Using the full lane - who does it?

The BikeForums Team

-adv-

This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.

Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)

Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net

MsMittens

I do it in situations where it's required (that is, riding next to the curb is too dangerous due to crap and potholes or the street is too narrow/too many parked cars e.g., Yonge Street in Toronto in some sections).

genec

Wow... did all my selections get picked up?

Generally I don't take the full lane when I am traveling down the road... At intersections and "decision points" (for lack of a better term) and I take the lane... I actually avoid the center due to the grease build-up, but may ride to the right or left of it to indicate where I want to end up. If I am moving left, I will be on the left. If I am going straight, I will probably be just to the right of the grease... unless it is a straight or left, then I am to the left of the grease. (learned to avoid that grease back in my motorcycle days... :o )

And if the road is too narrow... it is mine.

Nothing else permits me to move well at 22MPH... and I like moving at 22MPH. :D

Now I do "go pedestrian" when moving at ~ 8MPH up some particular hills.

I also take the lane if I am going the same speed as other traffic... and where the road is so poor, that I feel I need to protect my bail out space. This latter area bothers me the most because if I do indeed have a problem, and bail out... I am now "down in traffic," not a good place to be.

Roody

My philosophy is "share the road--don't give it away." I probably ride in the middle of the lane about 70% of the time, plus when going through intersections, moving over to a different lane, etc. I do get to the right when it is safe and convenient (or at least not inconvenient) for me, so as not to interfere with motorists unnecessarily.

webist

I try to ride so as to permit others, especially vehicles to do as they wish. I try to make it easy for others to pass. I am not however, fearful of taking the lane when I need it.

khuon

I do what I deem to be safe. Oftentimes at intersections, things can become ambiguous and drivers aren't the best at holding their line so they may inadvertantly crowd you if you give them the chance. Thus claiming the rightmost lane when proceeding straight ahead through the intersection or through a turning lane gives you maximum visibility and prevents possible contentious behaviour. Once through an intersection, I will move over as far right as is practical.

I will also claim the lane if I'm coming down a very fast descent. At above 25MPH, I need a bit of maneauver room in case there's a pothole or I have to widen my line around a curve. I feel it is safer when I'm travelling close to traffic speeds if I float near the middle of the lane so that I'm more visible and have more room to deal with conditions of the road.

The one thing I make sure to do during any of this is to present clear (sometimes redundant) signals, make good eye contact with the drivers around me and act methodically and predictably.

konageezer

Bekologist

I ride in the lane all the time, and also hold to the right so drivers may pass. It all depends on the roads, incline, traffic, road conditions, shoulder, wether ther is a bike lane or not, etc.

Taking the lane is not something that should be foreign to bicyclists, it should be second nature.

Dchiefransom

Geez, Serge. I think I picked about 5 of those. Was there only supposed to be one answer per person?
When I do take the lane, I'm having a tendency to take it down the center now, as I've been getting squeezed out too many times when in the right wheel track(at least before my knee went out). I notice that it doesn't happen early in the morning, but usually after noon, and the biggest concentration of problems is during the evening commute times. I was also kind of keeping to the right on right turns, but realized that cars cut right turns too tight, so that could force me into the curb, or take me out from behind, so I take the entire lane now.

midgie

If I'm turning left at an intersection in a left turn lane. Otherwise always on the right. We have no bike lanes in town.

[edit] didn't see this option when I voted. Evidently I can't read.

Helmet Head

I was also kind of keeping to the right on right turns, but realized that cars cut right turns too tight, so that could force me into the curb, or take me out from behind, so I take the entire lane now.
This is exactly what John Franklin recommends in his book Cyclecraft, for exactly the same reason, except that he's talking about left turns since he's from England...

Helmet Head

You know, before I started hanging out in this forum, I was a real gutter-rider. Tried to stay out of the way of cars and not hold cagers up; to have a consciousness of the "big picture" of traffic flow. (Something i wish all peope had. Stupid zombies.)
After reading the various posts here and their well-presented cases for VC riding, I am claiming more and more of the road I'm entitled to. So far, no significant trouble, and lots more breathing room.

Man, I'm about to give up on my VC "crusade" (hey, at least I don't deny it!), and then I see a post like this. Look out folks, the wind has refilled my sails!

On behalf of all the VC advocates on this forum, thank you, Kona. And remember to never try anything that you don't believe is safe.

Also, you can figure out much of VC on your own, but I do recommend at least reading Effective Cycling by John Forester, Street Smarts by John S. Allen, or Cyclecraft by John Franklin (preferably all three), to make sure you haven't missed anything important.

Or take a Road 1 course.

Serge

Dchiefransom

This is exactly what John Franklin recommends in his book Cyclecraft, for exactly the same reason, except that he's talking about left turns since he's from England...

I'll turn the book upside down when I read it, so it will be facing in the right direction. On a ride with about 8 riders, we filled up the right turn lane, which had a solid right stripe between it and the right hand straight through lane. Yup, the proverbial right hook by a pickup truck. This new cloning stuff could be handy. Cyclists with two eyes in front, and two eyes in back.

Dchiefransom

Man, I'm about to give up on my VC "crusade" (hey, at least I don't deny it!), and then I see a post like this. Look out folks, the wind has refilled my sails!

On behalf of all the VC advocates on this forum, thank you, Kona. And remember to never try anything that you don't believe is safe.

Serge

Just like with any discussion/argument, there's usually at least a tiny something useful in the other side's views. It's always good to see if there's anything that can be adapted for our use.

Helmet Head

sbhikes

Very rarely probably isn't the right answer for me. It's just that percentage-wise, each day I take up either the whole lane or the whole entire street in just a couple of places. Otherwise, I don't have much need to. But taking the lane is in my toolbox.

(The couple of places:
1. A steep, twisty downhill where I can go faster than the cars
2. A narrow residential street where I take the entire street and pull over only when on-coming traffic is coming
3. I suppose you can call parking in the center of a lane waiting for the left turn arrow 'taking the lane', but that's about as long as that lasts.
)

Bruce Rosar

The poll thread asking about VC was intended to ask about using the full lane (a.k.a. "taking the lane"). Since there were so many misinterpretations, I thought I'd post this one.I misinterpreted this poll thread (I assumed these polls allowed just one choice per voter, so I picked "other"). Anyway, here's my explanation:

A driver's "need" to travel in the primary position varies dynamically with the conditions at a particular time and place, including (but not limited to):
* widths and speeds of all the vehicles that may pass
* grade of all the roads that may be involved
* line of sight in all directions
* presence of junctions (intersections, driveways, alleyways)
* on street parking
* cross wind
* cross traffic
* cross tandem stoker :p

"Captain" Bruce Rosar

CB HI

Additional reasons I take control of a full lane include:
staying out of the door zone
better line of sight on winding hill (better to see and be seen)
broken beer bottles and junk on right side of lane, shoulder, bike lane
potholes (lots of potholes in Hawaii)
when approaching wrong way cyclist
when approaching runners that don't like using the sidewalk
when passing other cyclist
when passing slow/stopped busses (use full lane left of bus)
when approaching dogs off the leash
when moving through a road construction/repair zone
and a few others reasons that I have forgotten at the moment.

JRA

I got 7.5 out of 10 which I hope is a passing grade.

I chose:

"When the lane is too narrow to be safely shared..."
Yes, always. And I personally think a lot of lanes are too narrow to be safely shared.

"During a left merge to prepare for a left turn."
Yes, if I've decided to make a left turn by merging left. That's normally what I do but there are other options. For example, if I'd have to merge across multiple lanes of heavy, fast-moving traffic, and the other road is lightly traveled, I might prefer to make a right turn followed by a U-turn. (that, by the way, is often not illegal)

"At an intersection, when going right in a right-only lane."
Yes, always.

"At an intersection, when going straight in a straight-or-right lane."
Yes - but if the lane is wide enough and I'm sure the car behind me is going right, I might pull far enough to the left of the lane to let them turn right on red. I won't let a car that's not signaling for a right turn squeeze to my right.

"Always, even when the lane is wide enough to be safely shared and I'm just going straight and there are no intersections."
Not always but maybe under the conditions described if it's a four-lane road that's relatively lightly traveled, and there's no reason a car would need to use the lane I'm in.

"Whenever I'm traveling the same speed as traffic."
Yea, probably.

"Numerous times every time I ride."
Not every time. Sometimes when I ride a mountain bike I view roads as more of an annoyance than anything else. :D But most times I ride on the roads I take the lane numerous times.

I will sometimes ride the shoulder (or maybe even go pedestrian = ride on the sidewalk) when I'm going really slowly uphill, especially if I'm on my city bike. I'm less likely to do it on a road bike but I might - depending on various factors.

"Other"
When there are no cars or other vehicles behind me.

genec

It does seem like there is much less contention over the VC issue here than there is about whether well designed bike lanes are good for cyclists and cycling, or not. But that's a debate for the bike lane thread.

Serge

I think that this shows that VC and what was presented on the other thread as VC are really different things... "taking a lane" is not the same as VC... (although VC does allow that)

pj7

I do it whenever I feel that doing so is safer to the alternative. I have a strict pecking order in the riding style now that I'm slowly starting to delveop.
1) Safety
2) Courtesy
3) Comfort
4) Speed
I never compromise the top two. My safety firts, no matter how inconvenient it is to others. Once I'm free and clear then I'll ride with more curt to others on the road. And somewhere in there I'll work in speed, as long as it isn't all that uncomfortable.

lilHinault

I see VC as, riding a bicycle the way I'd ride a motorcycle. A motorcycle has 2 wheels but in traffic rules is treated as a car, with some very rare exceptions like motorcycle only parking spaces and lane splitting where that's legal. Sometimes you can't keep up with traffic on a bicycle so you can't take the lane without jamming up traffic, but, since a bicycle is nice and skinny, you can happily share the road.

I think bicycle riding as a way to get around and as one's primary vehicle is so underdeveloped in the US that it's still being worked out..... one place I go has a bridge over a freeway that's kinda narrow, with a nice wide sidewalk, wider than I've seen on any other road bridge around here. Next time I'm going to ride on that sidewalk, because for the length of that bridge it makes by far the most sense.

(It's Fairoaks where it goes over the 237 freeway, maybe that wide walkway is actually part of the bike plan there, I don't know, there's a funny little bike path that sneaks around under the bridge too, I need to check that out).

Some of the stuff we do on bicycles would be insane in a car and asinine on a motorcycle. A good part of our red-light running is to be in much less conflict with cars, hence safer than not doing it. I wonder if cyclists run reds etc in Denmark and other cycling Meccas? I'd think China if anyplace has worked out rules that work for masses of bicycles, but that may not help us in the US since traditionally they've had very few cars in the mix.

Dewbert

OK...Newbie question. What's VC?

KrisPistofferson

I thought you could only vote for one, so I chose "numerous times", as it seemed to cover many of those situations listed and more. It's really not a common thing where I live, and I still catch a lot of flack from motorists, but I HAVE noticed more and more vehicular cyclists as of late, probably had something to do with looking up at the gas station sign and seeing gas was 2 bucks a gallon! I haven't had a car since '99 and this just mystifies me.

billh

. . . "when I'm in a bad mood and some motorist pisses me off and I want to learn them a lesson"!

billh

OK...Newbie question. What's VC?

Whoa boy, get ready . . .

sbhikes

I really don't think it counts as taking the lane when you are merging or avoiding an obstacle. Simply crossing a lane isn't taking it. I only count it as taking it if I am not on my way to another portion of the street.

discosaurus

. . . "when I'm in a bad mood and some motorist pisses me off and I want to learn them a lesson"!

I was told on this forum, that when people honk they are warning you of an obstacle or hazard in the road and they want you to move FARTHER LEFT! hahahah I do it every time, usually with a decrease in speed.

Helmet Head

OK...Newbie question. What's VC?

I got tired of answering this question here, so I created an entry at Wikipedia...

Check it out!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling

Serge

discosaurus

I generally follow VC rules, with a few exceptions. I "go pedestrian" often, but it doesn't always mean walking my bike. Yes, I ride on sidewalks sometimes. It is legal here, and many of our sidewalks are widened into "bike paths" and are rarely used by pedestrians. Recently, on my way home from school riding the full lane, I heard a "Get on the sidewalk!" yell and then about a mile up there was an accident blocking the intersection. I hopped on the sidewalk, and while passing the stopped traffic, I saw the guy that told me to ride there, smiled and waved and thanked him for the warning! I think that where it is safe and legal, that bikes can take the "best of both worlds" to our advantage, providing we follow the rules and etiquette...especially if we can use it to get back at motorists that piss us off.

Helmet Head

JRA

It's not just pedestrians that make sidewalk cycling dangerous. In fact, it's intersections, including sidewalk intersections, with potential unexpected conflicts with motor vehicles, the likelihood of which increases substantially more than linearly with the speed of the sidewalk cyclist, that makes them most dangerous. But we have a separate thread on this topic (it's a "sticky").Unexpected conflicts? Gimme a break! With all the anti-sidewalk propaganda spewed by VC-propagandists quoting their virtually non-existant evidence that sidewalk riding is inherently dangerous, I can't believe there's a cyclist anywhere who hasn't heard it thousand times.

Helmet Head

Who said sidewalk cycling was inherently dangerous?

Sidewalk cycling can be done safely, but you have to be aware of the potential dangers. Anyone who implies that the main problem with sidewalk cycling is pedestrians might not be aware of the real dangers (opening doors on passenger side, cars pulling in and out of driveways and alleys, drivers turning right while looking to their left and not seeing the cyclist ride into the crosswalk right in front of them, etc. etc.). Again, if you're aware of all the potential conflicts, and take care to not be vulnerable to them, then sidewalk cycling can be very safe, but that's a big if.

JRA

And why exactly do you assume discosaurus isn't aware of the potential dangers? And why didn't you inform discosaurus of the dangers of riding in the street since that seems to be where he prefers to ride.

Oh, sure, the best of both worlds is all well and good when it comes to paceline riding. You and a lot of other VC fanatics seem less enthusiastic about the best of both worlds when it comes to sidewalk cycling which some cyclists, myself included, sometimes find useful as a means of getting from one point to another. It's called vehicular cycling and it can be done on the sidewalk, despite what the VC party line is.

Helmet Head

And why exactly do you assume discosaurus isn't aware of the potential dangers?
I did not assume he was, or was not, aware of the potential dangers of sidewalk cycling. Since it was unclear that he was aware of the potential dangers, I thought I would bring them to his attention, just in case. Do you have a problem with that?

I never told anyone they shouldn't ride on the sidewalk. Nor would I tell them not to join in pacelines, or ride in busy traffic. But before you participate in any of these activities, you should be aware of the potential dangerous, and how to reasonably mitigate them. Do you disagree?

For sidewalk cycling, riding slowly and carefully and paying special attention at all intersections is imperative. Most important is to not mistakenly think that you are safe from conflicts with motor vehicles just because you're on the sidewalk.

For pacelining, there are many tips to mitigate the potential dangers, not the least of which is to keep looking ahead well beyond the cyclist immediately in front of you.

For traffic cycling, I of course recommend riding vehicularly... cycling in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road.

None of this advice eliminates the potential risk in all of these activities, of course, and this little post is not meant to be exhaustive with regard to mitigation either.

It's called vehicular cycling and it can be done on the sidewalk...
Your insistence that vehicular cycling can be done on sidewalks makes no sense to me, since simply traveling on sidewalks is blatant violation of the vehicular rules of the road. That doesn't mean it's illegal, since sidewalk cycling is legal in many areas, but it's not cycling in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road, and, hence, cannot be vehicular cycling, by definition.

Or am I missing something?

Treespeed

Serge,

I think you needed one more selection, " I always take the lane, except when it can be safely shared with other vehicles." Nothing pisses off a motorist quicker than taking the lane for no good reason.

I don't get everyone getting so bent about the sidewalk cycling issue. It can easily be done safely, you just have to ride like a ped. (slow, yielding to the walkers, and taking great care at all intersections and driveways). When I think of sidewalk cyclists, I think of cyclists who primarily ride on the sidewalk and usually at speed. These cyclists would be equally unsafe on the road. The issue isn't the sidewalk, but a lack of cycling skills.

-Marcus.

JRA

Your insistence that vehicular cycling can be done on sidewalks makes no sense to me, since simply traveling on sidewalks is blatant violation of the vehicular rules of the road.Oh poppycock! I wouldn't even be on the road and it wouldn't be a violation of vehicular rules.

Perhaps you're confusing VC with the rules of the road. Riding on the sidewalk is not VC. That's just another reason that I'm beginning to think that not being VC is not such a bad thing. VC seems to be opposed to some things primarily because those things conflict with a rather inflexible belief system.

In any case, the Missouri traffic code does not prohibit riding on sidewalks (some municipalities do, but Missouri doesn't.)

That doesn't mean it's illegal, since sidewalk cycling is legal in many areas, but it's not cycling in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road, and, hence, cannot be vehicular cycling, by definition.That's by one definition.

The term "vehicular cycling" is a misnomer.

Webster's New Twentieth Century Unabridged Dictionary:
Vehicle (from vehere, to carry)
1. any device on wheels or runners for conveying persons or objects...

All cycling as a means of transportation is vehicular.

That's by the plain English language definition.

If you don't like the plain English language definition, fine.

Personally, since no one can really agree what vehicular cycling is, I prefer to call traffic cycling what it is, traffic cycling.

When I say vehicular cycling, I mean using a bicycle as a means of getting from one place to another, and that I can do on the sidewalk. "VC" is a whole different thing, a belief system that to some appears to be almost a religion. When the VC evangelists come a knockin' at my door, I won't be home.

genec

Your insistence that vehicular cycling can be done on sidewalks makes no sense to me, since simply traveling on sidewalks is blatant violation of the vehicular rules of the road. That doesn't mean it's illegal, since sidewalk cycling is legal in many areas, but it's not cycling in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road, and, hence, cannot be vehicular cycling, by definition.

Or am I missing something?

Well technically, "rules of the road" can apply anywhere two "vehicles" come together... including shopping carts in the local grocery store.

Helmet Head

JRA, "VC" is an abbreviation for "vehicular cycling".
If you want to define "vehicular cycling" as "using a bicycle as a means of getting from one place to another", that's fine, but I think that's different from how most others use the term. Also, it does not seem to add much, if anything, to the basic term, "cycling". So what's the point of adding "vehicular" to it?

In most jurisdictions, bicycles are not vehicles. That's why they are (usually) allowed on sidewalks - vehicles are not.
Bicycles may or may not be operated according to the vehicular rules of the road.
Bicycles may or may not be operated according to the pedestrian rules of the road.
Riding a bicycle vehicularly does not make it a vehicle no more than riding a bicycle on sidewalks makes it a shoe.
When a bicycle is operated according to the vehicular rules of the road, that's called vehicular cycling (abbreviation: VC).

"VC" is a whole different thing, a belief system that to some appears to be almost a religion.
VC is a belief system? What beliefs are part of this alleged system?

Perhaps you're confusing VC with Forester's EC, or Effective Cycling, which holds that cyclists fare best when the act and are treated as drivers of vehicles?

It seems much clearer to me to simply look at VC as a simple definition - cycling in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road - without any value judgement.

The issue of whether, for example, VC is more effective, say, than sidewalk cycling, is a separate issue.

Have you looked at the VC entry I created at Wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling

Do you have a problem with it?

discosaurus

If I ever have a reason to severely torture myself, I might visit the sidewalk riding thread. For what it's worth, as long as I obey the law, I can ride wherever and however I please. There are cautions and etiquette to follow in each place, be it road, sidewalk, or bike path, but I don't think this thread is the place to discuss them. I was just answering the original question, but I guess I should have been prepared to receive some anti-sidewalk VC propaganda.

Bruce Rosar

Well technically, "rules of the road" can apply anywhere two "vehicles" come together... including shopping carts in the local grocery store.
CHAPTER 11 - Uniform Vehicle Code: Rules of the Road (http://www.ohiobike.org/NCUTLO/uvc11pt1.htm) ARTICLE I. OBEDIENCE TO AND EFFECT OF TRAFFIC LAWS
11-101. Provisions of chapter refer to vehicles upon the highways exceptions
The provisions of this chapter relating to the operation of vehicles refer exclusively to the operation of vehicles upon highways except:
1. Where a different place is specifically referred to in a given section.
Didn't see any mention of carts or stores in the RotR. ;)

tippy

...In most jurisdictions, bicycles are not vehicles. That's why they are (usually) allowed on sidewalks - vehicles are not...
Is Florida in the minority then?

This is from Florida's Department of Transportation website.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/Safety/ped_bike/laws/ped_bike_bikeLaws1.htm

"Legal status of bicycles
In Florida the bicycle is legally defined as a vehicle (but not a motor vehicle). A bicyclist has all the rights of drivers of other vehicles, except in those cases in which special provisions have been adopted for bicycles. A bicyclist must obey the traffic laws and traffic control devices that apply to the driver of any vehicle."

Of course the traffic code says a bicycle will not exceed 20 miles per hour.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0316/SEC003.HTM&Title=->2004->Ch0316->Section%20003#0316.003

316.003 Definitions (2) BICYCLE.--Every vehicle propelled solely by human power, and every motorized bicycle propelled by a combination of human power and an electric helper motor capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of not more than 20 miles per hour on level ground upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels, and including any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or two rear wheels. The term does not include such a vehicle with a seat height of no more than 25 inches from the ground when the seat is adjusted to its highest position or a scooter or similar device. No person under the age of 16 may operate or ride upon a motorized bicycle.

d.tipton

genec

CHAPTER 11 - Uniform Vehicle Code: Rules of the Road (http://www.ohiobike.org/NCUTLO/uvc11pt1.htm)
Didn't see any mention of carts or stores in the RotR. ;)

Uh, those are the laws of the road.... slightly different state to state... but the rules of the road, govern the way two vehicles interact when meeting.

The Laws of the Road are written to incorporate said rules.

Want proof... go storming through your local grocery store barging into other shoppers and cutting them off... you'll get quick responses.

genec

Is Florida in the minority then?

This is from Florida's Department of Transportation website.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/Safety/ped_bike/laws/ped_bike_bikeLaws1.htm

"Legal status of bicycles
In Florida the bicycle is legally defined as a vehicle (but not a motor vehicle). A bicyclist has all the rights of drivers of other vehicles, except in those cases in which special provisions have been adopted for bicycles. A bicyclist must obey the traffic laws and traffic control devices that apply to the driver of any vehicle."

Of course the traffic code says a bicycle will not exceed 20 miles per hour.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0316/SEC003.HTM&Title=->2004->Ch0316->Section%20003#0316.003

316.003 Definitions (2) BICYCLE.--Every vehicle propelled solely by human power, and every motorized bicycle propelled by a combination of human power and an electric helper motor capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of not more than 20 miles per hour on level ground upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels, and including any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or two rear wheels. The term does not include such a vehicle with a seat height of no more than 25 inches from the ground when the seat is adjusted to its highest position or a scooter or similar device. No person under the age of 16 may operate or ride upon a motorized bicycle.

d.tipton

Whoa... not more than 20MPH... yikes... I know many cyclists that work to maintain 25MPH. Guess we better stay out of Bush's state. :D

John E

noisebeam

Whoa... not more than 20MPH... yikes... I know many cyclists that work to maintain 25MPH. Guess we better stay out of Bush's state. :D
It is not clear to me if the sentence structure may mean that the motorized assist is not capable of over 20mph. That would make sense to define a speed capability boundary for a motorized assist to be still classified as a bicycle instead of motorized vehicle.

Al

Helmet Head

It is not clear to me if the sentence structure may mean that the motorized assist is not capable of over 20mph. That would make sense to define a speed capability boundary for a motorized assist to be still classified as a bicycle instead of motorized vehicle.

It is clear to me. That's exactly what it means. It has nothing to do with setting a limit to how fast anyone can ride a bicycle. Remember, the purpose of this section is to define what a bicycle is.
Every vehicle propelled solely by human power, and every motorized bicycle propelled by a combination of human power and an electric helper motor capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of not more than 20 miles per hour on level ground upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels, and including any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or two rear wheels.

The "capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of no more than 20 miles per hour on level ground" phrase is clearly modifying "electric motor". In other words, if the electric motor on a motorized bicycle can propel a bicycle at a speed of more than 20 mph then the device is not technically a bicycle. This would be relevant in places where motor vehicles are not allowed to travel, but bicycles are; such a device would not be.

By the way, yes, Tippy, Florida is in the minority with respect to defining bicycles as vehicles.

Serge

steel_is_real

Although I checked "When the lane is too narrow...", I will only do this if it is a single lane. If it is a multi-lane with both lanes available I will stay in my normal position, so as to let cars pass by partially going into the next lane.

Also I will always 'take the lane' when passing parked cars.

Helmet Head

The poll percentages are misleading. It would have been more informative to treat each item as its own poll, e.g. "Do you take the lane when it is too narrow to be shared safely?" always__ usually__ seldom__ never__

Agreed. On a poll that allows multiple choices, the percentages should indicate the number out of total number of people responding, not out of the total number of responses. Creating ten separate poll threads would probably not be appreciated. They do tell us the total number of votes (107 at this point).

Besides, these polls are very unscientific... the primary purpose of these polls, for me anyway, is to provoke thought and discussion. For example...

I do find it interesting that less than half (48/107) use the full right turn only lane, while most (77 and 80) use the full lane when merging left or traveling in a narrow lane.

Actually, until I read John Franklin's Cyclecraft, I also thought you should keep to the right in a right-only lane. But he (and Hurst, by the way) point out the advantages of staying in the primary/default position (center of the lane) during these types of turns, and the drawbacks of keeping too close to the side. Forester is not as clear, but in retrospect I believe keeping to the center of the right-only lane is consistent with his advice as well. I need to review Street Smarts to see if Allen addresses this.