an offside slip.

If you're genuinely interested there's a site called Google that can enlighten you.

it doesnt seem to offer more than Ive said there
What have you found that shows the benefits rather than just asserting it's beneficial without any evidence?

[saaby93]

M-SportMatt said:

saaby93 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,

Haven't read any further than this, it MAY happen in city centres or other roads preceeding a right turn, but in general this is NOT common.

which is why I didnt say that - why do some posters not read whats been written

M-SportMatt said:

Also the OP seems to be on a one man crusade to ram his opinion down our throats that the safest place to ride is as far left as possible.

You'll only think that if you havent read what Ive written
There's enough stuff to discuss without making up stuff as a distraction

[saaby93]

TwistingMyMelon said:

Thing is its not just the primary position , sometimes I have to ride in the middle of the road as the road has deteriorated with pot holes and sinks into the verge

yep we all know that
You get pot holes in the middle in places too
What would happen if we dropped the terms gutter, primary secondary and reverted to normal cycling, as per the lady on the bike above?

Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 27th July 10:20

[saaby93]

Integroo said:

Saaby, is your only point in life to make never-ending posts raising arguments between those who cycle and those who do not,

Of course not - many people do both
And in a similar vein is your only point in life to fill up forum space with off topic stuff?

[saaby93]

M-SportMatt said:

But its the place to be according to 93 braincell post denying OP

Easy way to demonstrate you have nothing to add is take a pop at a poster instead

WinstonWolf said:

We've already established it's safer

If it is, where was established... all ears
Show us the stats or the report one vs the other

[saaby93]

WinstonWolf said:

saaby93 said:

M-SportMatt said:

But its the place to be according to 93 braincell post denying OP

Easy way to demonstrate you have nothing to add is take a pop at a poster instead

WinstonWolf said:

We've already established it's safer

If it is, where was established... all ears
Show us the stats or the report one vs the other

Look it up yourself if you're interested. Clippety clop Mr Troll...

As I said I havent found anything - has anyone else
Unless you can post anything up - you're the one who's trying to be a troll

[saaby93]

M-SportMatt said:

saaby93 said:

M-SportMatt said:

But its the place to be according to 93 braincell post denying OP

Easy way to demonstrate you have nothing to add is take a pop at a poster instead

I've added plenty....what have you added? Apart from the covert insistence that keeping far left is safest.....

M-SportMatt said:

https://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyc...

This may help some of you

See the title of the section......Sharing the road together it may give some of the entitled folk on here, both motorists and cyclists a little clue about how to behave.

Any cyclists who don't follow these guidelines are as inconsiderate as the motor vehicles that don't

Matt have a read of what Ive said instead of posting up stuff I havent? Nowhere have I done any such covert insistence

I'm aware of that rospa page and it also seems to use its source as that cyclecraft book
- it again doesnt have anything that backs up the proposal

Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 27th July 12:15

[saaby93]

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 that

M-SportMatt said:

Are you schizophrenic or stupid?

I guess youre looking in a mirror talking to yourself

[saaby93]

WinstonWolf said:

Against my better judgement...

http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyc...

Discuss.

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

[saaby93]

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.
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?

[saaby93]

chow pan toon said:

I was taught it in the 80s as well. Even the "normal" woman cyclist upthread isn't cycling in the gutter.

I don't think anyone's proposing cycling in the gutter where there is one- that's one of the things taking issue with

[saaby93]

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 another
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]

M-SportMatt said:

Still waiting......

You could try Winston's approach and see what Google comes up with

[saaby93]

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.

Try crossing on the 'green man' in London, cyclists with Acme Thunnderer whistle in mouth will mow you down, if you do not look for them.

And that is outrageous behaviour, but that is mutually exclusive from cyclists being 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."

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.

Part of the problem is we keep correcting the likes of Saaby's mistakes then WE are the militant lot

How did I get a mention in this joust Who did you include in your WE if youre not a normal cyclist

[saaby93]

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.

You don't mince your words do you
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.