Risk assessment of assertive cycling

I would emphasise that a trainee's decision to minimise risk to themselves by riding assertively is not a provocative act in itself, and that they should not feel responsible for the unreasonable actions of others.

I wholeheartedly agree with this and its been mentioned above....just cos someone else is having a bad day/ is wholeheartedly selfish/ has an ego problem or doesn't undertand the theory behind assertive cyclist road positioning (and lets face it, very few people do, which is how come we are spending every waking hour posting on blogs about teaching it to them), it doesn't mean that people who chose to use a bike to get from place to place should acquiesce and place themselves in a position where they are at greater risk of becoming a KSI (Killed/ seriously injured statistic).

As a cycling instructor its part of our job to
a) give trainees lessons in real situations with realistic expectations of driver behaviour
whilst
b) not freaking them out (our aim is to promote cycling)
we can do this by
c) equipping them with the understanding and skills to deal with these types of situations.

This leads on to a further questions that Skydancer and I were discussing with TFL the other day....
"Which is the default cycling position that should be recommended to cyclist? Primary or Secondary?"
(we think there might be a clue in the name).
Is it possible to say there is a default position?
Many people who are new to cycling would be grateful of clear guidance I am sure, and a simple message needs to be communicated to both them and to drivers of other types of vehicle. The greater the numbers of other road/vehicle users that understand the reasoning behind assertive cyclist positioning (or at the very least are told that this is a "normal" position to expect to see a cyclist riding in) the less of this aggression/ retribution taking cyclists are going to have to put up with.

Any thoughts on this? (or is that a whole other thread?)