Primary Position now official

Seth Brundle

About time!
https://twitter.com/SafeCyclingEire/status/1158837990115827712

crosstownk

It’s really good to see that the motorists are being encouraged to share their roads with us. That’s what the title kind of implies.

But enough of my nit picking negativity. It’s certainly a win.

tomasrojo

Mentioned here too. With quite a bit of criticism of the RotR in general.
https://irishcycle.com/2019/08/07/you-can-cycle-in-the-centre-of-the-road-says-revised-rules-of-the-road/#comments

magicbastarder

you must signal in order to take primary position? huh?
or else that's badly worded.

sy_flembeck

magicbastarder wrote: »

you must signal in order to take primary position? huh?
or else that's badly worded.

'....it may be safer to get off the bike and cross the roadway on foot where it is safer....'

Perhaps it's a draft :rolleyes:

Jim Gazebo

magicbastarder wrote: »

you must signal in order to take primary position? huh?
or else that's badly worded.

What's wrong with that? Stops a motorist beginning an overtake from moving out if you let them know you're moving out.

magicbastarder

You're not changing lanes, so no indication. Indication is required if changing lanes or changing direction, neither of which happens if you're just talking the primary position.

ted1

magicbastarder wrote: »

you must signal in order to take primary position? huh?
or else that's badly worded.

I wouldn’t recommend pulling out in front of traffic without signalling. ....

RacoonQueen

magicbastarder wrote: »

You're not changing lanes, so no indication. Indication is required if changing lanes or changing direction, neither of which happens if you're just talking the primary position.

It did make me do a double take but if I am overtaking another cyclist or a stationary vehicle I would usually do the look > signal > look move...I wouldn't do that for changing position though. In that case it would more be a look > move
Perhaps just badly worded.


Re: the bit about people walking across with their bikes, that always upsets me when I see cyclists do that or when I see them dismount and press ped lights so they can 'turn' right. That's a sign of someone who feels unsafe on the roads - no one should feel unsafe on the roads. :mad:

Chips Lovell

It says a lot about the RSA that you're surprised when they do something reasonable.

The signal thing is weird though. You're required to signal if you intend to turn or change lane. If someone signals, I'd assume that's what they're doing. Asking people to signal when moving within a lane is just going to create confusion.

magicbastarder

ted1 wrote: »

I wouldn’t recommend pulling out in front of traffic without signalling. ....

yes, for example, if i'm going to overtake a cyclist in front of me i may signal if there's a car behind (depends on circumstances). that's a qualified condition, but putting it in the ROTR without qualification is strange.

for example, if i switch from secondary to primary position while approaching a blind bend on a country road, should i indicate? i don't.
also begs the question about whether you should indicate when pulling back in.

Captain Havoc

Can't see the problem with signalling as you are changing position on the road.

Mickiemcfist

If I'm in my car & there's a cyclist in the hard shoulder 6 feet to my left, I indicate while passing even though I don't change lanes. It's not altogether necessary but it makes it clearer for everyone that there's a vulnerable road user there.

That's my take on the above, drivers will try to overtake you if you're keeping left, so telling them you're taking the lane is what I'd instinctively do anyway (unless there was no car behind me for a good distance)

plodder

ted1 wrote: »

I wouldn’t recommend pulling out in front of traffic without signalling. ....

I think it boils down to whether you can reasonably expect the motorist to predict what you are doing. Moving out to pass an obstacle like a parked car? I don't generally signal, but I do move out gradually to give as much notice as possible. Small changes within the accepted 1.5 metre safety margin, I wouldn't normally signal either. But, taking a position approaching a roundabout or turning right etc, you need to signal. Or any other situation where a motorist would safely pass you where you were before, but not after, you need to signal imho.

magicbastarder

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Can't see the problem with signalling as you are changing position on the road.

i'm possibly responding to a point you weren't making - but there's no problem with indicating if you're adopting primary position. absolutely fine to do so.

what i'm saying is my problem is that the RSA seem to be saying this should be standard practice.

however - i will point out that i read 'should' as 'must' on first reading. whoops.
so the RSA are *not* saying it's mandatory.

Chips Lovell

I'd agree that in most case you'd signal but there would be occasions when it would create confusion, such as if you weren't turning, overtaking or changing lane.

If I was behind someone and they signaled, I'd be hanging back wondering if this guy is turning or not.

buffalo

I do a sort of half-signal if I'm just moving out (around a parked car say) and I'm fearful whoever is behind me might try to pass or will try occupy the space I'm heading for. I stick my hand out at a 45 degree angle pointing at the ground (where a proper signal is 90 degree pointing to the side), and I find that generally gets the message across.

Idleater

buffalo wrote: »

I stick my hand out at a 45 degree angle pointing at the ground (where a proper signal is 90 degree pointing to the side), and I find that generally gets the message across.

The effects of angle-arm length on judgments of angle magnitude and orientation contrast -
by P Wenderoth · 1984 · Cited by 16

magicbastarder

buffalo wrote: »

I do a sort of half-signal if I'm just moving out (around a parked car say) and I'm fearful whoever is behind me might try to pass or will try occupy the space I'm heading for. I stick my hand out at a 45 degree angle pointing at the ground (where a proper signal is 90 degree pointing to the side), and I find that generally gets the message across.

yeah, similar for me. i suspect the glance behind is possibly more effective, assuming the driver is looking the right direction.

Beasty

If I need to move a metre or two when in a lane (perhaps getting past a stationary vehicle) I would certainly look over my shoulder and signal if there was anything coming up behind (regardless of what the rules state). I would rather the driver knew my intentions than him trying to guess, possibly incorrectly

Lusk_Doyle

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

If I'm in my car & there's a cyclist in the hard shoulder 6 feet to my left, I indicate while passing even though I don't change lanes. It's not altogether necessary but it makes it clearer for everyone that there's a vulnerable road user there.

I'd argue that doing so is not only not altogether necessary but it's also wholly unnecessary. You are continuing in your lane without moving at all and passing someone who is in the hard shoulder and over a car width away from you. Indicating causes other traffic, possibly on your right in another lane, to be put off by your indication and subsequent non movement. Do you also indicate right when entering a roundabout but continuing straight through?

Mickiemcfist

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

I'd argue that doing so is not only not altogether necessary but it's also wholly unnecessary. You are continuing in your lane without moving at all and passing someone who is in the hard shoulder and over a car width away from you. Indicating causes other traffic, possibly on your right in another lane, to be put off by your indication and subsequent non movement. Do you also indicate right when entering a roundabout but continuing straight through?

The purpose is more to give the person behind me an indication that there's someone there. For instance if you're driving behind me, keeping very left of centre & I indicate out it gives you notice so you don't accidentally close pass the cyclist. People noticably slow down & look around. It might not change anything 99% of the time, but sure it doesn't take me much effort so it's doing no harm.

Jim Gazebo

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

I'd argue that doing so is not only not altogether necessary but it's also wholly unnecessary. You are continuing in your lane without moving at all and passing someone who is in the hard shoulder and over a car width away from you. Indicating causes other traffic, possibly on your right in another lane, to be put off by your indication and subsequent non movement. Do you also indicate right when entering a roundabout but continuing straight through?

The ror state you indicate for an obstruction causing you to move out if another car can see you. The ror also state you don't indicate entering a roundabout and continuing straight. I don't get your point.

Lusk_Doyle

Jim Gazebo wrote: »

The ror state you indicate for an obstruction causing you to move out if another car can see you. The ror also state you don't indicate entering a roundabout and continuing straight. I don't get your point.

The cyclist is in the hard shoulder, six feet to the left of the car so no obstruction there and no need to move out. My point re the indicating at a roundabout was to back up my point about the non-obstruction and indicating when not required.