I repeat:

Just because you experience "ragin cagers" at least twice a month, that doesn't men all of us do. Maybe you should try something different. Of if it's not you're attitude they're picking up on, you might try relocating.

Hey, I did "try something different." I took up Helmet Head's suggestion that I should take a Road 1 and Road 2 class. I did just that in spite of 30+ years of cycling. Frankly I could have taught the classes. Helmet Head even took the Road 2 class with me. In both the Road 1 and Road 2 classes, while performing the proper road moves, I was honked at. HH saw the honking situation in the Road 2 class. He told me to just blow it off. The motorist was in the wrong and in discussing the situation with the motorist (he had to stop at a red light) I found out the motorist felt that we cyclists (following the LAB methods of proper lane changes and signals etc) were "doing it wrong" in that motorist's mind. He felt we should be hugging the curb "like the other bikers." I asked then how one should make a left turn... his brilliant reply: "that's your problem."

My point is that "raging cagers" that don't care one hoot about you on the road, no matter how well or predictable you are, ARE A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM. Their selfish attitudes are probably a big part of other motorists problems too.

You can do everything absolutely right... and still some dunderhead is going to feel you have no place being there. VC is not going to cure that. Educating motorists and enforcing the laws will go a lot further.

In both the Road 1 and Road 2 classes, while performing the proper road moves, I was honked at.

Do you even consider the possibilty that "road moves" that get you honked at may not be all that "proper"? It seems to me that part of the dogma is that car drivers are always in the wrong, as long as the bicyclist is "riding vehicularly". IOW, if you are "driving" your bicycle according to VC, you are right no matter how many other road users disagree with you.

We may be getting into "logical fallacy" country here, but I am reminded of the inexperienced racer who, after being accused of causing a huge pile-up, complained that "I was riding straight! It was all the other guys who weren't holding their lines!"

Do you even consider the possibilty that "road moves" that get you honked at may not be all that "proper"? It seems to me that part of the dogma is that car drivers are always in the wrong, as long as the bicyclist is "riding vehicularly". IOW, if you are "driving" your bicycle according to VC, you are right no matter how many other road users disagree with you.

We may be getting into "logical fallacy" country here, but I am reminded of the inexperienced racer who, after being accused of causing a huge pile-up, complained that "I was riding straight! It was all the other guys who weren't holding their lines!"

Well you know the slogan: "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated like drivers of vehicles."

If motorists are doing something other than treating me just like any other vehicle on the road, especially if they are doing something unsafe for themselves... whose problem is it?

If a motorist choses to do something they would not do in the presence of even a slow cement truck... what is their motivation... especially if their choice puts them directly in the path of potential harm?

Well you know the slogan: "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated like drivers of vehicles."

Yeah, I know the slogan, but I don't believe the slogan is supported by the evidence.

If motorists are doing something other than treating me just like any other vehicle on the road, especially if they are doing something unsafe for themselves... whose problem is it?
Well, A) it's the cyclist's problem, because it's the cyclist who is vulnerable, and B) if I drove my car at 15 MPH and and used it to block traffic, I'd expect some pretty shabby treatment from other road users.

If a motorist choses to do something they would not do in the presence of even a slow cement truck... what is their motivation... especially if their choice puts them directly in the path of potential harm?
Again, the bike rider/cement truck comparo is not a valid one, because the cement truck has no physical choice but to block traffic. The cyclist can move to the side of the road, where by convention -- and often law -- other road users expect to find him.

Yeah, I know the slogan, but I don't believe the slogan is supported by the evidence.


Well, A) it's the cyclist's problem, because it's the cyclist who is vulnerable, and B) if I drove my car at 15 MPH and and used it to block traffic, I'd expect some pretty shabby treatment from other road users.


Again, the bike rider/cement truck comparo is not a valid one, because the cement truck has no physical choice but to block traffic. The cyclist can move to the side of the road, where by convention -- and often law -- other road users expect to find him.

Blocking traffic is unlawful conduct for any driver. You are trying to argue about nothing at all. The question concerns whether or not there is sufficient clear sight distance to safely overtake the cyclist. If there is, the cyclist should accommodate such overtaking, but if there is not, then the cyclist is entitled by law to occupy a lateral position that prevents such dangerous overtaking, because, if that danger actually materializes, he will be caught in the tangle and may well be the only person injured, even though the fault is that of the overtaking motorist.

Blocking traffic is unlawful conduct for any driver. You are trying to argue about nothing at all. The question concerns whether or not there is sufficient clear sight distance to safely overtake the cyclist. If there is, the cyclist should accommodate such overtaking, but if there is not, then the cyclist is entitled by law to occupy a lateral position that prevents such dangerous overtaking, because, if that danger actually materializes, he will be caught in the tangle and may well be the only person injured, even though the fault is that of the overtaking motorist.

This is so good, I started a new thread with it.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=332921

I hope Six Jours responds.

Blocking traffic is unlawful conduct for any driver. You are trying to argue about nothing at all. The question concerns whether or not there is sufficient clear sight distance to safely overtake the cyclist. If there is, the cyclist should accommodate such overtaking, but if there is not, then the cyclist is entitled by law to occupy a lateral position that prevents such dangerous overtaking, because, if that danger actually materializes, he will be caught in the tangle and may well be the only person injured, even though the fault is that of the overtaking motorist.

Great... now remind the motorists.

Blocking traffic is unlawful conduct for any driver.
Taken at face value, this obviates a central principle of "VC", at least as has been presented to me here at BF.

Of course, this is immediately followed by


The question concerns whether or not there is sufficient clear sight distance to safely overtake the cyclist. If there is, the cyclist should accommodate such overtaking, but if there is not, then the cyclist is entitled by law to occupy a lateral position that prevents such dangerous overtaking, because, if that danger actually materializes, he will be caught in the tangle and may well be the only person injured, even though the fault is that of the overtaking motorist.

Which is simply a bunch of fancytalk that boils down to "The cyclist is blocking traffic".

Because he's not 78, yet.

My dad ... Now, he's 84. He'd absolutely love to ride...

As a matter of fact, he'd love to walk, but his osteoporotic hip makes it, well, a tweak uneasy. And then, there's his Parkinson's.

Again, the right recumbent...

http://www.lensride.com/
http://www.lensride.com/Photos/Cycling/05CatrikeSpeed/tabid/148/Default.aspx

Taken at face value, this obviates a central principle of "VC", at least as has been presented to me here at BF.

Of course, this is immediately followed by


Which is simply a bunch of fancytalk that boils down to "The cyclist is blocking traffic".

The cyclist IS traffic, just as the bus that slows down in front of motorists, the slow cement truck and the other motorists that slow down, for whatever reason, in front of you. What about that motorist making a left turn... who comes to a complete stop while waiting for the traffic in the oncoming lane to clear... is that motorist "blocking traffic?" Why is it that any other traffic is fine to be slowed for, EXCEPT bicycles... in your mind.

Daily, traffic is slowed by the mass of other cars... often to a speed much slower than that which a cyclist might easily maintain, and yet this is considered "normal." But to slow down for a cyclist... heaven forbid, eh?

The cyclist IS traffic, just as the bus that slows down in front of motorists, the slow cement truck and the other motorists that slow down, for whatever reason, in front of you. What about that motorist making a left turn... who comes to a complete stop while waiting for the traffic in the oncoming lane to clear... is that motorist "blocking traffic?" Why is it that any other traffic is fine to be slowed for, EXCEPT bicycles... in your mind.
You keep throwing up the unavoidable traffic interference caused by busses, cement trucks, etc. and trying to compare it to the avoidable traffic interference caused by a cyclist blocking a lane. They aren't even close to the same thing. The cement truck can't ride near the shoulder to allow motorists to pass.

But the bus might be a semi-good example to use for a moment: many cities have modified their streets so that busses have a little place to pull into, just for themselves. This makes it easier on traffic and safer for the bus passengers. The bike lane is just the cyclist's version of the bus cutout.

So which is more likely: getting cities to offer bike lanes, or getting every motorist in America to believe that it's really okay for some guy on a bicycle to ride around in the middle of traffic?

Daily, traffic is slowed by the mass of other cars... often to a speed much slower than that which a cyclist might easily maintain, and yet this is considered "normal." But to slow down for a cyclist... heaven forbid, eh?

Again, can the cars avoid impeding other cars in a gridlock situation? Not usually -- and when they can but don't, they incite the ire of other road users. The cyclist, OTOH, can almost always move to the side of the road to allow other road users to continue unimpeded. The gridlocked car is not blocking traffic by choice. The "VC" cyclist is.

Which then takes us right back to the innumerable scenarios provided by the VCers illustrating why they almost always have no choice but to impede motorists. Damned Martians.

Again, can the cars avoid impeding other cars in a gridlock situation? Not usually -- and when they can but don't, they incite the ire of other road users. The cyclist, OTOH, can almost always move to the side of the road to allow other road users to continue unimpeded. The gridlocked car is not blocking traffic by choice. The "VC" cyclist is.

Which then takes us right back to the innumerable scenarios provided by the VCers illustrating why they almost always have no choice but to impede motorists. Damned Martians.

If the unimportant drivers of vehicles on either side of the street pulled all the way over, the important people would have a clear path down the middle. Of the freeway, the unimportant people should pull onto the shoulder and into the right lane to clear the way for the important people. We all know who's on the "important" list ;)

Oh, I forgot one. The unimportant people should only operate their vehicles between midnight and 5am so that they don't slow down the important people.

It's got nothing to do with the relative "importance" of the road users. That's another VC strawman -- I'm beginning to think that it's the VCers who have self-esteem issues, as often as they bludgeon their opponents with it.

The point -- god, this is painful -- is that motorists don't have anywhere else to go. They take up a whole lane because their cars are one lane wide. This isn't morality, it's physics.

It's got nothing to do with the relative "importance" of the road users. That's another VC strawman -- I'm beginning to think that it's the VCers who have self-esteem issues, as often as they bludgeon their opponents with it.

The point -- god, this is painful -- is that motorists don't have anywhere else to go. They take up a whole lane because their cars are one lane wide. This isn't morality, it's physics.

The same often holds true for cyclists... but motorists are simply not aware of the issues... of visibility, of car doors, of cracked and broken pavement, of broken glass... often a cyclist must ride in the right tire track... which effectively blocks the whole lane.

The point -- god, this is painful -- is that motorists don't have anywhere else to go. They take up a whole lane because their cars are one lane wide. This isn't morality, it's physics.
Let's see. I learned math....

A 10 foot-wide lane. Not 12 or 14, but 10.

No shoulder but weeds and gravel.

My 2005 Toyota Corolla is almost exactly 4 feet 9 inches wide. You can fit two of them in a 10 foot lane.

An SUV is, what, maybe 6 feet? (The humongous Ford Explorer is almost exactly 6 feet wide, give or take a fraction of an inch.)

10 - 6 = 4.

4 feet from fog line, if the SUV decides not to cross the double-yellow.

It's got nothing to do with the relative "importance" of the road users. That's another VC strawman -- I'm beginning to think that it's the VCers who have self-esteem issues, as often as they bludgeon their opponents with it.

The point -- god, this is painful -- is that motorists don't have anywhere else to go. They take up a whole lane because their cars are one lane wide. This isn't morality, it's physics.

I don't think anyone's more important than anyone else on the roads. I made some ridiculous suggestions for how motorists could get out of the way if they really wanted to since you stated they could not. After all, motorists do not take up a whole 11 foot lane as you suggest. Most only use about 7 feet of that space.

I think it's a ridiculous suggestion that cyclists ride near the edge of the road inviting faster traffic to make close passes that are often unsafe on top of it, as is the case when passing around blind curves or over hill crests, when the passing motorist has no idea of the status of oncoming traffic (ever see a wide load in a narrow lane?). It's just as ridiculous to invite a motorist to try and squeeze by with oncoming traffic. You are trusting someone coming from the opposite direction (possibly a whole line of vehicles) to realize that they must adjust for the guy trying to squeeze through. You have no way of verifying that oncoming traffic recongizes what is going on. A cyclist almost always will be the loser when a motorist misjudges a pass. Why take that risk for such a small benefit? Why not just pull off the road completely if you are that concerned about others getting to their destination (which may only be the next traffic light) 30 seconds sooner?

Hey, I did "try something different." I took up Helmet Head's suggestion that I should take a Road 1 and Road 2 class. I did just that in spite of 30+ years of cycling. Frankly I could have taught the classes. Helmet Head even took the Road 2 class with me. In both the Road 1 and Road 2 classes, while performing the proper road moves, I was honked at. HH saw the honking situation in the Road 2 class. He told me to just blow it off. The motorist was in the wrong and in discussing the situation with the motorist (he had to stop at a red light) I found out the motorist felt that we cyclists (following the LAB methods of proper lane changes and signals etc) were "doing it wrong" in that motorist's mind. He felt we should be hugging the curb "like the other bikers." I asked then how one should make a left turn... his brilliant reply: "that's your problem."

My point is that "raging cagers" that don't care one hoot about you on the road, no matter how well or predictable you are, ARE A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM. Their selfish attitudes are probably a big part of other motorists problems too.

You can do everything absolutely right... and still some dunderhead is going to feel you have no place being there. VC is not going to cure that. Educating motorists and enforcing the laws will go a lot further.

Wow, what an excellent point.

If vehicular cycling is going to be made to work, we cyclists cannot depend entirely on the goodwill of motorists. We have to have the strong arm of the law behind us, protecting our rights to the road.

We can't have adequate transportational cycling without adequate support of the public. Most transportational cycling is done on the road, and that's where it starts.

...but motorists are simply not aware of the issues... of visibility, of car doors, of cracked and broken pavement, of broken glass... often a cyclist must ride in the right tire track... which effectively blocks the whole lane.
You got that right.

Once in the twilight morning downtown, I was dodging some construction plates. I had to look back, zig, zag, even change lanes (my touring bike, not my MTB :D ) Motorists held back while I did this, but a police officer was there to "correct" me.

"Please ride over to the right," he told me very politely over his loud speaker. I was angry, because he didn't know my particular problem, but I gave a nod to his kindness.

Everyone on the road needs a dad-blamed cycling education, or they're still ignorant.

The same often holds true for cyclists... but motorists are simply not aware of the issues... of visibility, of car doors, of cracked and broken pavement, of broken glass... often a cyclist must ride in the right tire track... which effectively blocks the whole lane.
This ends up being a primary matter of contention. The VCers toss up scenario after scenario "proving" that they have to be in the lane most of the time, and the rest of us just keep riding our bikes without having to take over the lane except in the rarest of circumstances. It's that disconnect that makes me wonder what's going on with some folks: VCers telling me you can't ride safely without taking over the lane all the time, and me riding safely without taking over the lane all the time.

Let's see. I learned math....

A 10 foot-wide lane. Not 12 or 14, but 10.

No shoulder but weeds and gravel.

My 2005 Toyota Corolla is almost exactly 4 feet 9 inches wide. You can fit two of them in a 10 foot lane.

An SUV is, what, maybe 6 feet? (The humongous Ford Explorer is almost exactly 6 feet wide, give or take a fraction of an inch.)

10 - 6 = 4.

4 feet from fog line, if the SUV decides not to cross the double-yellow.

I don't know math. :rolleyes:

I only know that, most of the time, I can share a lane with cars and everyone gets along just fine.

That may be too heavy a dose of reality for the VC Kool-aid drinkers, though. :p

I think it's a ridiculous suggestion that cyclists ride near the edge of the road inviting faster traffic to make close passes that are often unsafe on top of it, as is the case when passing around blind curves or over hill crests, when the passing motorist has no idea of the status of oncoming traffic (ever see a wide load in a narrow lane?). It's just as ridiculous to invite a motorist to try and squeeze by with oncoming traffic.
I think it's ridiculous that the VCers can look at a practice that's been ongoing since the beginning of bicycling and decide that it's ridiculous.

You are trusting someone coming from the opposite direction (possibly a whole line of vehicles) to realize that they must adjust for the guy trying to squeeze through.
And you are trusting that you're not simply going to get mown down as a result of riding around in front of traffic.

You have no way of verifying that oncoming traffic recongizes what is going on. A cyclist almost always will be the loser when a motorist misjudges a pass. Why take that risk for such a small benefit? Why not just pull off the road completely if you are that concerned about others getting to their destination (which may only be the next traffic light) 30 seconds sooner?
The bolded line, especially, is noteworthy, as it seems to be a cornerstone of VC. The VC advocates don't explain, though, how riding in the middle of the road makes you any less likely to suffer close passes. From what I've seen, "taking the lane" is at least as likely to result in close passes as riding to the right -- and the close passes of cyclists "taking the lane" are all too often "punishment passes" intended by irate motorist to "teach the cyclist a lesson".

Meanwhile, I continue to roll around in my bike lane, where close passes of any sort are rarer than hen's teeth.

If vehicular cycling is going to be made to work, we cyclists cannot depend entirely on the goodwill of motorists. We have to have the strong arm of the law behind us, protecting our rights to the road.

We can't have adequate transportational cycling without adequate support of the public. Most transportational cycling is done on the road, and that's where it starts.

And this is going to be achieved by riding around in front of traffic and pissing off motorists? Let me know how that works out for you...

Once in the twilight morning downtown, I was dodging some construction plates. I had to look back, zig, zag, even change lanes (my touring bike, not my MTB :D ) Motorists held back while I did this, but a police officer was there to "correct" me.
There are times when it is appropriate to "take the lane" even if that means blocking traffic. And there are times when "taking the lane", no matter how appropriate, will be met with ignorance and anger. The trouble seems to be that A) the hardcore VCer can excuse "taking the lane" in almost any concievable circumstance, and B) the hardcore VCer believes that he is always right and the motorist always wrong.

Everyone on the road needs a dad-blamed cycling education, or they're still ignorant.
And another tenet of VC: "Everyone is ignorant but me, and if we can just get enough" (insert Jesus light and a chorus here) "EDUCATION, I will be able to ride any way I want and will be adored for it".

Again, the right recumbent...

http://www.lensride.com/
http://www.lensride.com/Photos/Cycling/05CatrikeSpeed/tabid/148/Default.aspx
Well, he's been afraid of a hip replacement at 84, but I think we've convinced him (it's him not us, so I understand.) But you make a lot of sense.

Thanks for your caring attitude, Diane.

:)

(I want one of those for myself! :D)


(BTW, check out Diana Mirkin on WWW.Drmirkin.com, she rides a nice trike. Just go to the website and enter "trike" in the search window. Don't forget to check out option 4!)

Dr. Mirkin and Diana Mirkin write every report on DrMirkin.com. Much of the health news you read comes from press releases which are generated by organizations that can afford public relations. That means you may hear most about research studies that are funded by companies with something to sell. Dr. Mirkin doesn't rely on press releases; he goes directly to the medical journals. He frequently finds studies or spots trends in research that are ignored by the popular media.

Dr. Mirkin has a 20-year track record of spotting breakthroughs and recommending effective treatments long before they become standard medical care. For example, his readers and listeners knew that most stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria, not stress, and can be cured with one week of treatment - 10 years before this became routine procedure. Dr. Mirkin recommended that his listeners and readers avoid fenfluramine (one of the components of the Fen-Phen diet regime) in 1991; it was withdrawn from the market in 1997.

Dr. Mirkin has strong opinions, and you may not agree with everything he says. But when you visit DrMirkin.com, you never need to wonder whose ideas you are hearing, or whether there's a hidden agenda of someone trying to sell you something. Dr. Mirkin always backs up his opinions with references from peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The VC advocates don't explain, though, how riding in the middle of the road makes you any less likely to suffer close passes.
You either have reading comprehension problems, memory problems, or both.

From what I've seen, "taking the lane" is at least as likely to result in close passes as riding to the right -- and the close passes of cyclists "taking the lane" are all too often "punishment passes" intended by irate motorist to "teach the cyclist a lesson".

This is typical of what someone who rarely if ever takes the lane thinks. But how would he know?

There are times when it is appropriate to "take the lane" even if that means blocking traffic.
No, we should move over to "help" the poor, inferior motorists pass our great, big, nasty bikes.

The VCers toss up scenario after scenario "proving" that they have to be in the most of the time, and the rest of us just keep riding our bikes without having to take over the lane except in the rarest of circumstances. It's that disconnect that makes me wonder what's going on with some folks: VCers telling me you can't ride safely without taking over the lane all the time, and me riding safely without taking over the lane all the time.
I've noticed this too. Thanks for saying it out loud.

There really aren't as many scenarios as they claim where it's imperative to hog a whole lane. It's just not true. I think they do it for some other reason.

And then they come on here and say I'm some kind of anti-car liberal nut case who wants to make everybody in America ride a bicycle. It would be maddening if it wasn't so schizophrenic.

I "take the lane" regularly, and I do receive as what I "perceive" as "punishment passes" every so often, especially when a BL or shoulder stripe is present.

Meanwhile, I continue to roll around in my bike lane, where close passes of any sort are rarer than hen's teeth.

If you think the current discussion is talking about roads with bike lanes, you seriously need to start reading better.

If you think the current discussion is talking about roads with bike lanes, you seriously need to start reading better.

And perhaps the ultimate tenet of VC: "If you disagree with me you must have some kind of mental problem."

"Ahem."

I "hog the lane" sometimes because I feel it's safer. I don't care who puts up a verbal argument with that. Enjoy riding your bike the way you feel best.

Other times, I move over to skim the fog line to let timid motorists pass on a two-lane in heavy traffic.

Nobody is making me ride a certain way. I judge the way that's best, and do it.

Some of you who have a problem with the way others take the lane should really get out and enjoy yourselves. :D

There really aren't as many scenarios as they claim where it's imperative to hog a whole lane. It's just not true. I think they do it for some other reason.
The only reason I do it is when the lane is too narrow to share.

Except, of course, when I feel the need to piss off every other road user. That really makes my day. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, I continue to roll around in my bike lane, where close passes of any sort are rarer than hen's teeth.
Good for you. You have it nice.

Why do you want to impress, upon those who are different, your own preferred lifestyle?

An SUV is, what, maybe 6 feet? (The humongous Ford Explorer is almost exactly 6 feet wide, give or take a fraction of an inch.)



Did you measure the mirrors on that Explorer too?

There are times when it is appropriate to "take the lane" even if that means blocking traffic.

When, in your opinion, is it appropriate to take the lane and block traffic? So far, every situation where I've suggested it would be appropriate, you've deemed it inappropriate so I'm really curious where you think it's justified.

Some of you who have a problem with the way others take the lane should really get out and enjoy yourselves.

We are 90% of the way there, then. I am not really arguing that you should not "take the lane". I am merely arguing that "taking the lane", along with many other tenets of "VC", is not a panacea and should not be shoved down the throats of cyclists who are already perfectly content with their riding choices and options.

And of course, I am arguing against those who would take away bike lanes in favor of teaching cyclists to "drive" their bikes just like they are in a car.

The only reason I do it is when the lane is too narrow to share.

Me too. I have a suspicion, however, that our versions of "too narrow" are distinctly different. I'm again reminded of the fellow with the helmetcam video "taking the lane" because the street was "too narrow". He apparently needed more than the three+ feet of room between the right wheel track and the gutter pan. I don't.

Good for you. You have it nice.
Actually, I do. I live in a county where wide, clean bike lanes are the norm, and it's one of the best places I have ever ridden in North America. Which is why, when people start telling me I need to vacate the bike lane and put myself in front of 50 MPH traffic in order to be a safe and responsible bicycle "driver", I start making fun.

Why do you want to impress, upon those who are different, your own preferred lifestyle?
I'm hoping this is supposed to be droll, in light of the incredibly zealous VC advocates.

Me too. I have a suspicion, however, that our versions of "too narrow" are distinctly different. I'm again reminded of the fellow with the helmetcam video "taking the lane" because the street was "too narrow". He apparently needed more than the three+ feet of room between the right wheel track and the gutter pan. I don't.

Do you have any links to video of this?

You don't seem to recognize how where we ride affects the behavior of the motorists who are passing us. I might very well be fine riding less than a foot from the curb on an empty road closed to traffic, maybe even on the outside edge of a peloton in a crit, but I would not be okay riding there while there is motor traffic in the outside lane. Why? Because, if the lane is not really wide, riding that far right is likely to invite motorists to try to sqeeze into the lane next to me, and pass me too closely.

By moving further left, I'm increasing the amount of space on my right. This makes it natural for overtaking drivers to want to give me about that much on the left (they tend towards symmetry), so I like to have at least three feet to the right of my body (or 4' to the right of my tire track), to encourage getting at least 3' of passing space on my left from overtaking drivers.

There is one caveat. Sometimes riding in a given spot leaves just enough space for at least drivers of small cars to still try to squeeze into the lane with me, passing too closely. In that case I want to be further left to make it clear in no uncertain terms that they need to move into the adjacent lane to pass me (and, if they can't, that they have to slow down to my speed). Otherwise, I have to ride in the door zone and/or in a position that invites close passes.

Needless to say (I hope) I'm not talking about roads with wide outside lanes or bike lanes where there is obviously enough space to safely share a lane.

This ends up being a primary matter of contention. The VCers toss up scenario after scenario "proving" that they have to be in the lane most of the time, and the rest of us just keep riding our bikes without having to take over the lane except in the rarest of circumstances. It's that disconnect that makes me wonder what's going on with some folks: VCers telling me you can't ride safely without taking over the lane all the time, and me riding safely without taking over the lane all the time.
It's not just the VCers who "toss up scenario after scenario", it's the law.

21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time 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 conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm

I've broken out and organized the scenarios tossed up by CVC 21202 where cyclists don't need to ride "as far right as practicable":
Cyclist is traveling at a speed that is NOT less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time
No other same direction traffic is present or approaching.
No faster same direction traffic is present or approaching.
When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
Slower bicyclist up ahead.
Motorist slowing up ahead in preparation to turn right, or park.
Slow moving construction vehicle up ahead.
Slow/congested motor traffic.
Bus pulled over to release/load passengers.
Etc.
When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
Pretty self-evident, but not so obvious is that this includes moving left sometimes a block or two before the left turn, depending on traffic volumes, number of lanes, etc.
When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge.
To avoid fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, etc.
To avoid riding in the door zones of cars.
To avoid encouraging overtaking drivers of faster motor vehicles to share a lane "that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane"
When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
This obviates the legal obligation to keep right on almost all urban and suburban streets since on most of them driveways, alleys, mall entrances, cross streets, etc. -- where right turns are authorized -- are regularly encountered every 25-150 feet. Again, these are scenarios explicitly listed in CA law.

STILL haven't heard from john. I know he's old; I also know guys who fought in WWII who get out and exercise (bike, kayak) nearly every day....john's also out of shape (judging by the pictures)


john's reminisences about bicycling in this forum often references the 1970's or post WWII; just wondering, john, becasue that's what this thread started out about- and which you've dodged continually....


1) When was the last time you went for a good long bike ride,
2) did you ride in any bike lanes (your community is filled with bike lanes, I've heard)
and
3) when was the last time you experienced an irate motorist, honking or close swerving?

When, in your opinion, is it appropriate to take the lane and block traffic? So far, every situation where I've suggested it would be appropriate, you've deemed it inappropriate so I'm really curious where you think it's justified.
As I mentioned earlier, I'm no longer up for the never ending "scenarios" game. FWIW, I personally "take the lane" when A) the shoulder/bike lane is a disaster of glass, chuckholes, or whatever, B) the road is so genuinely narrow that cars do not physically have the room to get by me (as opposed to me being uncomfortable with a passing distance of less then four feet or whatever), and C) when a line of parked cars is present and I see that one or more of those cars is occupied.

A) Involves looking over my shoulder to ascertain the status of traffic behind and, if necessary, signalling my intent to get in their way. As soon as the glass is done, I move back into the bike lane/shoulder, and signal my appreciation to the motorist.

B) Is almost unheard of where I ride. In my experience, such roads are either way out in the boonies where there isn't any traffic, or easily avoidable in the city by simply taking a parallel route.

C) Is probably the most common scenario for me, as I make it down to PCH on most weekends and you locals know what I'm talking about. The difference between me and the VCers, I think, is that I'm willing to focus on looking through the back windows to determine which cars are occupied, and when I spot one, I again do the look over my shoulder/signal my intentions bit. This is almost certainly too much effort for the "I'll ride where I like and motorists can go **** themselves" crowd, who seem only too happy to find any excuse to be a "bicycle driver". C'est la vie.

Why? Because, if the lane is not really wide, riding that far right is likely to invite motorists to try to sqeeze into the lane next to me, and pass me too closely.

That's the heart of the matter right there.

So much fear.
It's not fear. It's about being aware of traffic all around you, and how your behavior affects them and how aware they are of your presence, and caring about that. It's about having more flexibility and comfort while riding in traffic. It's what it takes to not think it's unsafe to ride on coastal highway 1 through Big Sur .

As I mentioned earlier, I'm no longer up for the never ending "scenarios" game. FWIW, I personally "take the lane" when A) the shoulder/bike lane is a disaster of glass, chuckholes, or whatever, B) the road is so genuinely narrow that cars do not physically have the room to get by me (as opposed to me being uncomfortable with a passing distance of less then four feet or whatever), and C) when a line of parked cars is present and I see that one or more of those cars is occupied.

A) Involves looking over my shoulder to ascertain the status of traffic behind and, if necessary, signalling my intent to get in their way. As soon as the glass is done, I move back into the bike lane/shoulder, and signal my appreciation to the motorist.

B) Is almost unheard of where I ride. In my experience, such roads are either way out in the boonies where there isn't any traffic, or easily avoidable in the city by simply taking a parallel route.

C) Is probably the most common scenario for me, as I make it down to PCH on most weekends and you locals know what I'm talking about. The difference between me and the VCers, I think, is that I'm willing to focus on looking through the back windows to determine which cars are occupied, and when I spot one, I again do the look over my shoulder/signal my intentions bit. This is almost certainly too much effort for the "I'll ride where I like and motorists can go **** themselves" crowd, who seem only too happy to find any excuse to be a "bicycle driver". C'est la vie.
If you think at 15-30+ mph (downhill) you can effectively and safely monitor parked cars for occupancy, notice when one is occupied, and have enough time to look back and negotiate as required to merge left out of the door zone, you need more help than I thought.

don't you guys have other threads to argue the minuatae about bicycling in?

this thread is about john being out of shape, not bicycling anymore, and having lost touch with present day bicycling..

John,

1) When was the last time you went for a good long bike ride,
2) did you ride in any bike lanes (your community is filled with bike lanes, I've heard)
and
3) when was the last time you experienced an irate motorist, honking or close swerving?

riding that far right is likely to invite motorists to try to sqeeze into the lane next to me, and pass me too closely.
Perhaps some of us are happy to give the invitation and don't feel that every passing motorist who doesn't completely change lanes is "too close." I certainly don't.

What's "too close" are the ones who pass aggressively, even if they don't come physically "too close". Why invite motorists to practice vigilante justice upon you by lane grabbing when it isn't necessary?

John,

1) When was the last time you went for a good long bike ride,
2) did you ride in any bike lanes (your community is filled with bike lanes, I've heard)
and
3) when was the last time you experienced an irate motorist, honking or close swerving?

this reminds me of those old sprint commercials. i think i hear a pin dropping.

B) the road is so genuinely narrow that cars do not physically have the room to get by me (as opposed to me being uncomfortable with a passing distance of less then four feet or whatever),
B) Is almost unheard of where I ride. In my experience, such roads are either way out in the boonies where there isn't any traffic, or easily avoidable in the city by simply taking a parallel route.


Most of my commute is in 10'-11' lanes on a 4-lane urban/suburban road. I take the lane the whole length of this narrow lane segment; I probably get passed by about 15-50 cars depending on traffic and signal timing. I doubt any car is delayed by more than five seconds in the process of changing lanes and passing; most experience no delay at all. So I estimate that I create less than a minute of delay total for other drivers. But much of that delay is transferred to reduced delays for other drivers: whenever a gap in front of me opens up due to slowing traffic, other drivers from side streets are able to pull out earlier into the gap. This is why John Forester claims these delays as redistributed motorist-induced delays, and the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual considers a cyclist taking the lane as creating no more traffic capacity impact than one car.

There is an alternate route that I can take; it adds over ten minutes to my commute. This creates ten times more delay for myself than I save for everyone else combined on the direct route, which isn't a reasonable price for courtesy in my opinion. So, I don't take this route to be courteous; I only take it when I want a longer ride.

However, the alternate route is not without its delays for motorists. Parts of the route are narrow residential streets and feature parked cars, delaying motorists' passing of me. I also must cross arterials from side streets at signalized intersections. Oftentimes I am the only person at the side street; all arterial traffic must come to a complete stop just for me, which it does because the loop sensors detect my bike, or else I press the ped signal (the alternative is even more excessive delay for me). So, if I delay six drivers by 20 seconds with my signalized street crossing(think ped signal clearance interval), I have caused twice as much delay for motorists than I did by using the direct route.

This is where the cyclist equality belief comes into play. I believe that my time traveling by bicycle is no less valuable than other drivers' time. I believe the delays created for motorists when I or another driver travel by motor vehicle are no more legitimate than the delays caused when I travel by bicycle. Lastly, I believe the delays I create for same-direction traffic are no more important than the delays I might create for cross-traffic, regardless of my travel mode.

don't you guys have other threads to argue the minuatae about bicycling in?

this thread is about john being out of shape, not bicycling anymore, and having lost touch with present day bicycling..

John,

1) When was the last time you went for a good long bike ride,
2) did you ride in any bike lanes (your community is filled with bike lanes, I've heard)
and
3) when was the last time you experienced an irate motorist, honking or close swerving?

Another example of your vendetta, Bekologist. Have I lost touch with present day bicycling? How would you know, you who know so little about cycling, limiting yourself to some ideological agenda? And irrational at that. What difference does it make to you whether or not there are bike lanes in my community? And what constitutes a good long bike ride? Time was when it had to be at least a century over many major hills before I would so classify a ride, or a double.

Your argument is based on your feeling that bicycle transportation has changed markedly in the last few years. It has not. People as bigoted as you have been around for thirty years that I know of.

What's your evidence, Bekologist, that bicycle transportation has changed markedly in the last few years? Without such evidence, your words are worth nothing.