Armchair experts, especially those on social media, will often tell you that cyclists should be positioned on the left side of the lane, never centrally, but what's the truth? Here's what you need to know to set the record straight.

We recently reported on road.cc that a Hove cyclist who suffered a close pass by a school bus was told that the driver thought she would have moved over – despite the fact that the space to her left was a parking bay. There's clearly some misunderstanding of correct road positioning out there.

The first port of call on matters like this is usually The Highway Code (link is external) (remember that not all of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements), but it says nothing about how cyclists should position themselves within a lane apart from when dealing with junctions and parked vehicles.

Despite what some people would have you believe – spoiler alert: not everything written on social media is true – there's no rule that says cyclists should always be on the left-hand side of the lane (we'll talk about the related subject of riding two abreast in a separate feature, by the way).

One cause of confusion could be Rule 160, aimed at all riders and drivers rather than cyclists in particular: "Once moving you should keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise. The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked vehicles or pedestrians in the road."

This refers to the left hand-side of the road, though, not to the left hand-side of the lane. Plus, there's a distinction in The Highway Code between 'must/must not' instructions which are legal requirements, and 'should/should not' and 'do/do not' rules which are advisory. Rule 160 is clearly among the latter.

One other thing The Highway Code has to say about cyclists' lane positioning is Rule 67: you should "leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path".

You need to be at least a door's width out when passing parked vehicles, and 1.5 metres is often recommended.

What about at other times?

RoSPA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents) says, "Don’t ride in the gutter; there may be debris and grid covers, and it will encourage drivers to squeeze past you even if there isn’t enough room.

We all know that hugging the kerb means that when you do encounter a drain, broken glass or anything else lurking at the side of the road, your only means of avoiding it is to steer outwards – perhaps sharply – into traffic that's potentially passing at a speed much faster than you.. That's clearly dangerous. Hugging the kerb also reduces your visibility to drivers coming out of side roads and drives.
road positioning - primary and secondary position.jpg

In his cycling skills manual Cyclecraft – which forms the foundation of Bikeability, the UK's national standard for cycle training – John Franklin talks about two main riding positions: the primary riding position and the secondary riding position.

He defines the primary riding position as being "in the centre of the leftmost moving traffic lane for the direction in which you wish to travel", and the secondary riding position as being "about 1 metre (3 feet) to the left of the moving traffic lane if the road is wide, but not closer than 0.5 metre (1.5 feet) to the edge of any road."

Riding in the primary position, also known as 'taking the lane', is all about safety. John Franklin says that this is where you can best see and be seen, and are able to maintain the straightest and fastest course.

"The primary riding position should be your normal riding position when you can keep up with traffic, when you need to emphasise your presence to traffic ahead, or when you need to prevent following drivers from passing you unsafely," he says.

'Close pass' initiatives by police around the country promote safety by telling motorists to leave at least 1.5m of space when overtaking a cyclist, but you've doubtless experienced many coming by far closer than that. Riding in the primary position discourages this by forcing traffic behind you either to stay put or to overtake only when the opposite/adjacent lane is free..

It's often best to take the lane before passing a side road joining from the left, for example – after looking over your shoulder to make sure that it's safe, of course, and signalling if you to need to communicate your intention to other road users.

Moving out increases your visibility to traffic at the junction, gives you more space to manoeuvre if the joining traffic edges out, and stops a vehicle squeezing by and turning left across your path at the last moment.

Similarly, the primary position can be best in slow and stationary traffic, when the road surface near the edge is poor, on narrow or winding roads, and through traffic calming schemes. You can also use it when approaching 'give way' signs, traffic lights, roundabouts, when turning at junctions, and in many other situations.

No one is suggesting that you ride in the primary position just to be awkward. Far from it.

"Because the primary riding position can result in some inconvenience to following drivers, it is reasonable to ride further to the left when this could help others, so long as your own safety is not thereby impaired,"says John Franklin (his emphasis).

British Cycling says, "When riding in the primary position, [you] should travel at a reasonable speed, as part of the traffic flow. If, however, traffic is building up behind [you] and the road ahead is clear, [you] may wish to move to the secondary position to avoid obstructing other road-users unnecessarily.

"The secondary road position may be appropriate if the road is wide enough to allow safe overtaking, and the rider’s safety is not reduced by riding in this position."

Why don't cyclists always use cycle lanes?

With that in mind, you might take up the secondary road position on minor roads where there are few parked vehicles, for example. However, the take-home points are that you're not obliged to position yourself to the left of your lane, riding in the primary riding position is the best option in many circumstances, and your safety trumps another road user's wish for you to shift to the side.

Matt Woodcock, Cycling UK Training Manager said, “Whether you’re new to cycling or an old hand, you’re hopefully familiar with the concept and importance of proper road positioning – and will probably have heard the terms ‘secondary’ or ‘primary position’ and will know that you shouldn’t hug the kerb.

“In the absence of decent cycling infrastructure across most British roads, proper road positioning is one of the most important things you can do to keep yourself safe while out cycling, but it can be a bit confusing to know where you should be at which point and sometimes counterintuitive, especially if you’re new to cycling.

"To help all road users understand cyclist road positioning, Cycling UK created two short films which show where and how cyclists should ride, especially in key areas like junctions, turnings and pinch points.”

The first one covers road positioning and junctions...

https://road.cc/content/feature/why-dont-cyclists-stick-left-lane-267623

On 18/04/2022 05:15 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Armchair experts, especially those on social media, will often tell you that fairy-cyclists should be positioned on the left side of the lane, never centrally, but what's the truth? Here's what you need to know to set the record straight.
>
> We recently reported on road.cc...

Hahaha!

Satire will never die, eh?

The idea that road.cc is expert on anything important is pure satire.

wycombewheeler | 3423 posts | 1 year ago
11 likes
And when cars are queueing in traffic do they move over to the left side of the lane, to leave the faster moving bikes space to overtake?

No, they sit to the right and then moan about undertaking.

reply quote

Avatar
David9694 replied to wycombewheeler | 1442 posts | 1 year ago
1 like
They press their advantage when traffic is flowing freely, we press ours when it's not - seem fair?

reply quote

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to David9694 | 3423 posts | 1 year ago
1 like
David9694 wrote:

They press their advantage when traffic is flowing freely, we press ours when it's not - seem fair?

absolutely, stop start vehicle traffic queues shouldn't be about ratcheting the cyclist to the back.

My point is they expect slower moving road users to move left, but they do not do it when they are the slower moving vehicles

On 18/04/2022 17:24, JNugent wrote:
> On 18/04/2022 05:15 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> The idea that road.cc is expert on anything important is pure satire.

The idea that you are an expert on anything is your personal fantasy.

On 19/04/2022 01:12 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 18/04/2022 17:24, JNugent wrote:
>> On 18/04/2022 05:15 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> The idea that road.cc is expert on anything important is pure satire.
>
> The idea that you are an expert on anything is your personal fantasy.

It wouldn't concern you and it needn't us here, but there are certain
relatively obscure things in which I am an acknowledged expert. I used
to earn a living in one of them.

Road safety, though, is a matter where none of us can afford not to be
an expert.

An important rule is: when you are approaching danger, STOP. Don't
hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.

Another important rule: when danger is approaching you, get out of its
way. Don't stand your ground and later complain from your hospital bed.

Rendel Harris replied to Jonty44 | 2199 posts | 1 year ago
5 likes

Jonty44 wrote:

An interesting piece but find it strange that in the included safety video by Cycle UK for lane use doesn't fully promote road safety as one of the riders isn't wearing a helmet? I appreciate it is not law but in a safety video??

A helmet doesn't keep you safe. Some believe (and I happen to be one of them) that it offers some protection when things go wrong, but it doesn't make you any less likely to suffer an incident, through your own fault or someone else's. So its absence or otherwise isn't really relevant to the purpose of the video.

On 19/04/2022 12:58, JNugent wrote:

> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger, STOP. Don't
> hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.

> Another important rule: when danger is approaching you, get out of its
> way. Don't stand your ground and later complain from your hospital bed.

Think of the compo such a victim could p*ss up the wall - always
presuming they could still stand...

--
Spike

David9694 replied to schlossmacher | 1444 posts | 1 year ago
4 likes

Oh yes, because cars don't just pull / pull out in front of me and then force me to slow.

Stuck behind a tractor "my hard cheese", behind a bike, or several bikes, it's "€]#&+<_¥<]4_@9¥_{9 and pay your #### road tax!!!"

see: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPrM637XMAAn6Wm?format=jpg&name=small

On 19/04/2022 02:19 pm, Spike wrote:

> On 19/04/2022 12:58, JNugent wrote:
>
>> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger, STOP. Don't
>> hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.
>
>> Another important rule: when danger is approaching you, get out of its
>> way. Don't stand your ground and later complain from your hospital bed.
>
> Think of the compo such a victim could p*ss up the wall - always
> presuming they could still stand...

The stupidity of some people is unfathomable. They seem to "think" it's
a matter of principle not to avoid danger and that they must never
either lose face or a few seconds off their point to point time.

Helmets are also good for the attachment of rear lights and other high visibility accoutrement.

Michael Schumacher's family might disagree with you about the wisdom of attaching things like lights to a proper helmet, let alone a cycle helmet.

TOUCHE.

On 19/04/2022 13:58, JNugent wrote:
> On 19/04/2022 01:12 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> On 18/04/2022 17:24, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 18/04/2022 05:15 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The idea that road.cc is expert on anything important is pure
>>> satire.
>>
>> The idea that you are an expert on anything is your personal
>> fantasy.
>
> It wouldn't concern you and it needn't us here, but there are certain
> relatively obscure things in which I am an acknowledged expert. I
> used to earn a living in one of them.

It has obviously gone to your head.

> Road safety, though, is a matter where none of us can afford not to
> be an expert.
>
> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger, STOP...

The important rule is to take steps necessary to avoid a collision.
Stopping might be involved.

> ...Don't hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.

You can never avoid adding two and two to produce half a dozen.

> Another important rule: when danger is approaching you, get out of
> its way. Don't stand your ground and later complain from your
> hospital bed.

Of course.

On 20/04/2022 12:48 am, TMS320 wrote:

> On 19/04/2022 13:58, JNugent wrote:
>> On 19/04/2022 01:12 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 18/04/2022 17:24, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 18/04/2022 05:15 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>> The idea that road.cc is expert on anything important is pure
>>>> satire.
>
>>> The idea that you are an expert on anything is your personal
>>> fantasy.
>
>> It wouldn't concern you and it needn't us here, but there are certain
>> relatively obscure things in which I am an acknowledged expert. I
>> used to earn a living in one of them.
>
> It has obviously gone to your head.
>
>> Road safety, though, is a matter where none of us can afford not to
>> be an expert.
>
>> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger, STOP...
>
> The important rule is to take steps necessary to avoid a collision.
> Stopping might be involved.

.... but steering straight at the projected point of a collision (where
paths would intersect) would not be "involved" as a means of avoiding
such a collision.

Would you do it in a car, veering into the path of another (oncoming) car?

I certainly wouldn't.

But perhaps you would. It would at least be consistent with your strange
belief that a fairy-cyclist should do it.

>> ...Don't hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.
>
> You can never avoid adding two and two to produce half a dozen.

Don't hurtle onward seeking a confrontation and/or a collision.

>> Another important rule: when danger is approaching you, get out of
>> its way. Don't stand your ground and later complain from your
>> hospital bed.

> Of course.

Oh... agreement with a truism from TMS320, rather than a vain attempt to
undermine it.

Whatever next?

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 4:38:59 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> Helmets are also good for the attachment of rear lights and other high visibility accoutrement.
>
> Michael Schumacher's family might disagree with you about the wisdom of attaching things like lights to a proper helmet, let alone a cycle helmet.

Michael Schumacher was in hospital when I was too in 2014. He is still there - so much for plastic hats.

On 20/04/2022 13:26, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 4:38:59 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Helmets are also good for the attachment of rear lights and other high visibility accoutrement.

>> Michael Schumacher's family might disagree with you about the wisdom of attaching things like lights to a proper helmet, let alone a cycle helmet.

> Michael Schumacher was in hospital when I was too in 2014. He is still there - so much for plastic hats.

WRONG

If the plastic hats aren't working, better plastic is needed.

--
Spike

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:26:27 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 4:38:59 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Helmets are also good for the attachment of rear lights and other high visibility accoutrement.
> >
> > Michael Schumacher's family might disagree with you about the wisdom of attaching things like lights to a proper helmet, let alone a cycle helmet.
> Michael Schumacher was in hospital when I was too in 2014. He is still there - so much for plastic hats.

Note how dangerous leisure is from this table.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPvbJi1X0AADeRe?format=jpg&name=medium

About half of the risk suffered by car occupants.

On 20/04/2022 12:11, JNugent wrote:
> On 20/04/2022 12:48 am, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 19/04/2022 13:58, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>
>>> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger, STOP...
>>
>> The important rule is to take steps necessary to avoid a
>> collision. Stopping might be involved.
>
> ... but steering straight at the projected point of a collision
> (where paths would intersect) would not be "involved" as a means of
> avoiding such a collision.

Paths always intersect and, while steering can change the point of
intsection, it is not possible to steer into or away from
one. The only possible method for avoiding a collision is for one or
both parties to arrange things such that they cross the intersection
with a time separation.

> Would you do it in a car, veering into the path of another (oncoming)
> car?
>
> I certainly wouldn't.

"Veering" into the path of an oncoming vehicle has nothing to do with
methods of dealing with a vehicle poking its nose over a give way line.
So what are you talking about? Assuming you know.

> But perhaps you would. It would at least be consistent with your
> strange belief that a cyclist should do it.
>
>>> ...Don't hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.
>
>> You can never avoid adding two and two to produce half a dozen.
>
> Don't hurtle onward seeking a confrontation and/or a collision.

Yes, anybody that doesn't follow the code of the Hat and Glove Wearer's
Driving Club - namely, if anything apppears in one's path, one must come
to a stop and wait for it to move out of the way: one must never use the
steering to move from original direction - must be hurtling onward
seeking a confrontation and/or a collision.

The late Paul Smith had some strange ideas but one sensible one was that
while one is controlling a vehicle, if they close their eyes they will
only have a few seconds before a crash. Avoiding a crash is thus a
continuous process, not an occasional discrete event.

It is a damn sight easier to have a collision than to avoid one. Someone
that doesn't have one under a moment of stress can hardly be "seeking"
to have one. Your notion is completely ridiculous.

On 24/04/2022 08:20 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 20/04/2022 12:11, JNugent wrote:
>> On 20/04/2022 12:48 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 19/04/2022 13:58, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger, STOP...
>
>>> The important rule is to take steps necessary to avoid a
>>> collision. Stopping might be involved.
>
>> ... but steering straight at the projected point of a collision (where
>> paths would intersect) would not be "involved" as a means of avoiding
>> such a collision.
>
> Paths always intersect and, while steering can change the point of
> intsection, it is not possible to steer into or away from
> one. The only possible method for avoiding a collision is for one or
> both parties to arrange things such that they cross the intersection
> with a time separation.

That's gibberish.

>> Would you do it in a car, veering into the path of another (oncoming)
>> car?

>> I certainly wouldn't.
>
> "Veering" into the path of an oncoming vehicle has nothing to do with
> methods of dealing with a vehicle poking its nose over a give way line.
> So what are you talking about? Assuming you know.

We are *not* talking about a "vehicle poking its nose over a give way
line". The vehicle was well *beyond* the give way line and was heading
across to the other side of the road (ie, the correct lane for him, had
he only done it correctly, which he didn't).

There is no doubt that the driver made a terrible error. But the
fairy-cyclist made it worse.

>> But perhaps you would. It would at least be consistent with your
>> strange belief that a cyclist should do it.

*Anyone* should stop in such a situation where that is the easiest and
surest way to avoid a collision. And it was the easiest way to avoid a
collision in this case. But the fairy-cyclists had the red mist
descending and an attack of the screaming and shouting disease and was
determined *not* to stop on some sort of misguided "point of honour" and
possibly to teach the driver a lesson.

>>>> ...Don't hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.
>>
>>> You can never avoid adding two and two to produce half a dozen.
>>
>> Don't hurtle onward seeking a confrontation and/or a collision.
>
> Yes, anybody that doesn't follow the code of the Hat and Glove Wearer's
> Driving Club - namely, if anything apppears in one's path, one must come
> to a stop and wait for it to move out of the way: one must never use the
> steering to move from original direction - must be hurtling onward
> seeking a confrontation and/or a collision.

You are round the twist if you "think" that the fairy-cyclist behaved
well, even in his own interests.

> The late Paul Smith had some strange ideas but one sensible one was that
> while one is controlling a vehicle, if they close their eyes they will
> only have a few seconds before a crash. Avoiding a crash is thus a
> continuous process, not an occasional discrete event.

You at last say something semi-sensible.

But one suspects that it is now going to be snatched off the table in a
vain effort to "prove" that a cyclist is best off by moving as fast as
possible towards a potential collision rather than away from it or stopping.

> It is a damn sight easier to have a collision than to avoid one. Someone
> that doesn't have one under a moment of stress can hardly be "seeking"
> to have one. Your notion is completely ridiculous.

I didn't say the fairy-cyclist was seeking a collision. I said that he
didn't do enough to avoid one. He need not have come so near to a collision.

[See? I told you. You still try to justify stupid behaviour.]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:38:47 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:26:27 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 4:38:59 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Helmets are also good for the attachment of rear lights and other high visibility accoutrement.
> > >
> > > Michael Schumacher's family might disagree with you about the wisdom of attaching things like lights to a proper helmet, let alone a cycle helmet.
> > Michael Schumacher was in hospital when I was too in 2014. He is still there - so much for plastic hats.
> Note how dangerous leisure is from this table.
>
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPvbJi1X0AADeRe?format=jpg&name=medium
>
> About half of the risk suffered by car occupants.

And double the death rate of motorcyclists - which is saying something.

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 8:20:28 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

> The late Paul Smith had some strange ideas.

He was barking mad like most car fanatics are.
This was him when he used to troll urc before his sudden death.

https://www.safespeed.org.uk/images/paul/paul03m.jpg

On 24/04/2022 20:36, JNugent wrote:
> On 24/04/2022 08:20 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 20/04/2022 12:11, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 20/04/2022 12:48 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 19/04/2022 13:58, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>>> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger,
>>>>> STOP...
>>
>>>> The important rule is to take steps necessary to avoid a
>>>> collision. Stopping might be involved.
>>
>>> ... but steering straight at the projected point of a collision
>>> (where paths would intersect) would not be "involved" as a means
>>> of avoiding such a collision.
>>
>> Paths always intersect and, while steering can change the point of
>> intsection, it is not possible to steer into or away from one.
>> The only possible method for avoiding a collision is for one or
>> both parties to arrange things such that they cross the
>> intersection with a time separation.
>
> That's gibberish.

You mean you find it a difficult concept to grasp.

>>> Would you do it in a car, veering into the path of another
>>> (oncoming) car?
>
>>> I certainly wouldn't.
>>
>> "Veering" into the path of an oncoming vehicle has nothing to do
>> with methods of dealing with a vehicle poking its nose over a give
>> way line. So what are you talking about? Assuming you know.
>
> We are *not* talking about a "vehicle poking its nose over a give
> way line".

*Your* words are quite clear - "veering into the path of another
(oncoming) car".

> The vehicle was well *beyond* the give way line and was heading
> across to the other side of the road (ie, the correct lane for him,
> had he only done it correctly, which he didn't).

So you're still on about Jeremy Vine's video. Yet you still haven't
looked at it properly.

> There is no doubt that the driver made a terrible error. But the
> cyclist made it worse.
>
>>> But perhaps you would. It would at least be consistent with your
>>> strange belief that a cyclist should do it.
>
> *Anyone* should stop in such a situation where that is the easiest
> and surest way to avoid a collision. And it was the easiest way to
> avoid a collision in this case. But the cyclists had the red mist
> descending and an attack of the screaming and shouting disease and
> was determined *not* to stop on some sort of misguided "point of
> honour" and possibly to teach the driver a lesson.

Turn the sound off then. Or alternatively, imagine it is a driver using
the horn.

>>>>> ...Don't hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.
>>>
>>>> You can never avoid adding two and two to produce half a
>>>> dozen.
>>>
>>> Don't hurtle onward seeking a confrontation and/or a collision.
>>
>> Yes, anybody that doesn't follow the code of the Hat and Glove
>> Wearer's Driving Club - namely, if anything apppears in one's
>> path, one must come to a stop and wait for it to move out of the
>> way: one must never use the steering to move from original
>> direction - must be hurtling onward seeking a confrontation and/or
>> a collision.
>
> You are round the twist if you "think" that the cyclist behaved well,
> even in his own interests.
>
>> The late Paul Smith had some strange ideas but one sensible one
>> was that while one is controlling a vehicle, if they close their
>> eyes they will only have a few seconds before a crash. Avoiding a
>> crash is thus a continuous process, not an occasional discrete
>> event.
>
> You at last say something semi-sensible.
>
> But one suspects that it is now going to be snatched off the table
> in a vain effort to "prove" that a cyclist is best off by moving as
> fast as possible towards a potential collision rather than away from
> it or stopping.
>
>> It is a damn sight easier to have a collision than to avoid one.
>> Someone that doesn't have one under a moment of stress can hardly
>> be "seeking" to have one. Your notion is completely ridiculous.
>
> I didn't say the cyclist was seeking a collision. I said that he
> didn't do enough to avoid one. He need not have come so near to a
> collision.

You have definitely used the phrase "seeking a collision".

> [See? I told you. You still try to justify stupid behaviour.]

I knew you had no idea what you're on about.

On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 15:40:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 19/04/2022 02:19 pm, Spike wrote:
>
> > On 19/04/2022 12:58, JNugent wrote:
> >
> >> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger, STOP. Don't
> >> hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.
> >
> >> Another important rule: when danger is approaching you, get out of its
> >> way. Don't stand your ground and later complain from your hospital bed.
> >
> > Think of the compo such a victim could p*ss up the wall - always
> > presuming they could still stand...
> The stupidity of some people is unfathomable. They seem to "think" it's
> a matter of principle not to avoid danger and that they must never
> either lose face or a few seconds off their point to point time.

So what you are saying is on the rare occasions a cyclist rides on the footway it is pedestrians responsibility to get out of the way.

On 24/04/2022 21:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 8:20:28 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> The late Paul Smith had some strange ideas.
>
> He was barking mad like most car fanatics are.
>
> This was him when he used to troll urc before his sudden death.
>
> https://www.safespeed.org.uk/images/paul/paul03m.jpg

But I will give him the credit (contrast to the chairman of the Hat and
Glove Wearer's Driving Club, with 50 years of inexperience) of not
having a completely closed mind.

On 24/04/2022 09:07 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> On 24/04/2022 20:36, JNugent wrote:
>> On 24/04/2022 08:20 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 20/04/2022 12:11, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 20/04/2022 12:48 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 19/04/2022 13:58, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger, STOP...
>>>
>>>>> The important rule is to take steps necessary to avoid a collision.
>>>>> Stopping might be involved.
>>>
>>>> ... but steering straight at the projected point of a collision
>>>> (where paths would intersect) would not be "involved" as a means of
>>>> avoiding such a collision.
>>>
>>> Paths always intersect and, while steering can change the point of
>>>  intsection, it is not possible to steer into or away from one.
>>> The only possible method for avoiding a collision is for one or
>>> both parties to arrange things such that they cross the
>>> intersection with a time separation.
>>
>> That's gibberish.
>
> You mean you find it a difficult concept to grasp.

"Thoughts" expressed in gibberish usually are.
>
>>>> Would you do it in a car, veering into the path of another
>>>> (oncoming) car?
>>
>>>> I certainly wouldn't.
>>>
>>> "Veering" into the path of an oncoming vehicle has nothing to do with
>>> methods of dealing with a vehicle poking its nose over a give way
>>> line. So what are you talking about? Assuming you know.
>>
>> We are *not* talking about a "vehicle poking its nose over a give
>> way line".
>
> *Your* words are quite clear - "veering into the path of another
> (oncoming) car".

Quite so. That very *obviously* is a description of the actions of the
*fairy-cyclist*.
>
>> The vehicle was well *beyond* the give way line and was heading across
>> to the other side of the road (ie, the correct lane for him, had he
>> only done it correctly, which he didn't).
>
> So you're still on about Jeremy Vine's video. Yet you still haven't
> looked at it properly.

I have seen it.

>> There is no doubt that the driver made a terrible error. But the
>> cyclist made it worse.
>
No comment?

>>>> But perhaps you would. It would at least be consistent with your
>>>> strange belief that a cyclist should do it.
>
>> *Anyone* should stop in such a situation where that is the easiest and
>> surest way to avoid a collision. And it was the easiest way to avoid a
>> collision in this case. But the cyclists had the red mist
>> descending and an attack of the screaming and shouting disease and
>> was determined *not* to stop on some sort of misguided "point of
>> honour" and possibly to teach the driver a lesson.
>
> Turn the sound off then. Or alternatively, imagine it is a driver using
> the horn.

And pretend that things that didn't happen did happen?

Or that things that did happen didn't happen?

I'm now getting a better appreciation of your "thoughts" on the matter.

>>>>>> ...Don't hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.
>
>>>>> You can never avoid adding two and two to produce half a dozen.
>
>>>> Don't hurtle onward seeking a confrontation and/or a collision.
>
>>> Yes, anybody that doesn't follow the code of the Hat and Glove
>>> Wearer's Driving Club - namely, if anything apppears in one's
>>> path, one must come to a stop and wait for it to move out of the
>>> way: one must never use the steering to move from original
>>> direction - must be hurtling onward seeking a confrontation and/or
>>> a collision.
>
>> You are round the twist if you "think" that the cyclist behaved well,
>> even in his own interests.
>
>>> The late Paul Smith had some strange ideas but one sensible one
>>> was that while one is controlling a vehicle, if they close their
>>> eyes they will only have a few seconds before a crash. Avoiding a
>>> crash is thus a continuous process, not an occasional discrete
>>> event.
>
>> You at last say something semi-sensible.
>> But one suspects that it is now going to be snatched off the table
>> in a vain effort to "prove" that a cyclist is best off by moving as
>> fast as possible towards a potential collision rather than away from
>> it or stopping.
>
>>> It is a damn sight easier to have a collision than to avoid one.
>>> Someone that doesn't have one under a moment of stress can hardly be
>>> "seeking" to have one. Your notion is completely ridiculous.
>>
>> I didn't say the cyclist was seeking a collision. I said that he
>> didn't do enough to avoid one. He need not have come so near to a
>> collision.
>
> You have definitely used the phrase "seeking a collision".

Fairy-cycling into the path of another vehicle - quite unnecessarily at
that - is not unfairly described as "seeking a collision". The only
realistic conclusion which can be drawn is that the fairy-cyclist was so
incensed and so stricken by the red-mist and the screaming and shouting
disease that he was seeking to stop the car by riding into its path
(leaving the driver no option but to brake rather than accelerate over
on to the "correct" side of the road (for the driver).

>> [See? I told you. You still try to justify stupid behaviour.]
>
> I knew you had no idea what you're on about.
More gibberish.

On 25/04/2022 03:59 am, Mike Collins wrote:

> On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 15:40:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 19/04/2022 02:19 pm, Spike wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/04/2022 12:58, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger, STOP. Don't
>>>> hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.
>>>
>>>> Another important rule: when danger is approaching you, get out of its
>>>> way. Don't stand your ground and later complain from your hospital bed.
>>>
>>> Think of the compo such a victim could p*ss up the wall - always
>>> presuming they could still stand...

>> The stupidity of some people is unfathomable. They seem to "think" it's
>> a matter of principle not to avoid danger and that they must never
>> either lose face or a few seconds off their point to point time.
>
> So what you are saying is [that when] a fairy-cyclist rides on the footway it is pedestrians [sic] responsibility to get out of the way.

Or to stop and remain stationary so as to avoid any false blame for
anything that happens (ie, not give the fairy-cyclist any scope for
claiming that the pedestrian somehow moved into his path.

On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 11:50:38 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 25/04/2022 03:59 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 15:40:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 19/04/2022 02:19 pm, Spike wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 19/04/2022 12:58, JNugent wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger, STOP. Don't
> >>>> hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.
> >>>
> >>>> Another important rule: when danger is approaching you, get out of its
> >>>> way. Don't stand your ground and later complain from your hospital bed.
> >>>
> >>> Think of the compo such a victim could p*ss up the wall - always
> >>> presuming they could still stand...
>
> >> The stupidity of some people is unfathomable. They seem to "think" it's
> >> a matter of principle not to avoid danger and that they must never
> >> either lose face or a few seconds off their point to point time.
> >
> > So what you are saying is [that when] a fairy-cyclist rides on the footway it is pedestrians [sic] responsibility to get out of the way.
>
No I did not. You edited my post for your own perverted reasons.