Advocacy & Safety - 6 feet off the curb?!!! Come on!...

I commute everyday on a bicycle. Surely, I believe bikers have a right to share the road. I ride 98% of the time on the street careful to stay in a straight line just off the curb. My riding position never hinders traffic.

Having said that, I passed a "Sunday morning hey I'm a cyclists too" on the road today. This person was riding 6' off the curb and making cars wait and move around them. Not more than a few minutes later I passed a second person doing the same thing.

I am just checking to see the BF members ideas regarding what is the best position for the bicycle to be on the road as respects other vehicles.

Were there parked cars up ahead or anything like that?

No cars what so ever. Basically riding in the middle of the lane for no reason.

If the lane is wide enough to share, I usually ride about 3 feet to the right of where the cars would normally drive. So I'd only be 6 feet out in the road if the space between the moving cars and the curb was 9 feet. :)

Well I know I hate it when I'm riding as close to the curb as possible when some jack ass decides I'm not even there and doesn't change lanes when passing me. I think that's rude. So instead I make them completely change lanes to pass me (unless there is traffic, then I usually go over as far as I can or I pull into a parking lot until traffic clears). I can't stand it when drivers don't get over when passing, whizzing by me like I'm not even there.

don't be a gutter bunny.

In addition to the points made already, keep in mind that people will try and sqeeze by you even if you are 6 feet off of the curb. Would you rather have 6 feet to evade them or would you rather be right next to the curb and be forced to ride into it or hop it? You pick up flats over there too!

In town I can certainly usualy maintain at or near the speed limit. So there is no reason someone really has to complain about my bike in thier way.

In NYC the law law allows a biker to ride 5 feet off the curb or parked cars. Ironically most of our bike lanes are only 2 to 3 feet wide and in the door zone of parked cars.

I second wheez and whitecity.

It is much safer and much more visible to to be in the lane. Like you said OP you have got to be predictable, hold your position. I think things change when you get into discussing 50 mph roads though, but I never have to ride them.

If you're riding the gutter, what's going to happen if you need to swerve right to avoid debris, drifiting motorist etc. Leave yourself some room for and escape, also for the reasons that the others pointed out.

Thanks for the replies. I will have to reconsider the way I ride in order to be safe.

Here is text from a Florida DOT cycling brochure (http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/brochures/pdf/RRAD.pdf):


Comment: A white edge line is often marked to indicate the right edge of a roadway. On a roadway with curbs, the gutter area is not normally considered part of the roadway. In any case, a cyclist should ride at least 2 feet from a curb. This is a comment in the brochure which may or may not be a law but is what the "state" advocates. I interpret "... at least 2 feet from the curb" to also mean "no closer than 2 feet from the curb". Again this is located in a comment and may only be a strong suggestion as opposed to a law.

Good Luck
d.tipton

It seems counterintuitive that getting out into the lane would have people give you more passing room. But I've found that this is exactly what happens. Even when I ride on a 2-lane road with a 45 mph speed limit and I'm going uphill if I get out into the lane at least a few feet everyone stops, waits to see if it's safe to pass, then passes respectfully. If I ever hug the curb (I haven't in years btw) the drivers think "hey, I can squeeze through the opening without going over the holy yellow line". You just have to have confidence that you are a legal road user and that you are traffic. Try it out and get back to us on the results.

I absolutely take the lane if I'm riding on a street that has at least two lanes going the same direction (and the vast majority of my commuter and pleasure-riding miles are on just such streets). If there's another lane there that a car can drive in, then they can drive in it and get around me. On narrower streets, I tend to ride toward the center of the street, too, and rely on my rearview mirror to tell me when there's a car coming up, and I need to move or pull off the road.

I'm not intersted in having somebody try to "split the lane" with me and take my head off with their side mirror, or force me into a storm sewer grate or over a piece of hazardous gutter debris (bottles, large tree branches, hubcaps, etc.) If I'm well toward the center of the outside lane, I can steer clear of the heaps of rubbish that seem to collect in the gutter, the sand washouts at intersections, and other stuff that could either damage my bike or make me have a wreck. Puts me well outside of the "door zone," too.

Plus it helps foster visibility to people coming from side streets. The closer you are to the gutter, the tighter angle they would have to look to see you. Most people don't really look that close when they're coming in from a side street, either--they are only looking for other cars. If you are further out in the lane, there is a better chance they'll see you sooner and react appropriately. It also gives you more of a chance to go wide if they do go ahead and pull out in front of you.

It also helps to cut down on the possibility of somebody "right hooking" you by "buzzing" or passing you closely in your lane, then taking a right turn directly in front of you, or right into you. It also eliminates the dangerous temptation to "pass on the right" especially at stoplights or stopsigns.

And then there are the jaywalking pedestrians. Again, if you are further over, you have more options for dodging road hazards (in this case, the two-legged kind) if you can't stop fast enough.

If and when it is practical to do so, I will take the lane and use it. It's much more convenient, secure, and visible to do so.

The oddest event I ever experienced pertaining to taking a lane was on a very narrow residential two lane road (speed limit 25 mph, I was just making 20 mph). I saw in my mirror a large truck approaching (quit a ways back). I was also approaching a stop sign. I shifted to the middle of the lane in preps to come to the stop sign. The truck slowed to my speed and had to follow me for a good 4 car lengths before I stopped. The truck was so impatient that the driver straddled the double yellows at the stop. To my surprise there was a young female driver in a sports car that was even more impatient following the truck. The sports car driver got so caught up with the stopped truck in the middle of the road that she zipped right past the truck and blew through the intersection never aware of why everybody was stopped. I gestured to the truck that he could have the roadway. I certainly didn't want to be in front of those two idiots.
If I hadn't taken the lane, I would have had a rear view mirror within inches of my head at the stop sign.

d.tipton

what is the best position for the bicycle to be on the road

at least 6 feet off the curb

Just reported a dangerous driver this morning. I was riding between 3 - 5 ft of the edge of the road. A string of 4 cars passed properly giving ample room - then one idiot passes close enough I have to go for the edge - yelled "hey" - he gave the one finger salute - you gotta love lights - got his plate and vehicle description. I dropped in at the Saanich police dept. to file a complaint - officer took it serious - she had been hit on her bike - verified info on the data base and is passing it on to traffic for issuing a ticket. We'll see where it goes from here.

I'm new to cycling/commuting, and I'm glad I read this forum before I started. Otherwise I'd have been like you and hug the curb as close as possible, unaware that something called the door zone existed. I take the entire right lane whenever possible now.

Me > car.

Just reported a dangerous driver this morning. I was riding between 3 - 5 ft of the edge of the road. A string of 4 cars passed properly giving ample room - then one idiot passes close enough I have to go for the edge - yelled "hey" - he gave the one finger salute - you gotta love lights - got his plate and vehicle description. I dropped in at the Saanich police dept. to file a complaint - officer took it serious - she had been hit on her bike - verified info on the data base and is passing it on to traffic for issuing a ticket. We'll see where it goes from here.
wow, if I reported a car for every time this has happened to me, I'd never leave the police department.

I ride in the car lane whenever I can and move over when I hear a car coming up behind me. Mostly it's because the runners coming towards me are difficult to see especially in the shady areas.

I ride in the center of the right lane and move over for cars when it is safe for me to do it. I never get buzzed, and I rarely have cagers honk at me. Most of them don't want us to get hurt, so they don't get angry if we ride safely, predictably, with courtesy.

I'm guessing that the lane was not wide enough for a car to pass safely. Whenever there's a lane where cars can't pass me more than three feet away, then I hog the entire lane untill it widens. Too bad if the cagers get frustrated. They can always overtake me moving into the other lane...

I'm new to cycling/commuting, and I'm glad I read this forum before I started. Otherwise I'd have been like you and hug the curb as close as possible, unaware that something called the door zone existed. I take the entire right lane whenever possible now.

Me > car.

It's great to get a response like this every once in a while. It's easy here to feel like we're just a bunch of zealots yelling in a circular argument, it's nice to know we actually do some good. (You'll probably feel differently after a few weeks :) )

If you're learning, I would recommend John Allen's "Bicycle Street Smarts." It's free on the web at http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/index.htm . A lot of street cycling is not obvious at all, in fact it's counter-intuitive.

By the way, distance from the curb is just the wrong measure -- sometimes six feet is two much, sometimes it's too little, sometimes it's just right. Lane position is a complicated subject, and very situational. Even experienced cyclists debate it endlessly.

I'm guessing that the lane was not wide enough for a car to pass safely.
Come to think, I don't believe we've established whether the lane in question was wide or narrow.

I usually stay 4 ft.
You know what's nice, those bike lanes we have in NYC, they're the exact width of a large door. So I just make sure I ride on the outside line that makes up the bike lane. I see people open doors all the time and the open door is always like 10 inches to a foot away from the bike lane line.

Lane position is a complicated subject, and very situational. FYI: Advice about lateral positioning when just traveling along (i.e., when not positioning for a destination) from the UK's Cyclecraft (http://www.lesberries.co.uk/ccraft/ccraft.htm) publication:The primary riding position [for bikes] is in the centre of the [outer] most moving traffic lane..... Because the primary riding position can cause inconvenience to following drivers, it is reasonable to ride further to the [outside] when this could help others, as long as you own safety is not thereby impaired. At these times you should adopt the secondary riding position, which is about one meter from the [outer edge] of the moving traffic lane if the road is wide, but no closer than 0.5 meter to the edge of the road.

... bike lanes ... in NYC, they're the exact width of a large door. So I just make sure I ride on the outside line that makes up the bike lane. Since a BL functions as a buffer space for car doors, we really ought to hold a contest to choose a more appropriate name for BLs. Door lane has already been suggested elsewhere, but here are three other candidates:
no-cycling lane
no-man's lane (no-person's lane?)
cyclist reservation (i.e., a place to keep riders from delaying the advance of cars)

It seems counterintuitive that getting out into the lane would have people give you more passing room. But I've found that this is exactly what happens. Even when I ride on a 2-lane road with a 45 mph speed limit and I'm going uphill if I get out into the lane at least a few feet everyone stops, waits to see if it's safe to pass, then passes respectfully. If I ever hug the curb (I haven't in years btw) the drivers think "hey, I can squeeze through the opening without going over the holy yellow line". You just have to have confidence that you are a legal road user and that you are traffic. Try it out and get back to us on the results.

This is my experience and my husband's experience also. If you are trying to be the "good guy" and are at the edge of the road, people will try to pass you dangerously close because they don't want to cross the middle divide. It seems that if you are riding in a responsible manner, no swerving or bobbing in and out of parked cars and the like, the further out you are into the lane of traffic, the more room people give you when passing.

And believe me, it is better to be passed with 5 feet of room than to be passed by 12 inches of room.

Since a BL functions as a buffer space for car doors, we really ought to hold a contest to choose a more appropriate name for BLs. Door lane has already been suggested elsewhere, but here are three other candidates:
no-cycling lane
no-man's lane (no-person's lane?)
cyclist reservation (i.e., a place to keep riders from delaying the advance of cars)


How about "standing room only" since they're mainly used by idling cars "standing" while their drivers go shopping? ;)

Lot's of great advice in this thread.

I'm with Bruce and follow the advice of the author of Cyclecraft, John Franklin, who recommends using the center of the lane -- about 6 feet into a 12 foot wide lane, as the primary riding position. Of course, when faster traffic approaches from the rear (for which I monitor with my sunglass-mounted mirror every 3-5 seconds) I temporarily move into the secondary riding position, closer to the edge of the road (but still at least 3 feet from the edge), but only if it is safe and reasonable to do so.

This topic is the subject of the poll thread I started asking forum members to identify their primary riding position.

Since a BL functions as a buffer space for car doors, we really ought to hold a contest to choose a more appropriate name for BLs. Door lane has already been suggested elsewhere, but here are three other candidates:
no-cycling lane
no-man's lane (no-person's lane?)
cyclist reservation (i.e., a place to keep riders from delaying the advance of cars)


Clavicle Removal Lane

No cars what so ever. Basically riding in the middle of the lane for no reason.

Was it a Sunday morning with no other vehicles around on a multi laned road... perhaps 3 lanes either way, so really there wasn't any reason for the cyclists to not take and hold their own lane? Could the motorists have easily gone to another lane without slowing down? Was there enough road for everybody... ?

There is not enough detail in your description to know what the conditions were.

Gene did you read the OP and subsequent posts? I think you're talking his "No cars what so ever" statement out of context. The context was in response to someone asking if there were any parked cars that would explain why he was so far over. From the OP it was clear that there were cars following and being impeded, including georgiaboy himself.

Gene did you read the OP and subsequent posts? I think you're talking his "No cars what so ever" statement out of context. The context was in response to someone asking if there were any parked cars that would explain why he was so far over. From the OP it was clear that there were cars following and being impeded, including georgiaboy himself.

I read it, and I want a clear understanding of the road... and the situation.

One man's "impeding" is another man's quiet Sunday drive.

I was honked at several Sunday morning's ago for riding basically in the middle of the right most lane on Clairemont Mesa Blvd. (OK, slightly right of middle... I don't do "middle") Three lanes going in my direction, with me in the outter most lane.

Now the driver that came up behind me and honked, felt he was being impeded... his statement was I was "not over far enough to the right."

Well the other two lanes being open to his left made me think he was not over far enough to the left. :D.

So a clearer picture needs to be painted of this entire situation, before I'll buy "impeded."

In my mind, if there are not at least 3 cars behind me with turn signals on, crawling along waiting to change lanes... there is no "impeding." ;)

I use "impede" slightly differently. Anytime anyone is interfering with or slowing the progress of someone else, to me that's impeding. Of course, by that definition, it's practically impossible to cycling in any kind of significant traffic without impeding someone at least some of the time.

So in terms of what a cyclist is supposed to do, I prefer to think of necessary or reasonable impeding vs. unnecessary nor unreasonable impeding.

So in your CM Blvd example, I would say you were impeding traffic, but it was reasonable to do so in that situation.

By the way, I think CA law is pretty good at specifying when impeding is and is not reasonable.

Serge

6' here normally. Good way to avoid the plethora of broken beer bottles, etc. and gives me room to navigate in cases where I get no room because the person is on their cell, etc. and just not paying attention to what's on the road.

I think you're all nuts. Why on earth would anybody want to ride down the middle of the lane? It is impeding traffic if you don't get out of the way and just expect people to change lanes. Unless there's a real reason why you can't just ride off to the side you are being inconsiderate and giving drivers more reasons to get mad at cyclists. A real reason is not some fantasy reason that people will purposefully move over to the right to run you over if you are over there.

I use the bike lane and I keep about 4-5 feet between me and the right edge of the road. The right edge of the road includes the cars or bushes on the side as far as I'm concerned. In other words, the right edge is the curb + the bushes + the cars + a 4-5 foot buffer zone. That turns out to be right smack in the bike lane almost all the time.

Staying to the right doesn't cause drivers to pass me too closely, with one strange exception. The only place people insist on trying to pass no matter how unsafe is on one hill of my commute on the way down. There's no bike lane and no shoulder. That is the only normal-sized road I ride down the middle of the lane.

I use "impede" slightly differently. Anytime anyone is interfering with or slowing the progress of someone else, to me that's impeding. Of course, by that definition, it's practically impossible to cycling in any kind of significant traffic without impeding someone at least some of the time.

So in terms of what a cyclist is supposed to do, I prefer to think of necessary or reasonable impeding vs. unnecessary nor unreasonable impeding.

So in your CM Blvd example, I would say you were impeding traffic, but it was reasonable to do so in that situation.

By the way, I think CA law is pretty good at specifying when impeding is and is not reasonable.

Serge


I was only impeding if the driver had a one track mind... in which case he should have been on a train, not in a car with two empty lanes to his left. Nope, no impediment about it... it was purely a case of a driver who felt he owned the lane... and all of the darn road too.

As far as I was concerned, since there were three lanes, and very very little traffic (maybe one car per 1/2 mile, per lane)... I had every right to the entire right lane. If this upset that motorist... then perhaps they did not have the right mindset to drive in the first place. Imagine what this guy thinks on a Monday morning with bumper to bumper traffic... probably looking for that glove box revolver right now...

I think you're all nuts. Why on earth would anybody want to ride down the middle of the lane? It is impeding traffic if you don't get out of the way and just expect people to change lanes. Unless there's a real reason why you can't just ride off to the side you are being inconsiderate and giving drivers more reasons to get mad at cyclists. A real reason is not some fantasy reason that people will purposefully move over to the right to run you over if you are over there.

I use the bike lane and I keep about 4-5 feet between me and the right edge of the road. The right edge of the road includes the cars or bushes on the side as far as I'm concerned. In other words, the right edge is the curb + the bushes + the cars + a 4-5 foot buffer zone. That turns out to be right smack in the bike lane almost all the time.

Staying to the right doesn't cause drivers to pass me too closely, with one strange exception. The only place people insist on trying to pass no matter how unsafe is on one hill of my commute on the way down. There's no bike lane and no shoulder. That is the only normal-sized road I ride down the middle of the lane.


Diane, in the case of the road I was on, there is no BL. But there are three lanes each way. At that particular location there were no parked cars, but there were parked cars and a notorious market full of somewhat awkward asian drivers about a block ahead.

I'm sorry you feel that one should never ride down the middle of the lane... If I held to that, I could never leave my house. The main east west boulevard near my house is two lanes either way with parked cars on either side... in order for me to get 4-5 feet away from the parked cars, I am nearly in the middle of the lane. There is no BL on that road. I usually avoid the middle of the lane because of grease, but I often ride just to the right of middle on that road... either that or be magically transported to the nearest BL.

Other than that, why must a motorist use the right lane when two other lanes are available? As in the other situation I describe. What makes the right lane "their lane?" Why on a quiet Sunday, with nearly no other traffic around, and there are 2 other lanes wide open, should a motorist choose to use the only lane in which there is a cyclist, and then harass said cyclist? Is it really that difficult for them to swing the steering wheel just a bit to the left and then back again?

I think you're all nuts. Why on earth would anybody want to ride down the middle of the lane? It is impeding traffic if you don't get out of the way and just expect people to change lanes. Unless there's a real reason why you can't just ride off to the side you are being inconsiderate and giving drivers more reasons to get mad at cyclists. A real reason is not some fantasy reason that people will purposefully move over to the right to run you over if you are over there.

I use the bike lane and I keep about 4-5 feet between me and the right edge of the road. The right edge of the road includes the cars or bushes on the side as far as I'm concerned. In other words, the right edge is the curb + the bushes + the cars + a 4-5 foot buffer zone. That turns out to be right smack in the bike lane almost all the time.

Staying to the right doesn't cause drivers to pass me too closely, with one strange exception. The only place people insist on trying to pass no matter how unsafe is on one hill of my commute on the way down. There's no bike lane and no shoulder. That is the only normal-sized road I ride down the middle of the lane.

Sounds like you have some pretty large 10 foot wide bike lanes there. We have a couple of them here too, but most of them max out at about 5 feet. Many times there is no bike lane, and the remaining lanes are not wide enough to share with a car. In these cases, I ride in the middle of the lane. The reason I do this is that it is a visible position and it doesn't tempt cars to try to squeeze past in the same lane. If the lane isn't wide enough to share anyway, why go to the right? And what's so hard about using another lane to pass?

I use "impede" slightly differently. Anytime anyone is interfering with or slowing the progress of someone else, to me that's impeding. Of course, by that definition, it's practically impossible to cycling in any kind of significant traffic without impeding someone at least some of the time.
I was only impeding if the driver had a one track mind... in which case he should have been on a train, not in a car with two empty lanes to his left. Nope, no impediment about it.

Gene, you're reusing the term without specifying the definition you're using, or how it's different from what I said. According to the usage I presented, which is consistent with the m-w.com definition, you are impeding because, by requiring someone else to change lanes, you are interfering with their progress. Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with impeding in this case and in many other cases, but it is impeding per the definition of the word as I understand it.

What definition of "impeding" you're using is still unclear to me.

Gene, you're reusing the term without specifying the definition you're using, or how it's different from what I said. According to the usage I presented, which is consistent with the m-w.com definition, you are impeding because, by requiring someone else to change lanes, you are interfering with their progress. Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with impeding in this case and in many other cases, but it is impeding per the definition of the word as I understand it.

What definition of "impeding" you're using is still unclear to me.

Same definition... I didn't "require" him to change lanes at all... he had two choices... choices that he could have made at any time. He could have followed me, or he could have chosen to drive in another lane long before he came to me.

If a motorist choses to use the same lane I am in, inspite of all the empty lanes all around, that is their choice, therefore I did not impede, they just "chose poorly."

Look, it's just a little semantic game here... I understand what you are saying... but the bottom line is that with "acres" of open roadway... why the heck is some motorist gonna "insist" on using the same lane as the "only" cyclist on the road, and then harass that lone cyclist. What causes that kind of motorist idiocy?

This behaviour is seen all the time on the freeways too... One guy in one lane driving a bit slower (or perhaps just at the speedlimit) and you get the idiots that come up behind and then tailgate.... soon start flashing their lights etc. Yet, gee it never occured to them to simply change lanes?

Do people do this when they walk through crowds too... walk up to someone who might be having a conversation and then stop behind them and get all annoyed because they "can't go around." You'd think they had blinders on...

And yet this is exactly the actions we cyclists see on city streets... and rather then drive around us, as they might do with a cement truck, some motorists chose to confront us instead... WHY?

BTW this is not the only time I have faced this kind of odd behaviour... Of course, you have never experienced it... no doubt. :rolleyes:

I suppose that I, as a responsible VC cyclist, should have looked in my mirror, noted the impending arrival of faster traffic, and since I was anticipating upcoming hazards to me, should have simply signaled and moved to the next lane left, which after all, was empty... right?

Motorist couldn't anticipate though, huh? "Oh gosh, a cyclist; What ever should I do?"

Same definition... I didn't "require" him to change lanes at all... he had two choices... choices that he could have made at any time. He could have followed me, or he could have chosen to drive in another lane long before he came to me.

im·pede : to interfere with or slow the progress of

He could have followed me [which would mean you would be slowing his progress], or he could have chosen to drive in another lane long before he came to me [maybe he didn't want to change lanes - that's impeding, by definition]

What am I missing?


If a motorist choses to use the same lane I am in, inspite of all the empty lanes all around, that is their choice, therefore I did not impede, they just "chose poorly."
No Gene, by your presence requiring him to change lanes you would not be slowing his progress, but you would be interfering with his progress - so that's still impeding. If he makes the poor choice of not changing lanes, then he's choosing to be slowed. The choices you offer are impede like this (by slowing) or like that (by interfering).

The point is that requiring him to change lanes is interfering, and interfering is impeding.


Look, it's just a little semantic game here... I understand what you are saying... but the bottom line is that with "acres" of open roadway... why the heck is some motorist gonna "insist" on using the same lane as the "only" cyclist on the road, and then harass that lone cyclist. What causes that kind of motorist idiocy?
No. The point is that it's often perfectly fine for a cyclist to impede a motorist, and we shouldn't get all defensive about it. It's okay to impede. The motorist, in this case, sees it is unnecessary or inappropriate impeding. I see it as reasonable and appropriate impeding. You see it as not impeding.

im·pede : to interfere with or slow the progress of

He could have followed me [which would mean you would be slowing his progress], or he could have chosen to drive in another lane long before he came to me [maybe he didn't want to change lanes - that's impeding, by definition]

What am I missing?


What you are "missing" is that you are playing a very specific semantic game, while overlooking the big picture.

Do you know what the definition of "is" is?

It's only impeding if you can pull over but you don't. Gene, if you have parked cars + 4-5 ft buffer and that puts you in the middle of the lane, then fine. That happens to me sometimes. But I think it's nuts to just go down the center of the lane when there's plenty of space on the right. I only do that on steep downhills with lots of curves, like the hill on my way home.

In fact, I took notice today and I actually ride about 3 feet or less from the side on a lot of roads. There is nothing in my way, no curb, no parked cars, no bushes, no debris, no roots, no bike lane, no white line, even. So why they heck not just stay over on the right and let the cars go by. Whether or not I'm anywhere on the road there is bound to be some idiot who passes too close, and if I see him in my mirror soon enough, with a nice soft shoulder only 3 feet or less away, I think I'm actually safer than if I have to take a dive into some asphalt. And god forbid if I'm hit, I'd rather hit my head on the dirt than the road.

Gene, I'm not missing the big picture. The big picture is you were doing nothing wrong - we agree on that. Put it aside. It's a non-issue.

But if you think this is purely semantic, then you're the one missing something. As usual, you're dodging the point I'm trying to make, which is not semantic (an argument about a definition).

Do you agree that in some cases it's perfectly fine for a cyclist to impede motorists, using your definition of impede?

It's only impeding if you can pull over but you don't. Gene, if you have parked cars + 4-5 ft buffer and that puts you in the middle of the lane, then fine. That happens to me sometimes. But I think it's nuts to just go down the center of the lane when there's plenty of space on the right. I only do that on steep downhills with lots of curves, like the hill on my way home.

In fact, I took notice today and I actually ride about 3 feet or less from the side on a lot of roads. There is nothing in my way, no curb, no parked cars, no bushes, no debris, no roots, no bike lane, no white line, even. So why they heck not just stay over on the right and let the cars go by. Whether or not I'm anywhere on the road there is bound to be some idiot who passes too close, and if I see him in my mirror soon enough, with a nice soft shoulder only 3 feet or less away, I think I'm actually safer than if I have to take a dive into some asphalt. And god forbid if I'm hit, I'd rather hit my head on the dirt than the road.


Sure if there is no way to pull over that is one thing... but what about taking a full right lane when there are two other perfectly good empty lanes to the left.

Why should I be pressured into moving more to the right, using less then half of an empty lane, if there are two other full usable empty lanes that motorists can use on the same road?

Serge, Diane? Can either one of you see that if there are three empty lanes, and I want to use one, that motorists can quite easily use the other two with very very little effort on their part... why should I have to "keep watch" and meander back and forth with each (if any) approaching motorist, when they can easily have the use of two other full lanes. Can those (or in this specific case the "one") approaching motorists not see me and judge that "hey there is plenty of room on this wide road... I'll just move to one of the other empty lanes... "

If there were a slow tractor, or road working equipment doing the same thing I was, that motorist would have no second thoughts about moving over to either of the other two empty lanes... yet, for a cyclist, the motorist thinks... "hmmm, no rights to 'my road', therefore force the cyclist more to the right.... "

6 Ft sounds reasonable to me. I want cars to be conscious of my position when they pass me.

If I take the road I ride in the 1st 1/3 most of the time until Cars decide to buzz me then I take the rest of the lane riding about 3ft from the yellow line. The law in most State have a Safety clause in them is as far to the right as is safe if cars are not respecting your space giving you at minimum 3ft then it is not safe IMO.

I hug the curb.
I play the "good neighbor" to keep drivers happy.

Serge, Diane? Can either one of you see that if there are three empty lanes, and I want to use one, that motorists can quite easily use the other two with very very little effort on their part... why should I have to "keep watch" and meander back and forth with each (if any) approaching motorist, when they can easily have the use of two other full lanes. Can those (or in this specific case the "one") approaching motorists not see me and judge that "hey there is plenty of room on this wide road... I'll just move to one of the other empty lanes... "

Sure, maybe it seems reasonable to you. But from the motorist's point of view you're a damn fool who is in the way. And there are a whole lot more motorists paying taxes and voting than bicyclists. They already want us off the roads and out of the way. I prefer not to annoy them and give them any reason to get activist about their hatred of bicycles.

I hug the middle of the road.
I play "visible cyclist" to keep myself alive.