Taking the lane in London

I never seem to get into any bother when I take the primary position when it
is necessary, so this article was a bit of an eye opener.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-take-the-lane

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

On 01/08/2011 16:15, Simon Mason wrote:
I never seem to get into any bother when I take the primary position
when it is necessary, so this article was a bit of an eye opener.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-take-the-lane


Cyclist scum should stay in the gutter where they belong.



--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 01/08/2011 19:13, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 01/08/2011 16:15, Simon Mason wrote:
I never seem to get into any bother when I take the primary position
when it is necessary, so this article was a bit of an eye opener.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-take-the-lane



Cyclist scum should stay in the gutter where they belong.

'Duncan Pickering, cycling manager at road safety charity the Institute
of Advanced Motoring (IAM), said:

"A bicycle is a vehicle on the road and a person riding it has the
right to act like any other person on the road.We all hear of cases
where someone gets too close to the left and there are very unfortunate
consequences if a lorry driver doesn't see them.'Some motorists think it
is a divine right to be moving at whatever speed they want and a cyclist
is holding them up. I'm afraid it is tough if a cyclist holds them up.
In most urban areas traffic moves slowly so a cyclist doesn't hold up
traffic."'

That's from the IAM. You know; advanced motoring? I guess from your
comment you motoring is pretty far from advanced...

On 01/08/2011 16:15, Simon Mason wrote:
I never seem to get into any bother when I take the primary position
when it is necessary, so this article was a bit of an eye opener.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-take-the-lane

"The Highway Code, however, doesn't mention primary position at all."
This is significant: the Highway Code's writers have (as recently
discussed) pandered to cyclists and ignored motorists in recent years,
yet still there is no mention of this so-called "position".

Whatever the rights and the wrongs of the issue, there is no doubt that
some cyclists (or rather psycholists) take "primary position" all the
time, whether or not it's "necessary", in order to belligerently
obstruct motorists. They're the same "people" who constantly try to
give drivers a hard time whenever they're cycling anywhere...provoking
drivers into a reaction and then filming and reporting that reaction
(but conveniently "failing" to film the initial provocation) is, as
extensively discussed here lately, just one other ploy that these
psycholists use to attempt to force their wacky ideals onto others.

Sadly, many psycholists will take "primary position" when it's obviously
completely unnecessary, leave less space to overtake as a result, and
then have the cheek to bang on (and so vandalise) any cars which then
try to get past. If they are truly worried about the cars being "too
close" (doubtful) then they should get the hell over to the left since
it's safe. Any cyclist who is seen displaying such bloody-minded
obstructive behaviour should be banned from cycling altogether (although
obviously we need to instigate a mechanism to do that first). It is
simply not remotely reasonable to automatically resent *every* car
overtaking you when you're cycling, and to try to physically prevent it
as a result.

All cyclists should live and let live, and mind their own business: only
use "primary position" when it's truly necessary, which isn't often.
"If in doubt, use primary position" seems like (and is probably meant to
be) an open invitation for psycholists to play dumb and pretend to be
"in doubt" all the time just so they can constantly use "primary
position"; such dubious advice should be replaced with "If in doubt,
then at the earliest opportunity, find out from a non-anti-motorist
source on the Internet whether primary position was genuinely necessary,
and apply that new knowledge when next in a similar situation".

Someone in the comments even says "The primary position is deemed to be
the safest position for cyclists under conditions where they need to
'control' the other vehicles in the lane". The word "control" there is
telling, and if you replace "safest" with "most effective" and "need"
with "want" then you're pretty close to the truth in many cases. Where
"primary position" is used maliciously and obstructively by a psycholist
who knows perfectly well that it's not necessary from a safety point of
view, it should be called something like "obstructive,
going-to-get-your-head-kicked-in-if-you-carry-on-like-this position"
instead.

On 01/08/2011 21:27, Duncan Pickering said:

Some motorists think it is a divine right to be moving at whatever
speed they want

TBH I don't find that a helpful, or (broadly) truthful, thing to say.
It's the kind of thing that anti-motorist posters like Chapman and Doug
say on here (except they replace "Some" with "Most" or even "All").
They regularly accuse anyone who opposes low speed limits or draconian
speed enforcement of "Wanting to be able to drive as fast as they like";
that's a textbook straw man.

On 01/08/2011 21:27, Abo wrote:
On 01/08/2011 19:13, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 01/08/2011 16:15, Simon Mason wrote:
I never seem to get into any bother when I take the primary position
when it is necessary, so this article was a bit of an eye opener.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-take-the-lane

Cyclist scum should stay in the gutter where they belong.

'Duncan Pickering, cycling manager at road safety charity the Institute of
Advanced Motoring (IAM), said:

"A bicycle is a vehicle on the road and a person riding it has the right to
act like any other person on the road.We all hear of cases where someone gets
too close to the left and there are very unfortunate consequences if a lorry
driver doesn't see them.'Some motorists think it is a divine right to be
moving at whatever speed they want and a cyclist is holding them up. I'm
afraid it is tough if a cyclist holds them up. In most urban areas traffic
moves slowly so a cyclist doesn't hold up traffic."'

That's from the IAM. You know; advanced motoring? I guess from your comment
you motoring is pretty far from advanced...

The IAM has absolutely no academic standing. It is not a body of recognised
"experts".

Although clearly contrary to the beliefs of some, there is no recognised
scientific body of knowledge on road use.

There are no chairs of transport at universities (geography doesn't count -
it isn't anything like specialised enough). "Knowledge" on the topic is
ad-hoc and rather catch-as-catch-can.

On 01/08/2011 21:27, Abo wrote:
On 01/08/2011 19:13, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 01/08/2011 16:15, Simon Mason wrote:
I never seem to get into any bother when I take the primary position
when it is necessary, so this article was a bit of an eye opener.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-take-the-lane




Cyclist scum should stay in the gutter where they belong.

'Duncan Pickering, cycling manager at road safety charity the Institute
of Advanced Motoring (IAM), said:

"A bicycle is a vehicle on the road and a person riding it has the right
to act like any other person on the road.

No they ****ing don't. When the sponging freeloaders pay to use the
roads they can have rights. Until they put there hands in their
bibshorts & pay their way they have no rights at all.


We all hear of cases where
someone gets too close to the left and there are very unfortunate
consequences if a lorry driver doesn't see them.

Thats what we call "terminal stupidity" on the part of cyclists.


'Some motorists think it
is a divine right to be moving at whatever speed they want and a cyclist
is holding them up.

It is a right. Motorists pay Road Tax & a host of other taxes to use
the roads, cyclists pay **** all.

I'm afraid it is tough if a cyclist holds them up.

Alas ramming cyclists appears to be against the law. It shouldn't be.

In most urban areas traffic moves slowly so a cyclist doesn't hold up
traffic."'

Cycle lanes, bus lanes & those idiotic forward boxes delay tax paying
motorists at the expense of the poor & stupid.

That's from the IAM. You know; advanced motoring? I guess from your
comment you motoring is pretty far from advanced...


I guess from your comment your intelligence is far from advanced...

I have a "license" to drive, obtained by passing a "driving test".
Cyclists at best have a Tufty Club certificate.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 02/08/2011 00:08, JNugent wrote:

Although clearly contrary to the beliefs of some, there is no recognised
scientific body of knowledge on road use.

I thought Brake were such a body? It's clear that they use rigorous,
unbiased academic processes to ascertain what their policies should be.
Thank goodness they're not a bunch of dogmatic car-hating nutters who
are funded by "safety" camera manufacturers, and who recruit the
families of road collision victims (who of course are road safety
experts, and are bound to be impartial, dispassionate and not easily led
because they want to "do something" on behalf of their late loved ones)
as mouthpieces.

Then there's the Campaign for "Better" Transport (who used to be
Transport 2000), who again, are completely focussed on a noble
scientific quest to find the very best road safety policies, and aren't
in any way just an advocacy group for the bus and train companies who
finance them: any anti-car policies which they just happen to come up
with are there because they are genuinely going to save lives, and
likewise, when they oppose, say, dualling the A9, then that must be
because (contrary to what any reasonable person would think) doing that
is not going to improve road safety, and their opposition couldn't
possibly be anything to do with the fact that it would also make driving
easier.

You are, however, correct that the likes of the ABD and Safe Speed know
absolutely nothing about road safety, and everything that they say must
be dismissed out of hand without discussion (purely because it doesn't
make sense from a road safety standpoint; it's definitely nothing to do
with the fact that their policies tend to help, rather than hinder,
evil, selfish motorists, because only a Lou Knee would put whether or
not a policy helped motorists above whether or not it improved safety).

On Aug 1, 9:27*pm, Abo wrote:
On 01/08/2011 19:13, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

On 01/08/2011 16:15, Simon Mason wrote:
I never seem to get into any bother when I take the primary position
when it is necessary, so this article was a bit of an eye opener.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...g/01/cyclist-t....

Cyclist scum should stay in the gutter where they belong.

'Duncan Pickering, cycling manager at road safety charity the Institute
of Advanced Motoring (IAM), said:

* * *"A bicycle is a vehicle on the road and a person riding it has the
right to act like any other person on the road.We all hear of cases
where someone gets too close to the left and there are very unfortunate
consequences if a lorry driver doesn't see them.'Some motorists think it
is a divine right to be moving at whatever speed they want and a cyclist
is holding them up. I'm afraid it is tough if a cyclist holds them up.
In most urban areas traffic moves slowly so a cyclist doesn't hold up
traffic."'

That's from the IAM. You know; advanced motoring? I guess from your
comment you motoring is pretty far from advanced...

The IAM are very clued up when it comes to cycling safety. Some of
their leaflets are very useful and informative for motorists who want
to take up cycling. We actually have them in our work's foyer.

--
Simon Mason

On Aug 1, 9:27*pm, Abo wrote:

* * *"A bicycle is a vehicle on the road and a person riding it has the
right to act like any other person on the road.We all hear of cases
where someone gets too close to the left and there are very unfortunate
consequences if a lorry driver doesn't see them.'Some motorists think it
is a divine right to be moving at whatever speed they want and a cyclist
is holding them up. I'm afraid it is tough if a cyclist holds them up.
In most urban areas traffic moves slowly so a cyclist doesn't hold up
traffic."'

That's from the IAM. You know; advanced motoring? I guess from your
comment you motoring is pretty far from advanced...

And of course, as seen in the recent Bexley case, any driver who takes
out his aggression on a cyclist taking the lane can be filmed and
brought to justice. These cameras will become more and more common and
will cut down on aggressive driving antics. A good thing for *every*
road user, not just cyclists.

--
Simon Mason