Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 104
  1. #1
    Non-Custom Member zeytoun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    My Bikes
    1975-1980 SR road bike
    Posts
    1,613
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Taking the lane when too narrow

    The purpose of this is not a flame thread, just a question. And I don't intend this as a vc/VC/ac debate, either. If the mods feel differently, they're welcome to move this to the VC subforum.

    My question is about taking the lane. I often take the lane, so I'm not averse to the idea. And it is ultimately the individual cyclist who ought to decide the safest method for him, as long as it does not put the other users of the road in danger or unnecessary delay.


    But here's my scenario:

    Let's say we have a 10' wide right lane in a multi-lane road. Even with a compact car, I think most of us would not want to be passed quickly by a driver who stays entirely within the lane.

    Some people advocate taking the middle of the lane.

    The take-the-lane argument is often, "If you stay too far right, you're only encouraging drivers to buzz you."

    I imagine that if we were to hug the curb (or ride really close to a row of parked cars) we might encourage people to pass quickly and more closely. (I think this is not just because they think they have enough room, but also because they feel they can count on a cyclist that hugs the curb to stay there.) But this doesn't affect me much, because my default is to give myself at least 2-3' from the curb. (There are exceptions. I will allow less space if I am filtering slowly forward, and allow more space if I am going fast downhill, and I will usually take the lane or allow at least a car-width to my right at intersections. But 2-3' is my general default).

    So my response to the argument "If you stay too far right, you're only encouraging drivers to buzz you.":

    1 - You have at least 2-3' to your right which you can move to if a driver is about to buzz you. I see the driver approaching too closely in my mirror, I hold my place at a safe distance from the curb, and if the a55hat doesn't move over before passing, I have space to the right to avoid getting buzzed or clipped. I memorize the license plate, and keep riding.

    2 - What exactly prevents a driver from buzzing you if you take the lane? The driver just do a partial lane change and buzz you. It's happened to me as often as I've been buzzed not taking the lane. I find that most drivers do not buzz me.

    You might say that this strategy is not remarkably different from taking the lane. In fact, in 10' wide lanes with parked cars, it's almost identical behavior. However, what happens when the lane gets a little wider, and is now hard to evaluate as "too narrow" to share? As roads get wider, the second cyclist continues to ride at least 2-3' from the curb. The take-the-lane cyclist may have a tendency to continue this habit, even when it is not entirely necessary. And then the cyclist gets slapped with an unfair ticket that is difficult to defend.

    To each his/her own. Do what you believe is safest.
    I am a mutated sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate and mutate, blah!.

  2. #2
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    how narrow is TOO narrow?

    I'm adverse to sharing even 14 foot lanes; give me 18 feet, and maybe I'm going to move over to the right a little bit.

    I like the left edge of the lane in normal lanes. except if I'm in the far left lane of a one way, then it's right edge.

    Unless of course, I've determine the right side of the lane makes more sense.

    Drivers buzz riders regardless of lane position or hand waving (wringing), hed nods or buttwaggles to signal vehicularity.

    I was buzzed by a driver downtown yesterday as we wove the traffic dance- he let me know at a red light further up he was upset I was breaking the speed limit on my bike,cager barked out his window "you need to do the speeed limit" (ohh, 32 in a 30) thereby justifying his speeding to pass me and the close pass.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  3. #3
    Non-Custom Member zeytoun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    My Bikes
    1975-1980 SR road bike
    Posts
    1,613
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here's how I see it based on these two scenarios. I'm still trying to determine which one is the better of the two evils. This is purely my own opinion based on my limited (two years) of commuting.

    1) Hug the right. You'll get buzzed by cars staying within the lane and attempting to squeeze pass you.

    2) Take the lane. You'll get buzzed less often, but when you do get buzzed, it's by aggressive drivers who want to "teach you a lesson."
    Did you read my post?

    Those aren't the only 2 choices. My suggestion was not to hug the curb.

    Also, I am aware that it is legal to take the lane in case of substandard width lane. However, there is no clear-cut rule about what is too narrow. While most would agree that 10' is too narrow, and that 14'+ is probably wide enough to share, the 10-14' lanes are a grey zone for most.

    Also, in the scenario I provide, if one legally took the lane, one would NOT have to pull over for 5 or more cars. That doesn't apply to multi-lane roads.
    I am a mutated sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate and mutate, blah!.

  4. #4
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    when I'm riding 14' lanes at speed, they are definetly NOT safe enough to share with motorists. 14 feet is a marginally wide lane. 3 feet of clearance to the right, 2 feet of bicyclist, (hopefully) 3 feet of passing space, leaves 6 feet for automobile traffic. 14' lanes are NOT WIDE ENOUGH TO SHARE.

    If I'm doing 7 MPH up a steep hill, then yeah, 14' is wide enough to share.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    CA, USA
    My Bikes
    Surly CrossCheck, Xootr Swift
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's tough sitation, bordering on no-win IMHO. If you hug the curb, drivers will buzz you. If you take the lane, you'll slow down traffic and drivers will try to pass and buzz you anyway. Solution? Find another route. Seriously. It's not really worth your life.

    If that's not possible, well...I saw one cyclist do something I thought was at first crazy insane, but upon further reflection struck me as very gutsy and maybe even smart. He rode all the way to the left, right next to oncoming traffic. Drivers are conditioned not to move or drift into oncoming traffic so the natural inclination was to shy a little bit to the right (for cars in both directions), giving the cyclist more than enough breathing room. And, it didn't slow down traffic in either direction.

  6. #6
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think a larger problem with 10 foot lanes is the bicycling populace as a whole.

    Zeytoun, you might know to not hug the curb, and I know not to hug the curb, but presenting 10' lanes on high speed roads and considering that ample for bicyclists, because bicyclists won't hug the curb, is the fallacy of 10 foot lanes on multi lane roads as bicycling friendly.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  7. #7
    Al noisebeam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    AZ
    My Bikes
    Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
    Posts
    13,907
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    10' wide 3' into lane is inside right tire track. That qualifies as centerish to me which is most often adocated for vs. the alternate of far right.

    I do find that if I ride full center (if road surface conditions permit) or left tire track that far more drivers will earlier merge left to pass and pehaps since they don't feel as 'hindered' they more often tend to use the full next lane.

    There of course remain the few driver who don't merge left early and instead slow down and get close. With these drivers comunication by looking back or with slowing hand signals can reduce their tendency to close pass.

    Al

  8. #8
    Non-Custom Member zeytoun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    My Bikes
    1975-1980 SR road bike
    Posts
    1,613
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    presenting 10' lanes on high speed roads and considering that ample for bicyclists, because bicyclists won't hug the curb, is the fallacy of 10 foot lanes on multi lane roads as bicycling friendly.
    That's not what I'm saying, Bek. On high speed roads I prefer bike lanes, no on street parking, and few intersections.

    I don't mind 10' lanes on a multi-lane with a 25mph limit.

    The core of what I'm saying is that (a) if you position yourself a safe distance from the curb then (b) is it really necessary to take the lane as a default.

    Positioning yourself a safe distance from the curb in a 10' wide lane pretty much means taking the lane, simply because being a safe distance from the curb will plop you just about in the middle of the lane.

    What I'm questioning is whether riding in the center of a lane that is any safer then riding a safe distance from the curb on lanes that are in between "definitely too narrow" and "definitely wide enough".

    Say for example Bek, you ride 23mph. At that speed, I would suspect that you would want to be farther from the curb then my 2-3' (which is based on my 15-18mph cycling). At 23mph, I would probably be comfortable at 5' or so from the curb.

    So how do you position yourself in different size lanes? Between intersections, at that speed, on multi-lane roads that are 35mph+, my position would be pretty much like this:

    10' lane - middle to slight left of lane, regardless of speed limit
    12' lane - 5' or so from the curb
    14' lane - 5' or so from the curb
    17' lane - 5' or so from the curb

    There are certainly situations where I would take the lane, I'm just trying to show my default thinking. Is that how you decide your position?
    I am a mutated sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate and mutate, blah!.

  9. #9
    Cycle Year Round CB HI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Honolulu, HI
    Posts
    11,420
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    When the cyclist is in the center of the lane, more motorist move into the next lane giving the cyclist more room.

    If the lane is too narrow to share, then what is the difference between the motorist moving left 1-3 feet into the other lane when the cyclist is 2-3' from the curb vs
    the motorist completely changing lanes to pass when the cyclist is in the center of the lane.
    In both cases, the motorist needs to check the next lane clear first and I prefer the extra room I get when the motorist completely changes lanes.

  10. #10
    One speed: FAST ! fordfasterr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale FL
    My Bikes
    Ebay Bikes... =)
    Posts
    3,375
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I get buzzed less when taking the lane. I take the lane every chance I get. You get the idea about what I think cagers can do if they don't like it....

    I think it has to do with a machismo power-struggle that shows I have more ballz than the cager.

    LOL
    Florida Velodrome Association.
    Big Wheel Cycles.
    CAT-2. Road Bike: 2011 Specialized Allez SRAM Apex. .. and yes, I am vegan.

  11. #11
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    First, good topic.

    The answer, I believe, comes from looking at it from the driver's perspective, and what we want to convey to drivers approaching from behind in our lane. Noisebeam and CB HI have already touched on this, but I want to make it clearer.

    I believe our goal is to make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that sharing the lane (fully) to pass us is not an option (that overtaking drivers will have to encroach into the adjacent lane to pass). And we want them to get this message sooner rather than later.

    There is a point of diminishing returns, but starting at the right edge each position 6" further left generally conveys the above message clearer and sooner. Exactly where the point of diminishing returns is depends on the road and various conditions, but in general I find it is not reached until you're at least as far left as the center point between the left and right tire tracks. Beyond that, moving further left might still help in some cases, but usually not. But time after time I have found a significant difference in terms of conveying the message clearer and sooner by being near the center rather than even between center and right tire track.

    The two clips in this slide, by the way, illustrate what I'm talking about.

  12. #12
    Non-Custom Member zeytoun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    My Bikes
    1975-1980 SR road bike
    Posts
    1,613
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The two clips in this slide, by the way, illustrate what I'm talking about.
    Was the first clip considered an unsafe pass?

    It seems to me that the truck gave him enough room.
    I am a mutated sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate and mutate, blah!.

  13. #13
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zeytoun View Post
    That's not what I'm saying, Bek. On high speed roads I prefer bike lanes, no on street parking, and few intersections.

    I don't mind 10' lanes on a multi-lane with a 25mph limit.

    The core of what I'm saying is that (a) if you position yourself a safe distance from the curb then (b) is it really necessary to take the lane as a default.

    Positioning yourself a safe distance from the curb in a 10' wide lane pretty much means taking the lane, simply because being a safe distance from the curb will plop you just about in the middle of the lane.

    What I'm questioning is whether riding in the center of a lane that is any safer then riding a safe distance from the curb on lanes that are in between "definitely too narrow" and "definitely wide enough".

    Say for example Bek, you ride 23mph. At that speed, I would suspect that you would want to be farther from the curb then my 2-3' (which is based on my 15-18mph cycling). At 23mph, I would probably be comfortable at 5' or so from the curb.

    So how do you position yourself in different size lanes? Between intersections, at that speed, on multi-lane roads that are 35mph+, my position would be pretty much like this:

    10' lane - middle to slight left of lane, regardless of speed limit
    12' lane - 5' or so from the curb
    14' lane - 5' or so from the curb
    17' lane - 5' or so from the curb

    There are certainly situations where I would take the lane, I'm just trying to show my default thinking. Is that how you decide your position?
    To answer in these terms, I have two positions in most cases: the primary position where I am by default, and the secondary position where I ride to facilitate passing of me. I also tend to position myself relative to the left edge, rather than the right edge of the lane.

    10' lane - primary: 4-5' from LEFT edge of lane. secondary: 7' from LEFT edge.
    12' lane - primary: 4-5' from LEFT edge of lane. secondary: 8' from LEFT edge.
    14' lane - primary: 4-5' from LEFT edge of lane. secondary: 7-10' from LEFT edge of lane.
    17' lane - primary: 4-5' from LEFT edge of lane. secondary: about 3' right of traffic; 12-13' from LEFT edge of lane.

    In each case I only use the secondary position when it's necessary, safe and reasonable to allow faster traffic to pass by at least partially encroaching in the lane.

    Thus, the secondary position in narrow lanes is rarely used, generally only if it's a 2 lane road, especially if it's on an uphill grade, and the motorist behind has already slowed.

    I would like to see others (Bek, AL, CB HI, etc) answer in this detailed format.

  14. #14
    Senior Member StrangeWill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Fallbrook, CA.
    Posts
    1,112
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You'll also get the people that do the half-assed lane change, where they'll keep one tire on your lane, as if taking the other lane is just way too difficult.

    I would think however it's more of being assertive, not that the driver recognizes you as a vehicle. Your giving him no choice... this doesn't educate him, but really, you can't educate most of these people anyway.

    Curbs make me uneasy, so I like to take more of the lane.

  15. #15
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zeytoun View Post
    Was the first clip considered an unsafe pass?

    It seems to me that the truck gave him enough room.
    It was 2.5' at best (less than the 3'/1 meter legally mandated minimum where one is specified) attained only because the overtaking vehicle was a mini pickup. A driver of a wider vehicle would make it even tighter.

    Again, the point is you want to make it clear, as soon as possible, then you don't want them passing you like this, and that they should plan on changing lanes or slowing down.

  16. #16
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by StrangeWill View Post
    You'll also get the people that do the half-assed lane change, where they'll keep one tire on your lane, as if taking the other lane is just way too difficult.

    I would think however it's more of being assertive, not that the driver recognizes you as a vehicle. Your giving him no choice... this doesn't educate him, but really, you can't educate most of these people anyway.
    Right. It's not about educating anyone. It's about getting passed safely and minimizing driver surprise.

    Having said that, I think when cyclists ride in ways that invite close passes, that drivers (and cyclists) might get immunized from being concerned about doing it. Presumably discouraging it might help "education" in the other direction.

  17. #17
    Senior Member Keith99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,732
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zeytoun View Post
    [SIZE="1"]
    2 - What exactly prevents a driver from buzzing you if you take the lane? The driver just do a partial lane change and buzz you. It's happened to me as often as I've been buzzed not taking the lane. I find that most drivers do not buzz me.

    I also find I don't have problems with most drivers.

    As to what prevents a driver from 'buzzing' you, nothing, no matter where you ride in the lane. But the vast majority of drivers, even those who people here say buzzed them do not buzz cyclists. They may pass too close, even dangerously close, but they really are not buzzing riders, that is an act of intent. (OK in some areas one might claim without excessive exageration that many pickup drivers do buzz).

    But if the vast majority are not really buzzing as I assert then taking enough of the lane that they can not share the lane with you then since they are already forced to change lanes then they might as well give some room. I would point out that when this happens it is a good time to sit up a bit. Especially if it is a two lane road they may end up cutting back into the lane quickly. This is rarely with intent to do anything to the cyclist, but is often enough with reckless disregard for a cyclists safety.

  18. #18
    Senior Member StrangeWill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Fallbrook, CA.
    Posts
    1,112
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head View Post
    Right. It's not about educating anyone. It's about getting passed safely and minimizing driver surprise.

    Having said that, I think when cyclists ride in ways that invite close passes, that drivers (and cyclists) might get immunized from being concerned about doing it. Presumably discouraging it might help "education" in the other direction.
    Well it seems to be a huge deal, cyclists getting into shouting matches at red lights "educating" car drivers. May not be you, but I see way more posts about cyclists that can't control themselves than I'd like to.


    For me, it's more about not being so close to the curb than worrying about drivers buzzing me, you'll just buzzed no matter what every once in awhile.

  19. #19
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Fagerlin View Post
    Why don't you want them passing you like that if it's not scary, not dangerous, and safe?
    I addressed in this JoeJack's ticket thread. Might as well copy it here too....


    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Fagerlin View Post
    I love the dramatic "squeeze share" nonsense and the "mini pickup" qualifier. The way that you try to twist a simple, common and safe pass as something that should be controlled and discouraged is very funny. I can't believe that you guys are so afraid of being passed by cars like that. Really, it speaks volumes about the load of fear that you carry with you when you ride on the streets.

    If there is truly nothing "scary or dangerous or unsafe about the passes" then why are you now characterizing them "squeeze share" passes and as something that should be discouraged?



    It was a simple pass. It was smooth traffic. The cyclists were passed safely and the traffic flow was not interrupted, nor was the traffic flow disturbed by the driver having to adjust laterally simply because some fearful cyclist is afraid of cars passing them with 2.5+ feet of clearance.



    I am continually amazed at how fearful you are of riding in traffic. There was nothing exceptional about the situation in clip #1. It was not dangerous nor unsafe.

    If what you are preaching accurately reflects 'VC" then it sure reeks of wacky cultism based upon irrational fears.
    It's not "VC". Many vehicular cycling advocates are fine with close passes like that, not the least of which is John Forester. His own Effective Cycling video from the early 90s demonstrates close passes like that. He even shares narrow lanes in the middle of the road during merge passes (he does a 2-step lane change: left edge to right edge, right edge to left edge). Other vehicular cyclists, like those depicted in the video tend to be more assertive about lane control.

    Most of us are old enough to remember when hardly anyone even noticed much less complained about cigarette smoke. There was no such thing as a no smoking section in restaurants when I was a kid, much less no smoking at all in restaurants (not to mention bars, and now even beaches, at least in San Diego). Yet we ate at restaurants. Everyone did. It wasn't an issue in the 60s and 70s.

    But as awareness about the ultimate harm of inhaling secondary cigarette smoke grew, so did the noticing of it. Pretty soon those of us who weren't bothered by cigarette smoke at all for years, now couldn't stand it. Our tolerance changed dramatically.

    I liken close passes to cigarette smoke: one's tolerance of it is almost totally a function of how "inappropriate" one believes the related behavior is.

    Taking in a few breaths of cigarette smoke isn't going to hurt anyone. Yet most of us are not tolerant of it, because we have come to believe that breathing it in repeatedly is ultimately damaging. Thus our tolerance for breathing practically any of it is very low.

    Similarly, one particular close pass probably isn't going to hurt anyone. But for most of us who are, shall we say, less tolerant of it, the intolerance stems from a belief that the common practice of close passes of bicyclists by motor vehicle drivers is ultimately damaging. Thus our tolerance for just about any close passing is very low.

    Now, given that you want to reduce the incidence of close passing, using a more assertive lane position is probably the most effective means to achieve it. That's the main thing the video clips demonstrate. If you don't understand the point of inhibiting close passes, then it's not going to make much sense.

  20. #20
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    From JoeJack's ticket thread (let's continue the discussion here, since it's more appropriate in this thread).

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Fagerlin View Post
    Less tolerant = fearful. That's easy enough to see. How are safe passes that aren't dangerous "damaging"?
    One apparently safe close pass is not damaging, just as one apparently safe inhale of cig smoke is not damaging.

    Cig smoke is different in that there is arguably infinitesimal damage with each inhale, not one breath of which alone is damaging in and of itself. It's the cumulative effective of breathing in cig smoke time after time over long periods of time that is damaging.

    Close passes are different in that they're not infinitesimally damaging. But, each one puts the cyclist at a tiny risk. Over time, cumulatively, the tiny risks begin to add up. It's like playing Russian roulette with a hypothetical *** with 100,000 chambers and only one bullet. Any one pull of the trigger is reaonably safe. But if you sit there and repeatedly pull the trigger over and over, day after day, week afer week, year after year, sooner or later it's pretty likely for your number to come up. Hence, understanding this makes the rational person intolerant of playing Russian Roulette, even one round with a *** with 100,000 chambers.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Fagerlin View Post
    The pass was not dangerous or unsafe, according to you. Why do you feel that you have to "control" motorists who are passing you safely?
    See above. Same reason I seek to avoid inhaling cig smoke, and avoid games of Russian Roulette, no matter how many chambers.

    It's a small risk, but a risk nonetheless, a risk I'd rather avoid exposing myself too, especially repeatedly. Thus, I ride in a manner that minimizes my exposure to it.

  21. #21
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Fagerlin View Post
    Sorry Serge, I'm not interested in playing along with your control games. My replies are where they belong, right in there with the relevant context.
    If you don't want to consolidate two parallel discussions, that's fine. I just thought we were highjacking JJ's thread, and our discussion is more approriate in this thread. But if you prefer I post in both threads, I will.

    Anyway, from that thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Fagerlin View Post
    I cannot imagine living with such irrational fears.

    The irrational fears do explain your odd behavior when riding, and when discussing riding in this forum though.
    You can call them irrational if you like, I really don't care.

    I just recognize that repeated exposure to low risk events with potentially high severity consequences that are easy to mitigate are best to minimize, when reasonably possible to do so.

    Examples of relatively low risk events with potentially high severity consequences and fairly straightforward mitigation include:
    • running with scissors
    • playing with matches
    • inhaling secondary cig smoke
    • pointing a *** at someone without intending to pull the trigger, even if you think the *** is not loaded
    • driving in a car without a seat belt
    • riding a bike without a helmet
    • rock climbing higher than 5' or so without protection
    • Multi-day backpacks without appropriate first aid equipment
    • Drinking and driving (the vast, vast majority of drivers who drink get to their destination without incident)
    • etc.
    • and, yes, riding a bicycle in a manner that that does not discourage passing by motorists with clearance of 3' or less.
    Last edited by Helmet Head; 09-28-07 at 05:24 PM.

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,844
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My deal with taking the lane is that me and a couple million of my closest friends have been not taking the lane over the course of the last handful of decades, and that seems to work reasonably well. There is the argument that taking the lane is safer, but as no one has come up with empirical evidence of it, it remains mere opinion -- and distinctly minority opinion, at that.

    So the argument behind taking the lane is that it reduces close passes and "right hooks", and that it sends the message that bicyclists have a right to the road. The counter argument is that I've been avoiding close passes and "right hooks" without taking the lane, so as long as the discussion remains in the realm of anecdote rather than empiricism, it's awfully hard for me understand why I need to start riding in front of cars when I get along fine without riding in front of cars. And I have a very hard time swallowing the argument that interfering with other road users is sending any message other than "Look at me! I'm an A-hole!"

    And then, of course, there are the inumerable threads put up by people who have suffered unpleasant consequences resulting from blocking traffic. We even get videotape of angry "revenge" buzzes and verbal confrontations. Not to mention the guy who got ticketed.

    And finally, an awful lot of folks have responded to my stuff by claiming that I must live in some kind of bicycle heaven, that I can ride on the shoulder without getting buzzed and honked at and constantly exchanging unpleasantries with motorized strangers. Well, I've lived and ridden all over the world, and that makes me wonder what kind of hell you guys call home, that you can't swing a leg over a bike without it being a battle for your rights, dignity, and life.

  23. #23
    Senior Member StrangeWill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Fallbrook, CA.
    Posts
    1,112
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    IMHO:
    Six you and your friends don't need to take the lane, do what feels safe for you, I know there is nothing more dangerous to me than FEELING IN DANGER. When I'm cramped to a curb, I am more likely to have an issue just because I feel unsafe cramped against a curb. Other times I can ride close and feel safe. I can be on the road and feel unsafe, and that can make me unsafe in and of itself.


    Generally I will ride to the right and let people pass, I don't mind it, and I acknowledge it's 100% out of my courtesy to drivers to allow them to pass me like that, I'll take the lane if I'm feeling unsafe. I don't expect anyone else to go lane 100% of the time, or curb 100% of the time, or whatever. Evaluate your situation.

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,844
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Please don't be reasonable, Will. This isn't the place for it.

    Seriously, though, that dovetails with a side topic that was being discussed on another thread: at what point does your personal comfort level allow you to inconvenience other road users? Obviously we're all uncomfortable with 6" passing, so it's reasonable to take actions that preclude 6" passes. But then we get into the three feet, four feet, "I need 17.5 feet to myself" business, and it gets ridiculous.

    It's kind of like the legal standard for self-defense: "I shot him because I felt in danger" isn't enough. In order for that shooting to have been justifiable, a "reasonable person" would have had to have felt in danger in the same situation.

    IMO -- and I believe legally -- "feeling unsafe" is justification for taking the lane only if the average cyclist would feel unsafe in the same situation. And judging by the way the "average person" seems to ride, being within a foot or two of a curb wouldn't qualify.

  25. #25
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
    Please don't be reasonable, Will. This isn't the place for it.

    Seriously, though, that dovetails with a side topic that was being discussed on another thread: at what point does your personal comfort level allow you to inconvenience other road users? Obviously we're all uncomfortable with 6" passing, so it's reasonable to take actions that preclude 6" passes. But then we get into the three feet, four feet, "I need 17.5 feet to myself" business, and it gets ridiculous.

    It's kind of like the legal standard for self-defense: "I shot him because I felt in danger" isn't enough. In order for that shooting to have been justifiable, a "reasonable person" would have had to have felt in danger in the same situation.

    IMO -- and I believe legally -- "feeling unsafe" is justification for taking the lane only if the average cyclist would feel unsafe in the same situation. And judging by the way the "average person" seems to ride, being within a foot or two of a curb wouldn't qualify.
    In the case of bicyclists, the "average person" is responsible for at least half of the crashes in which he is engaged, and arguably (per the fundamental principle of defensive driving) could have avoided the vast majority of the remainder if he did things differently, including pay more attention to where he rides and why. So I, for one, reject the notion that where the "average person" seems to ride is any basis for a rational justification for lane positioning behavior.
    Last edited by Helmet Head; 09-30-07 at 09:16 PM.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •