Primary position

Sacramento is quite a good town, just felt incredibly small in comparison to SF.

I hated the fact it's a grid pattern, you can see how long you got to go for miles, something I took for granted in London, it's nice to not see what happen next.

how about a run of forum tshirts with that sign large and visible on the back?

They would be pretty cool.

But how about some Share the Road road signs?

Californian law;

(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a “substandard width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.

Amended Sec. 4, Ch. 674, Stats. 1996. Effective January 1, 1997

American cycle campaigners are obsessed with traffic laws, much more than we are over here. There are all the different states to contend with, often with wildly different legislation, and then I suppose there's a very different legal culture there.

American cycle campaigners are obsessed with traffic laws, much more than we are over here. There are all the different states to contend with, often with wildly different legislation, and then I suppose there's a very different legal culture there.

start here if youre interested, warning- requires reading.
http://www.howwedrive.com/

I think part of the problem is the language used in Bikeability. 'Primary' implies 'default' when, as I think general judgement on here is, it's actually an appropriate option in some situations. I would never use the phrase 'primary' with a client.

The primary position is the default position, but that's not the same as saying that you always or most often have to take it. It can be the default even if you use it less often than other positions. I wouldn't consider it an 'option', either. Which position you assume depends on how your risk assessment of an individual situation pans out. Your risk assessment should mostly give you a clear indication as to what is best to do. I don't think there are any situations in which a decision between the primary and secondary positions has to be taken and in which both are equally valid options (unless you were to count being all alone with no other road users around for miles, but even then in the secondary position you'd probably run a greater risk of coming off the carriageway, or it was your mother driving behind you who you know would be fully aware of you and keen not to harm you, etc.).

let you off then. now I can see why being on here may be better than being out in Sacramento, no offense Sacramentoans? Scaramentos? Sackcrackmen?

Sacramentarians.

Sacramentengers.

The primary position is the default position, but that's not the same as saying that you always or most often have to take it. It can be the default even if you use it less often than other positions. I wouldn't consider it an 'option', either. Which position you assume depends on how your risk assessment of an individual situation pans out. Your risk assessment should mostly give you a clear indication as to what is best to do. I don't think there are any situations in which a decision between the primary and secondary positions has to be taken and in which both are equally valid options (unless you were to count being all alone with no other road users around for miles, but even then in the secondary position you'd probably run a greater risk of coming off the carriageway, or it was your mother driving behind you who you know would be fully aware of you and keen not to harm you, etc.).

thats should blind him with science.

^^^^ aren't you arguing with yourself a little there?! As far as I can make out your reasoning, you are saying that each time you judge where best to ride on the road.

So there is no need to have the concept of a default position, rather it's always a judgement in the here and now.

Still, I'm not trying to be pedantic. My concern was that even if Instructors understand that 'secondary' and 'primary' do not equal 'x' metres and 'x + y' metres from the kerb, if you use these terms with trainees, that might be what they perceive or recall from the training. And then they might not respond dynamically to the situation they are in. So why use those phrases in the first place, was all that I was saying.

'take the lane' works just as well

They would be pretty cool.

But how about some Share the Road road signs?

I have no lobbying power in the parliament of the UK, I do have the power to suggest printing some tshirts though.

^^^^ aren't you arguing with yourself a little there?!

Oh, I'm always arguing with myself.

Oh, I'm always arguing with myself.

No, you're not.

So there is no need to have the concept of a default position, rather it's always a judgement in the here and now.

Ah no, the reason why one position is 'default' is because it is known that in it cyclists are more visible, have more room to manoeuvre, etc. Yes, you can still judge each and every situation (which after a while should become fairly automatic), despite a clear preference expressed for visible and confident riding. That that may not always be possible doesn't affect the 'default'.

Not sure if that makes it clearer, I suppose it's much easier to demonstrate in practice.

It is also always worth emphasising, of course, that part of the process of risk assessment ought to be good communication and awareness wherever possible, so that part of your assessment is whether or not you can be sure that your intentions, or even reasons for them, are understood, which depends to what extent you can express your preferences to other street users.

So, it's not just a dialogue of self and soul.

"It's all connected, man." :)

Yep, so I ask trainees to consider their visibility, car doors, oncoming traffic, effect on other road users, road surface and room for manoeuvre. Not instruct 'ride in this default primary position'.

Maybe I'm really wondering about where to pitch the balance between instructing and coaching?

Yep, so I ask trainees to consider their visibility, car doors, oncoming traffic, effect on other road users, road surface and room for manoeuvre. Not instruct 'ride in this default primary position'.

Maybe I'm really wondering about where to pitch the balance between instructing and coaching?

there must be a blend of both those things, to me instructing is letting people know the rules etc, the framework for what youre teaching them, and the coaching is seeing them doing it, and advising as they do it.
and within the instructing youre doing- you will be moving between roles too,
so whilst explaining the decision making needed in risk assessing their riding, youre questioning, drawing it out of them, there might be flexibility needed from both sides in establishing the best consensus, so its a facilitative role.
and if youre at a junction telling them where they definately dont want to be riding- no discussion- then your autocratic, you need to be sometimes, in a good way of course.

blah blah blah, they either do what they are told or they can sling their hook. Harsh but fair, that's the only way.

oh yeah sorry Will youre right I was talking shit, harsh but fair, harsh but fair

'harsh' is the default position, of course.

Ed, I think everyone can see the pixels in this one.

Californian law;

Californian cyclist view why that Californian law is wrong:
http://files.meetup.com/225788/Forester%20on%20FTR.txt

American cycle campaigners are obsessed with traffic laws, much more than we are over here.

Spoiled British cyclists don't get it cause they take their right to use the road as granted. Your forefathers fought that right for you in the 1930's (know your history, bro).

In US the fight on-going 1970's -->. That's why the format of the Cali law; default is the motorist view that cyclists should be out of way and exemptions added to that when cyclists have succesfully argued situations when they can't safely stay out of way.

In the continental Northern Europe cyclists generally didn't understand what hit them, when the road rights got canceled.

Sackcrackmen?

Fantastic!

Spoiled British cyclists don't get it cause they take their right to use the road as granted.

That reads like you think it's a bad thing.

Motorists need Licence to use highway, others have right of way. Cyclists aren't spoilt in this regards.

A dull sounding US report, but with some quite interesting findings (following on from Walker's: "Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent gender" 2006).

Operational and Safety Impacts of Restriping Inside Lanes of Urban Multilane Curbed Roadways to 11 Feet or Less to Create Wider Outside Curb Lanes for Bicyclists
Septmeber 2011

The relationship between a motor vehicle’s distance from other motor vehicles and the lateral positioning of bicyclists from the curb is depicted in Figure 6. Intuitively, one would expect that the closer you ride to the curb, the more lateral separation you have. On the contrary, the results presented in Table 4 and Figure 6 show that riding closer to the curb results in a smaller separation. Field observations revealed that when bicyclists ride closer to the curb, some motor vehicles, especially compact cars attempt to fit in the lane without laterally shifting to the adjacent lane, hence causing lesser distance. On the other hand, the results show that riding too far from the curb also results in a shorter distance. It seems that there is a spot between 3 and 4 ft from the curb that results in the greatest lateral separation between motor vehicles and bicyclists. It should be noted however, that higher standard deviations were observed. This was mainly caused by the fact that some drivers choose to stay within the outside through lane while others laterally shift to the inside lane.