Should cyclists cycle in the middl;e of the lane?

[b0redom]

Well Sal, you could argue that. You could also argue that in a collision with a cyclist and a motorist someone is going to end up worse off.

I am well aware there are the cyclists who are dangerous. I am equally aware that there are motorists who are more dangerous - particularly the ones who think it's sensible to over take me on a downhill stretch of road on a blind bend when I'm doing ~30mph in a 40mph zone, nearly causing a head on collision with another vehicle. Really? You can't wait for a couple of minutes until it's safe to do so?

Just for the record I always stop at red lights. It is foolish in the extreme to suggest that all cyclists and all motorists are the same.

To the OP, I usually cycle a meter or so away from the edge of the road unless I'm going exceptionally fast (or slow) the conditions mandate that it's dangerous not to.

[BrilloPad]

Just for the record I always stop at red lights.

I do whatever I need to feel safest. I do take some care for pedestrians - but they spend so much time walking where they want when they want (including in the road) that I have little sympathy for them. Biggeast issue is that if I hit ANYTHING I am going to come off badly.

Certain routes I always use the pavements instead. The priority is to get the traffic flowing - not road safety. Very dangerous.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

WTF? In LOndon if I cycled in the middle of the lane I would last about 15 seconds before being run over. And quite rightly too.

Why would you think that? Cycling in the middle of the lane makes you more visible and less likely to be passed closely in narrow lanes. On two lane roads, taking a central position in lane one is more likely to encourage somebody to overtake you in lane two (as they should be anyway) rather than trying to squeeze past in lane one. Try it some time.

Taking a strong, central position when appropriate is good cycling practice and recommended by TFL, British Cycling, The AA and the IAM.

[b0redom]

I do whatever I need to feel safest. I do take some care for pedestrians - but they spend so much time walking where they want when they want (including in the road) that I have little sympathy for them. Biggeast issue is that if I hit ANYTHING I am going to come off badly.

Certain routes I always use the pavements instead. The priority is to get the traffic flowing - not road safety. Very dangerous.

Then you are a cretin. Rules is rules and you're exacerbating the problem motorists (and presumably pedestrians) have with cyclists.

If pedestrians are that much of a problem get one of these:

Airzound 3 Rechargeable Air Horn - CycleSurgery

I did, and with the sole exception of the time the guy was completely deaf, everyone got out of the way PDQ.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Here's a road I've cycled many times where a strong position is essential.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5331...SQIUkRlGBQ!2e0

Its just one example. Up until that point, there is enough space for cars to overtake safely (as long as there is no oncoming traffic - if there was lots of oncoming traffic I'd probably take the lane sooner to discourage a close pass). As soon as you get to the traffic islands, there simply isn't room to overtake a cyclist safely until you reach the end of the road (there isn't enough space between each island to do so either). Approaching here, I would indicate, shoulder check and move central and stay there until I reach the end of the road.

There are plenty of roads around Victoria park I'd also stay central on (blind corners, narrow bridges etc.) although I prefer to take the park route.

I guess the most important thing is that there is no hard and fast rule; if you feel like a stronger more defensive position would be safer, you should take it. If there is room to take a secondary position (which is still at least half a metre from the kerb) and no hazards that would prevent this (e.g. parked cars, pinch points), then try and do so to make it easier for others to overtake.

Whenever I take a central position I don't do it to antagonise people, I do it as its safer. If some ignorant twat doesn't agree with my road position that's their problem, but using your car as a weapon and overtaking somebody closely as some sort of "punishment pass" just makes you a ****.

[BrilloPad]

Rules is rules

So you would have just sent the Jews to the gas chambers? I am a strong believer in rules - but when it impacts my safety I object.

you're exacerbating the problem motorists (and presumably pedestrians) have with cyclists.

What about the problems that cyclists have with cyclists have with motorists and pedestrians? The current driving test is not nearly strong enough - lots of drivers who should not be on the roads (especially around the London inner ring road). Pedestrians seem happy to do what they want when they want - I have hit several despite strenuous efforts to avoid them. I would run them over but I will get hurt as well.

-------------------------------------
And with that I am out of this thread. If you want to debate then fine. Calling people a cretin is not the way to engage.
Unless you are sasguru. He had to good sense to FO - why don't you?

[b0redom]

So you would have just sent the Jews to the gas chambers? I am a strong believer in rules - but when it impacts my safety I object.

What about the problems that cyclists have with cyclists have with motorists and pedestrians? The current driving test is not nearly strong enough - lots of drivers who should not be on the roads (especially around the London inner ring road). Pedestrians seem happy to do what they want when they want - I have hit several despite strenuous efforts to avoid them. I would run them over but I will get hurt as well.

-------------------------------------
And with that I am out of this thread. If you want to debate then fine. Calling people a cretin is not the way to engage.
Unless you are sasguru. He had to good sense to FO - why don't you?

Wow. Godwin already.

Just because you've hit pedestrians in the past (and it was not your fault) does not give you carte blanche to ignore the rules of the road. You're in a much safer position legally and morally speaking if you were doing the right thing.

[JRCT]

The rest of your post explains why, mainly having to with so many cyclists thinking they are immortal and above the law:



The drivers can go through has well, they just obey the law and the rules, by not doing so, unlike scores of cyclists. The law is not optional, there is no such thing as "deemed it's safe" when jumping a red light. You can apply the same logic to a driver overtaking a cyclist by a hair, just because he deemed it was safe...



The majority of the cyclists never use the jump boxes, they prefer to jump the light or at the very least stop way ahead almost in the middle of the intersection, just because they "deemed" the jump box is too far back. Which is yet another problem for the drivers, if you travel at 30mph and you see yellow light you barely have time to stop at the the old stop line, pulling it even further back means you often end up in the middle of the jump box, unless you are willing to slam the brakes, which in many cases will result in someone rear-ending you.



It's clear that the biggest danger for cyclists is themselves - frequently ignoring the law and common sense. And the "us and them" approach cuts both ways. There are as many poor drivers as there are poor cyclist it's not about being behind the wheel or the handle bar, it's in their personality, which is only expressed on the road, regardless of the mode of transportation.

I don't disagree with most of what you say - and I wasn't condoning cyclists jumping red lights. I was just saying that it happens and when it does, I don't understand why drivers get so annoyed by it. It's not affecting the driver.

I don't see, or hear of, drivers getting quite so annoyed by other drivers breaking the laws of the road. It just seems to be one of these things that winds up drivers more than it should.

Car goes through a red light "Ha ha. Look at that idiot"

Cyclist goes through a red light "FFS! What a b4st4rd!"

[FatLazyContractor]

Why would you think that? Cycling in the middle of the lane makes you more visible and less likely to be passed closely in narrow lanes. On two lane roads, taking a central position in lane one is more likely to encourage somebody to overtake you in lane two (as they should be anyway) rather than trying to squeeze past in lane one. Try it some time.

Taking a strong, central position when appropriate is good cycling practice and recommended by TFL, British Cycling, The AA and the IAM.

May I take this opportunity to welcome you to cycle the "recommended way" by all the above prestigious and privileged institutions on the following roads?

1. Leeds Road in Bradford
2. Leeds Old Road in Bradford (if you survive on Leeds Road)
3. Chapel town in Leeds (Provided no one steals your bike with you still being on it)
4. Any road in Seacroft (Provided the chavs don't get you)

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

May I take this opportunity to welcome you to cycle the "recommended way" by all the above prestigious and privileged institutions on the following roads?

1. Leeds Road in Bradford
2. Leeds Old Road in Bradford (if you survive on Leeds Road)
3. Chapel town in Leeds (Provided no one steals your bike with you still being on it)
4. Any road in Seacroft (Provided the chavs don't get you)

Part of defensive cycling is knowing which roads to avoid in the first place.