Spire

I recently read though the Highway Safety Code for Quebec (where I live) and could not find a clause that entitles cyclists to take the lane. Perhaps I did not interpret it right. I would appreciate it if some people could point out where in their own highway code gives them that right and possibly even for Quebec's (here is the link : https://www.saaq.gouv.qc.ca/lois/index.html I have an english version on one of my computers but I can't seem to locate it on the website)

jester69

malheureusement, je parle seulement français.

So, I will interpret the code from where I live. Here is the law:
Basically what it says is a bicyclist should ride as far right as is safe.

It is more or less up to you to decide how far right is safe, so you have discretion in taking the rightmost lane. Try to take the fast lane when not turning left, and you probably will get some guff.

take care,

Jester

P.S. i am not a lawyer, and do not give legal advice

khuon

IANAL. However, here's what the law in my state says.

https://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?...tion=46.61.770
This implies (by my interpretation at least) that a cyclist reserves the right to claim the lane when necessary in order to perform specific actions and for purposes of safety.

Pete Clark

There is a principle of driving which deals with control of the lane. Control of the lane is what determines right-of-way. When driving a car, if I am controlling the lane, any other vehicle must yield right-of-way to me before entering that lane, crossing that lane, or passing me.

As a cyclist, I think it's important to be clear to other vehicle operators whether you control the lane or not. This does not mean riding in the middle of the lane, but there are times you must control the lane in a fashion that is obvious.

I try to ride far enough inside the lane that it's clear I'm controlling it, or far enough outside the lane that it's clear I'm not using the lane.

If I don't feel safe controlling the lane, I won't ride there.

There are times when the lane is wide enough to allow other vehicles to pass me without crossing the center line. In this case,
I still use enough of the lane to let motorists know I am supposed to be there.

AndrewP

In the Quebec regulations there is a general provision that bikes follow the same rules as motorists. Bikes must keep to the right, except where there is an obstruction, or they are preparing for a left turn (It is a matter of judgement what constitutes an obstruction). Motorists are not allowed to pass a cyclist who is to their right when it is not safe to do so, however motorists are allowed to cross the solid line, when passing cyclists, farm tractors etc. provided it can be done safely (I understand that this last provision does not exist in the English version of the regulations). When there is a cycle path next to the road, the cyclist must take it. Groups of cyclists must ride in file, and 15 is the max group size.

I consider possible door openings and drain gratings to be obstructions.

John E

California law has long used the terminology, "as far to the right as practicable." California law also specifies a 3-foot safety margin for motorists overtaking bicyclists. If a lane is more than 4 m / 13 feet wide and there are no parked cars, I assume a position about 70 cm / 2 ft from the edge, giving motorists the unambiguous signal that we can safely share the lane side-by-side. If the lane is significantly narrower, I assume a position in the right-side vehicular tyre track. I am with Pete Clark on this one; if I need to take the lane on a 70kph / 45mph street, I look for an alternate route with a wider outside lane and/or a lower speed limit.

Chris L

I think most places have a "as far to the right/left (depending on where you live) as is practical" clause. That's pretty subjective. I would argue that riding in gutters or in car dooring range is impractical, so I'm entitled to ride away from those things.

John E

Some bozo in traffic engineering just had a curb built over the shoulder of one of my regular bike routes, a narrow 35mph 2-lane street. I am trying to get this remedied, but tearing out the curb, repouring it 2-3 feet farther west, and restoring the shoulder will be expensive.

miamijim

Floridas laws are similar. We must yield to faster moving traffic and we must ride as far right as possible as long as its safe to do so. Cyclists are not permitted ti ride two abreats nor are they permitted ride in the center of a lane unless turning left. In Florida a cyclist has no 'lane'. Thats OK, I'd rather stay alive than challenge a car for a lane.

Chi

I think it's cool that we can share the road when necessary, but like a couple of the posts here, I'd rather take an alternate route than fight with machines that can run you over without a second thought.

lamajo25

I think I might be able to help you guys. As far as I know most all states within the US you have to stay as far to the right except to turn left. You can then utilize the left hand turn lane. As for interperting the As far to the right. Utilize discression. If you are in an area that has bike lanes specifically made for bikes obviously utilize it. If it is a 4 lane road with a left hand turn in the middle with no bike lane (4 lane meaning 2 for each direction) stay as close to the curb as possible not to impede traffic that is traveling in any direction. Here in Arizona there is a 3 foot law. All vehicles traveling on any road with or without a bike must give a bicyclist 3 feet on either side of the rider to ensure safety of the bicyclist. For the most part try and avoid smaller roads, busier roads and areas that just don't look that safe. I'm with most people here, I'm going to find another route to get somewhere that is much more safe.

Oh and by the way. Most all states, if you pull out into traffic and cause an accident, even if you are the injured, will cite you for the cause of the accident. If you are impeding traffic they will get you for it so ride safely and pretty much give the right of way to the motor vehicles because they are bigger and faster.

Chris L

I will utilise it if it's practical and safe for me do to so, and under no other circumstances. Unfortunately, most of the facilities made "for" cyclists aren't actually designed by cyclists. Hence they are both useless and dangerous in the real world.

Again, I will do so only where it is safe and practical do so as this is what the law requires me to do. In truth, I'm far safer in the centre of the lane where I can at least be seen by cars, than in a position where I'm going to get knocked over by opening car doors or potholes. Hence I will make that decision on the basis of the circumstances presented to me at the time.

Again, this is the case in most parts of the world. However, around here at least, it's rarely (if ever) enforced, like so many other traffic laws. Generally drivers will only give you as much room as you give yourself. Another advantage of claiming the lane - doing so gives me space to back off if necessary. Riding in the gutter doesn't allow me this space.

Which is why I will stay in the lane, rather than swerve in and out of it for various obstacles.

They will try. The law will tell them something different.

When I was a kid growing up in Werris Creek, bullies neither frightened nor impressed me. Now that I'm a man living on the Gold Coast, they still neither frighten nor impress me.

randya

I posted the Florida statute on another thread, I'll repost it here. It's very similar to the Oregon statute, also posted below. In both cases, exceptions are made to the 'ride as far to the rigt as practicable standard', which allow bicycles to take the lane in a variety of circumstances, including: (1) debris or other hazards present (e.g. parked cars, drain grates, etc., etc); (2) lane too narrow to safely share with a motor vehicle (e.g. lane width less than approx. 11'-12'); (3) one way street, allowed to ride on left side of left lane; (4) travelling at same speed as traffic (e.g. somewhere like downtown Portland where signals are timed for 12-15 MPH); (5) executing left turn maneuver.

The relevant sections are, Florida--FS 316.2065(5); with particular attention to 2065(5)(a)(3); and Oregon--ORS 814.430, with particular attention to 430(2)(c). Also note that riding two abreast is not, per se, illegal in either state, but depends on traffic and speed conditions. The Oregon statute appears slightly more lenient than the Florida statute on riding two-abreast, but they appear about equal on taking the lane.

Florida:

316.2065 Bicycle regulations (excerpts).--

(1) Every person propelling a vehicle by human power has all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under this chapter, except as to special regulations in this chapter, and except as to provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application.

(3)(a) A bicycle may not be used to carry more persons at one time than the number for which it is designed or equipped, except that an adult rider may carry a child securely attached to his or her person in a backpack or sling.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (a), a bicycle rider must carry any passenger who is a child under 4 years of age, or who weighs 40 pounds or less, in a seat or carrier that is designed to carry a child of that age or size and that secures and protects the child from the moving parts of the bicycle.

(c) A bicycle rider may not allow a passenger to remain in a child seat or carrier on a bicycle when the rider is not in immediate control of the bicycle.

(d) A bicycle rider or passenger who is under 16 years of age must wear a bicycle helmet that is properly fitted and is fastened securely upon the passenger's head by a strap, and that meets the standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI Z 90.4 Bicycle Helmet Standards), the standards of the Snell Memorial Foundation (1984 Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling), or any other nationally recognized standards for bicycle helmets adopted by the department. As used in this subsection, the term "passenger" includes a child who is riding in a trailer or semitrailer attached to a bicycle.

(e) Law enforcement officers and school crossing guards may issue a bicycle safety brochure and a verbal warning to a bicycle rider or passenger who violates this subsection. A bicycle rider or passenger who violates this subsection may be issued a citation by a law enforcement officer and assessed a fine for a pedestrian violation, as provided in s. 318.18. The court shall dismiss the charge against a bicycle rider or passenger for a first violation of paragraph (d) upon proof of purchase of a bicycle helmet that complies with this subsection.

(4) No person riding upon any bicycle, coaster, roller skates, sled, or toy vehicle may attach the same or himself or herself to any vehicle upon a roadway. This subsection does not prohibit attaching a bicycle trailer or bicycle semitrailer to a bicycle if that trailer or semitrailer is commercially available and has been designed for such attachment.

(5)(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing 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 any condition, including, but not limited to, a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, animal, surface hazard, or substandard-width lane, that makes it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For the purposes of this subsection, a "substandard-width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a one-way highway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as practicable.

(6) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway may not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast may not impede traffic when traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing and shall ride within a single lane.

(7) Any person operating a bicycle shall keep at least one hand upon the handlebars.

(8) Every bicycle in use between sunset and sunrise shall be equipped with a lamp on the front exhibiting a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front and a lamp and reflector on the rear each exhibiting a red light visible from a distance of 600 feet to the rear. A bicycle or its rider may be equipped with lights or reflectors in addition to those required by this section.

(9) No parent of any minor child and no guardian of any minor ward may authorize or knowingly permit any such minor child or ward to violate any of the provisions of this section.

(10) A person propelling a vehicle by human power upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

(11) A person propelling a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian.

(12) No person upon roller skates, or riding in or by means of any coaster, toy vehicle, or similar device, may go upon any roadway except while crossing a street on a crosswalk; and, when so crossing, such person shall be granted all rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to pedestrians.

(13) This section shall not apply upon any street while set aside as a play street authorized herein or as designated by state, county, or municipal authority.

(14) Every bicycle shall be equipped with a brake or brakes which will enable its rider to stop the bicycle within 25 feet from a speed of 10 miles per hour on dry, level, clean pavement.

(15) A person engaged in the business of selling bicycles at retail shall not sell any bicycle unless the bicycle has an identifying number permanently stamped or cast on its frame.

(19) The failure of a person to wear a bicycle helmet or the failure of a parent or guardian to prevent a child from riding a bicycle without a bicycle helmet may not be considered evidence of negligence or contributory negligence.

(20) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a pedestrian violation as provided in chapter 318. A law enforcement officer may issue traffic citations for a violation of subsection (3) or subsection (16) only if the violation occurs on a bicycle path or road, as defined in s. 334.03. However, they may not issue citations to persons on private property, except any part thereof which is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular traffic.

Oregon:

BICYCLES

814.400 Application of vehicle laws to bicycles. (1) Every person riding a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the provisions applicable to and has the same rights and duties as the driver of any other vehicle concerning operating on highways, vehicle equipment and abandoned vehicles, except:

(a) Those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.

(b) When otherwise specifically provided under the vehicle code.

(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section:

(a) A bicycle is a vehicle for purposes of the vehicle code; and

(b) When the term "vehicle" is used the term shall be deemed to be applicable to bicycles.

(3) The provisions of the vehicle code relating to the operation of bicycles do not relieve a bicyclist or motorist from the duty to exercise due care. [1983 c.338 §697; 1985 c.16 §335]

814.405 Status of electric assisted bicycle. An electric assisted bicycle shall be considered a bicycle, rather than a motor vehicle, for purposes of the Oregon Vehicle Code, except when otherwise specifically provided by statute. [1997 c.400 §4]

814.410 Unsafe operation of bicycle on sidewalk; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of unsafe operation of a bicycle on a sidewalk if the person does any of the following:

(a) Operates the bicycle so as to suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and move into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.

(b) Operates a bicycle upon a sidewalk and does not give an audible warning before overtaking and passing a pedestrian and does not yield the right of way to all pedestrians on the sidewalk.

(c) Operates a bicycle on a sidewalk in a careless manner that endangers or would be likely to endanger any person or property.

(d) Operates the bicycle at a speed greater than an ordinary walk when approaching or entering a crosswalk, approaching or crossing a driveway or crossing a curb cut or pedestrian ramp and a motor vehicle is approaching the crosswalk, driveway, curb cut or pedestrian ramp. This paragraph does not require reduced speeds for bicycles either:

(A) At places on sidewalks or other pedestrian ways other than places where the path for pedestrians or bicycle traffic approaches or crosses that for motor vehicle traffic; or

(B) When motor vehicles are not present.

(e) Operates an electric assisted bicycle on a sidewalk.

(2) Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, a bicyclist on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk has the same rights and duties as a pedestrian on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk.

814.420 Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is adjacent to or near the roadway.

(2) A person is not required to comply with this section unless the state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds, after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed.

814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway.

(2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following circumstances:

(a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle that is proceeding in the same direction.

(b) When preparing to execute a left turn.

(c) When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or other conditions that make continued operation along the right curb or edge unsafe or to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side. Nothing in this paragraph excuses the operator of a bicycle from the requirements under ORS 811.425 or from the penalties for failure to comply with those requirements.

(d) When operating within a city as near as practicable to the left curb or edge of a roadway that is designated to allow traffic to move in only one direction along the roadway. A bicycle that is operated under this paragraph is subject to the same requirements and exceptions when operating along the left curb or edge as are applicable when a bicycle is operating along the right curb or edge of the roadway.

(e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

(f) When operating on a bicycle lane or bicycle path.

814.440 Failure to signal turn; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure to signal for a bicycle turn if the person does any of the following:

(a) Stops a bicycle the person is operating without giving the appropriate hand and arm signal continuously for at least 100 feet before executing the stop.

(b) Executes a turn on a bicycle the person is operating without giving the appropriate hand and arm signal for the turn for at least 100 feet before executing the turn.

(c) Executes a turn on a bicycle the person is operating after having been stopped without giving, while stopped, the appropriate hand and arm signal for the turn.

(2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is operating a bicycle and does not give the appropriate signal continuously for a stop or turn because circumstances require that both hands be used to safely control or operate the bicycle.

(3) The appropriate hand and arm signals for indicating turns and stops under this section are those provided for other vehicles under ORS 811.395 and 811.400.

814.450 Unlawful load on bicycle; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of having an unlawful load on a bicycle if the person is operating a bicycle and the person carries a package, bundle or article which prevents the person from keeping at least one hand upon the handlebar and having full control at all times.

(2) The offense described in this section, unlawful load on a bicycle, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §704]

814.460 Unlawful passengers on bicycle; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of unlawful passengers on a bicycle if the person operates a bicycle and carries more persons on the bicycle than the number for which it is designed or safely equipped.

814.470 Failure to use bicycle seat; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle seat if the person is operating a bicycle and the person rides other than upon or astride a permanent and regular seat attached to the bicycle.

(2) The offense described in this section, failure to use bicycle seat, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §706]

814.480 Nonmotorized vehicle clinging to another vehicle; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of nonmotorized vehicle clinging to another vehicle if the person is riding upon or operating a bicycle, coaster, roller skates, sled or toy vehicle and the person clings to another vehicle upon a roadway or attaches that which the person is riding or operating to any other vehicle upon a roadway.

814.484 Meaning of "bicycle" and "operating or riding on a highway." (1) For purposes of ORS 814.485, 814.486, 815.052 and 815.281, "bicycle" has the meaning given in ORS 801.150 except that:

(a) It also includes vehicles that meet the criteria specified in ORS 801.150 (1) to (4) but that have wheels less than 14 inches in diameter.

(b) It does not include tricycles designed to be ridden by children.

(2) For purposes of the offenses defined in ORS 814.485, 814.486 and 815.281 (2), a person shall not be considered to be operating or riding on a bicycle on a highway or on premises open to the public if the person is operating or riding on a three-wheeled nonmotorized vehicle on a beach while it is closed to motor vehicle traffic. [1993 c.408 §§3a,3b]

814.485 Failure to wear protective headgear; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure of a bicycle operator or rider to wear protective headgear if the person is under 16 years of age, operates or rides on a bicycle on a highway or on premises open to the public and is not wearing protective headgear of a type approved under ORS 815.052.

(2) Exemptions from this section are as provided in ORS 814.487.

814.486 Endangering bicycle operator or passenger; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of endangering a bicycle operator or passenger if:

(a) The person is operating a bicycle on a highway or on premises open to the public and the person carries another person on the bicycle who is under 16 years of age and is not wearing protective headgear of a type approved under ORS 815.052; or

(b) The person is the parent, legal guardian or person with legal responsibility for the safety and welfare of a child under 16 years of age and the child operates or rides on a bicycle on a highway or on premises open to the public without wearing protective headgear of a type approved under ORS 815.052.

(2) Exemptions from this section are as provided in ORS 814.487.

814.487 Exemptions from protective headgear requirements. A person is exempt from the requirements under ORS 814.485 and 814.486 to wear protective headgear, if wearing the headgear would violate a religious belief or practice of the person. [1995 c.581 §4]

814.488 Citations; exemption from requirement to pay fine. (1) If a child in violation of ORS 814.485 is 11 years of age or younger, any citation issued shall be issued to the parent, legal guardian or person with legal responsibility for the safety and welfare of the child for violation of ORS 814.486, rather than to the child for violation of ORS 814.485.

(2) If a child in violation of ORS 814.485 is at least 12 years of age and is under 16 years of age, a citation may be issued to the child for violation of ORS 814.485 or to the parent, legal guardian or person with legal responsibility for the safety and welfare of the child for violation of ORS 814.486, but not to both.

(3) The first time a person is convicted of an offense described in ORS 814.485 or 814.486, the person shall not be required to pay a fine if the person proves to the satisfaction of the court that the person has protective headgear of a type approved under ORS 815.052. [1993 c.408 §§3c,7]

814.489 Use of evidence of lack of protective headgear on bicyclist. Evidence of violation of ORS 814.485 or 814.486 and evidence of lack of protective headgear shall not be admissible, applicable or effective to reduce the amount of damages or to constitute a defense to an action for damages brought by or on behalf of an injured bicyclist or bicycle passenger or the survivors of a deceased bicyclist or passenger if the bicyclist or passenger was injured or killed as a result in whole or in part of the fault of another. [1993 c.408 §8]

lamajo25

I actually work for law. I'm a dispatcher in Arizona. They will get you for it. It's called impeding traffic and blocking a public thuroughfare.

I don't know about Australia but around here a bike lane is made for bikes. It's wide enough in most places for bikes next to each other.

I do understand your concerns about riding strictly in a lane but if it's safe to stay out of traffic, it's most wise. I'm not trying to say ride in unsafe conditions. But around here the roads are paved and kept up.

As for Randya's posting, most of what was posted and are pretty much standards for here in the US. The unfortunate thing is neither the motorists recognize them, nor the bicyclists obey most of them. This is where confusion begins and certain groups blame the other. The bicyclists blame the motorists and vise versus.

randya

If you take the right lane on a four-lane road, the motorists have a passing lane to use to get around you. Therefore, IMO, you are not impeding or obstructing traffic. Officer Friendly might have a different opinion, however.

Arizona may have enough ROW for 8' wide bike lanes, but most older inner city areas have limited ROW space and are lucky to be able to stripe 4' wide bike lanes, if at all. Usually those bike lanes are dangerously close to opening car doors, have hazardous drainage grates every block or so, and there are multiple closeley spaced intersecting cross streets and driveways. In these situations the bike lanes are, IMO, the least safe places to ride. Also, the shoulder and bike lane are usually the place where all the road debris accumulates, so you risk multiple flats by using the bike lane.

Chris L

You might be surprised to hear this, but I actually find my bike is as fast or faster than the cars during the so-called "rush hour". Something to do with being more efficient in traffic. Not to mention the point Randya made below about using the other lane. I've just got home from my commute, at one point during which I had to change lanes to pass a car. Now why can't one expect drivers to do the same thing?

We have similar bike lanes in some places around here. I use them. However, there are some that I won't use for the simple fact that they either go nowhere or have obstacles that frankly make them dangerous. I am not about to start using those sort of "facilities" to keep somebody else happy.

Again, it's a matter of using one's own discretion. When staying out of traffic is a better option, I'll do it. However, when forced to claim the lane by circumstances, I won't hesitate. I'm yet to have any issues with the police when I've been doing this - despite doing it right in front of them on numerous occasions.

I do understand your concerns about riding strictly in a lane but if it's safe to stay out of traffic, it's most wise. I'm not trying to say ride in unsafe conditions. But around here the roads are paved and kept up.

This is where we then need law enforcement and proper education. One of the things that amazes me is the extent to which people neglect these in the assumption that simply building "facilities" will make all of the world's problems disappear. Sure, it might be more politically visible, but what does it achieve?

lamajo25

You are absolutely right about Officer Friendly having a different opinion. If there is room to the right to which there are not problems ahead within visible sight, then there is no reason to be actually in the lane. Here is where the right lane on a four lane road becomes a problem. Four cars pull up to the stop light at red. At that same light a bicyclist has just turned right from the opposite direction of traffic to the right. Light goes green, both front cars start out at the same rate and accelerate the same. All four vehicles catch up to the bicyclist and the one car on the right wants to pass. He now has to back off to wait for the car to the left to move. The bicyclist has now impeded traffic.

Now say that car has had a chance to go around. He has now aggrevated the person behind him possibly not knowing there is a bicyclist ahead. He now guns it and the bicyclist is not close enough to the side and either creams him or has to slam on the brakes. Thus again impeding traffic or having caused a traffic accident. Yes the guy driving the car is at fault but the cyclist would still more than likely get cited for impeding the flow of traffic.

Above is why. I understand a bicycle is more agile in traffic, for the same reason a motorcycle is also more agile. Two wheels, and people that figure that space is large enough, and I think I can get through there.

I was taught to ride in an actual safety course at one of the police departments I used to work at. It is actually a University Police Department that has their own bike patrol squad. When I took the class I was taught to look ahead to avoid any obstacles and to decifer if the bike can overtake the obstacle (We utilized mountain bikes so obviously if it's a road bike you wouldn't be climbing over it). I do remember the days of riding with my head down looking just in front of my tire to make sure I was going straight. Also by looking ahead I can compensate for hazards in the road. I'm not trying to say stay to the right if there is a car in say a bike lane unloading stuff, or a drainage grate that could be slippery, or a large amount of rocks in the roadway ahead to stay there. My opinion would be that in more circumstances than not a keeping to the right is more safe than trying to keep yourself in traffic with the large vehicles.

I live in a town where there aren't too many bike lanes on the main streets in town (which are actually highways, one going North and South the other going East) are mainly used for large traffic to include Semi-Trucks and other equipment. Our bike lanes are mostly on the side roads. They made the in town portions of the highway to give cyclist enough room to utilize part of the roadway but not to take over it. I still don't like utilizing that part, I much prefer to go to a side street that has hardly any traffic and utilize those areas. The worst part is I actually work right off that highway and the only other way in is a dirt road. Yes in some aspects utilizing the lanes of traffic are probably going to be better but in most aspects once around an obstacle the right is the best way to go.

It's not a lack in confidence in my riding abilities, and deffinately not a lack of knowledge of my rights as a cyclist. It's a lack of trust for the surrounding motorists.

Chris L

If it comes down to a choice between risking my life by riding too close to an opening car door, or risking a citation or fine by claiming the lane, I know which option I'll be taking.

randya

Let's try this from a different approach. Actual accident statistics show that a rear-end accident by the car behind you has a low probability, whereas being hit by someone either turning left in front of you, or pulling out from a side street in front of you has a very high probability. Being visible by being to the left in the lane, is the most obvious way to avoid these accidents.

I don't think too much about slowing down a driver behind me for a few seconds if I know it's keeping me safer on my bike.

The whole concept of riding to the right to prevent 'impeding traffic' relegates bicyclists to second-class road user status, reinforces the 'bicycles as toys, not serious transportation arena', places me in more danger than if I take the lane, and reeks massively of discrimination and segregation. I don't buy any of it; knock yourself out trying to convince me otherwise, I'll still be riding in the lane, where I know I'm visible and safer than riding in the gutter, invisible and subject to all manner of road hazards.

Chris L

Just one further comment here. How does riding in the gutter prevent you from being at risk from other motorists. As related in a post I made above, in the real world, drivers only give you as much room as you give yourself.

That's not a problem on roads with big wide spanky shoulders, but not every road has these. If I'm riding in the gutter, I'm leaving myself with no room to back off should a driver decide to get too close. Personally I'd rather utilise the space.

lamajo25

A couple of questions to both of you. First, by placing yourself behind a car, do you think that makes you actually more visible? Second, if you have just left a light and found that by taking the lane you feel safer, obvioulsy you are able to keep pace with the traffic since they are not yet up to speed. How much following distance do you leave. Enough for stopping or enough to be seen?

As with Motorcycles you are harder to see and easily placed into a blind spot. I'm nots saying ride the curb. The reason that Ride to the Right was designed was to place the cyclist directly into the side traffic's window. Not to place you in the danger of riding in traffic's way.

I do understand the theories that you guys are presenting, but I don't think just flat out pulling out into traffic and taking the lane is the safest route. As I said before I finally learned to ride with my head up. Look ahead. Be prepared. If you are in the curb, and someone is that close to you, you have gotten yourself into that position and you are going to get hurt. You should utilize the fact that people aren't watching out for you, only you are. Don't trust the fact that the drivers are seeing you. Trust yourself to back off or move over. You are less likely to get hurt. If you see a car pulled over ahead, look behind before you pull out and find a clear spot. Slow down and wait for the bulk of traffic to pass. The way you guys are talking you are just riding and making yourselves into moving targets that aren't going to stop or slow down to make room for yourself. Motorcyclists have the same problem. Much smaller vehicle and the reason for so many accidents is the fact that they don't know when to back themselves off.

Chris L

It depends where the car is. If the car is in the actual lane, I would argue that yes it does, simply because this is where the drivers tend to be looking.

Actually, I tend to be able to keep with traffic pretty well during my entire ride home from work, traffic lights or not, but I digress. As I said with the entire lane-claiming point from the start, I use discretion. I claim the lane for as long as I feel necessary.

So what happens if I consider myself to be traffic? When I ride home from work, I'm effectively doing the same thing all the car drivers are doing (i.e. commuting), I'll do it the same way they do - regardless of the fact I'm on a bike. Maybe you can tell the "get out of the way of traffic" to all those car drivers that held me up this evening.

OK, this is the source of the misunderstanding. This is not a theory, this is something I have learned to do with the experience of over 100,000km of riding. It's not a situation of "just flat out pulling out into traffic and taking the lane" at all. It's a case of judging the situation, and knowing that the roundabout/traffic circle in front is too narrow to allow for safe overtaking, and making that point to all around me. It's about anticipating the hazard ahead of me and giving myself space to avoid it.

Again, over 100,000km of riding has taught me this. I'm wondering where Ride to the Right gets it's "knowledge" from.

The way I ride is designed specifically to accommodate this.

Backing off is only an option if you've given yourself sufficient room to do it.

If I'm in a position where parked cars are going to be a problem, I'm not riding correctly. I feel much safer giving a hand signal well in advance and gradually merging into the lane. If it's a line of parked cars, I feel safer holding a consistent line in the lane rather than trying to weave in and out of them. Being hit from behind by cars accounts for a surprisingly small percentage of cycling injuries, and happens surprisingly rarely when you're riding consistently.

Nobody has given me one good reason why I should yet. I asked this question in another thread and got no answer, so I'll pose it again here. How do you know lane-claiming is dangerous? I'm not asking why you think it's dangerous, or why it "surely must be" dangerous, I'm asking for some basic proof that it is.

I consider myself to be living proof that it isn't. Now let's see some contrary evidence.

Again, how do you know? Do you have some statistics that can prove that motorcyclists have "so many accidents", or that they are caused by lane claiming? And can these statistics (assuming they exist) be accurately translated to cyclists? To be honest, the more "lane claiming is dangerous" propoganda I read, the more it sounds like blatant scare-mongering.

jester69

Ride to the right (or left for our UK and aussie friends), as far as I am aware was designed to make it easier for people to pass cyclists, not to make the cyclist invisible or deny them the right to the road.

You may hug the curb all day, that is your right. I may not feel safe there and take the lane, that is my right.

We are kind of arguing angels on the heads of a pin here, sure an officer could give you a ticket for exercising your right, but I think it could easily be beaten in court.

As for the scenario where the cyclist has taken the right lane when there are two lanes going that direction and the motorist must (gasp) change lanes to go around: boo hoo, small tear waaah. If that is the worst thing that happens to that motorist that day, they should express gratitude to the deity of their choice. The cyclist is definitely not "impeding" there, as there is an entire clear lane for passing.

take care,

Jester

Stor Mand

As always, this subject will come down to courteousy and logical thinking. Some here may have neither .. some may have both.

Chris L

... and of course, we should not forget that courteousy is a two-way street (pun intended).