Vehicular Cycling (VC) - The essence of cyclist rights/reasons to take the lane?

I think this passage (slightly edited) from another thread succinctly describes the essence of cyclist rights and practical safety reasons to take the lane, when it is appropriate to do so.

Blocking traffic is unlawful conduct for any driver. 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.

What do you think?

The ironic thing is that there is a message going around the SDCBC that basically outlines the same issues with the general response of motorists... that of the motorist believing that they own the road and therefore cyclists should get out of the way. This attitude is somewhat emphasized by road designed for 50MPH motor traffic.

If we expect motorists to act in any other way (ie properly)... surface street roads should not be built to resemble freeways and motorists must be reminded of their responsibilities to drive in a proper lawful manner. This responsibility must include the use of the brake pedal by the motorist when cycling traffic dictates. (oddly enough, motorists generally don't seem to have too much problem slowing down for other motorists... as evidenced by the twice a day "rush hour" display on every major freeway. )

JF's quote says as a cyclist I'm entitled by law to occupy a lateral position that prevents such dangerous overtaking.

But just because you are entitled doesn't mean that it's always the wisest choice or that you'll reap the bet results.

sightlines and dangerous overtaking?

that's it?

weak. it doesn't jive with your pet powerweave technique either, head.

paltry and incomplete. not accurate or all-encompassing at all.

I think this passage (slightly edited) from another thread succinctly describes the essence of cyclist rights and practical safety reasons to take the lane, when it is appropriate to do so.

Originally Posted by John Forester: "Blah, blah,blah"

What do you think?

:rolleyes:
I think What a toady!

I think this passage (slightly edited) from another thread succinctly describes the essence of cyclist rights and practical safety reasons to take the lane, when it is appropriate to do so.

What do you think?

This quote considers only one of many different legitimate reasons to operate in the primary (center-ish) position in the lane: A narrow two-lane road with insufficient sight distance. Here the primary concern is suprises from oncoming traffic that may occur during the motorist's pass, and the utility of discouraging a too-close same-lane pass in such locations.

The "essence" of cyclists' right to take the primary lane position derives from our right to use the roadway as vehicle operators, the safety benefits of increased visibility and hazard clearance near the center of a travel lane, and the reality that side-by-side operation of a bicycle and a motor vehicle in a single lane is often undesirably unsafe and should be discouraged in such situations. These situations are affected by everything from road design and maintenance to the speeds and destinations of the road users involved.

What do I think?

He's right, as far as he takes it in that one paragraph. There are many other reasons to take the lane. Some even related to passing, even in situations where effective sight-lines are present.

If we are talking about a lane that is not wide enough for a motorists and cyclists to safely share side by side John is basically correct. But if there is extra width (bike lane or shoulder) then things get a little tweedier. Technically a cyclist is not entitled by law to take this kind of lane but has to make a case that there is a “hazard” they are avoiding by leaving the right side of the roadway. Steve’s response is a better articulation of that case and the hazards that are being avoided.

I think this passage (slightly edited) from another thread succinctly describes the essence of cyclist rights and practical safety reasons to take the lane, when it is appropriate to do so.



What do you think?


Partially right. Heres why i take the lane at various points on various roads. When coming to a intersection/stoplight esp when turning left or going strait with a right turn strait and left turn lane. Simply put i do not want to be stuck trying to cross multiple lanes of traffic for my turn. Coming up on narrow bridges etc. Buddy of mine nearly fell off the jhonson road over pass going over 21. No car involved his chain decided to snap and he lost control. His bike ended up in the median on 21 while he hung on to the railing.

Now Why i take the lane in areas where passing is not safe etc.
It is not to force a 2 ton car to pass me safely sorry that will not ever happen they ither will or they wont. I take the lane so that i have more room to move over to the right when a driver passes to closely and i know they are going to do so. Instead of having a foot or 2 to work with i have 4 or more feet to work with.

:rolleyes:
I think What a toady!

I agree.

fawning adulation over a flawed, incomplete analysis.


weak. toadyism at its most stinky.