Well, sorry to keep you all hanging for so long but I finally have an update and it's not the one I had hoped to give. The judges's conclusion after the trial was that [paraphrasing] it is an "utter folly" to believe that a law that states that cyclists should ride as far right as practicable allows me to ride in the center of the travel lane. If my interpretation were correct, we'd have cyclists all over the place taking up a full lane on the roadway because 99.9% of lanes in Delaware are not wide enough to share. I am not only hazardous to myself and others, I am "suicidal" and riding in the center of the lane is a "recipe for disaster".[end paraphrasing]

My one regret during the trial was that I did not attack the officer's opinion (and it is an opinion as nothing actually happened) that I was a "legitimate hazard" on the roadway. I solely spoke about the lane width being too narrow to share which is of course what I was actually cited for. Apparently, emotional response trumps logic at least in the lower Delaware courts. I will be appealing. Oh, and my fine was raised (by $80 and now totals $183 with court costs). Is that even allowed?

Are you even allowed to appeal? Was your case heard in a Justice of the Peace Court or an Alderman's Court? If your case was heard in a Justice of the Peace Court, you may not be eligible to appeal if your fine is less than $100 (I'm not sure if court cost assessment is considered part of the fine).

http://courts.delaware.gov/How%20To/Traffic/?JPTraffic.htm

He then went on to say that I had left him no choice but to ticket me because I was not cooperating. He stated the obvious, "I guess I'll be seeing you in court," to which I replied, "Sure will."

If the officer says you were not cooperating, he probably interpreted your behavior as argumentative. It sounds like you had a chance to get out of receiving a ticket, but chose to argue your case with the police officer instead. If that is what you wanted to do, fine.

For me, even if I know the law inside out and sideways, it is never my objective at a traffic stop to teach a police officer about the law or make a point. There are more appropriate, more effective, and cheaper ways to do that. My objective is to 1) not get a ticket, and if that fails 2) do everything possible to help my case in court (which consists of not admitting guilt and trying to make the stop as uneventful and unmemorable as possible).

Attorney fees, even for a $45 ticket, are likely to run around $300.

So far, the update on this case completely stinks.


Just yesterday on my ride home, I stayed to the far left of a 2 lane road approaching a left-turn into the mall which I use as a pass-through. Just behind me was an officer and as I approached the turn he used his police blaster horn on me ... I just kept on riding and ignored him, took the entire right hand lane of the area inside of the mall.

He followed me all the way through the mall and then I made a left onto a sidewalk (going the wrong way) and then crossed over a busy intersection and he just left me alone.

I bet if I would have tried to talk, or argue with him that I may have a ticket to play with ....

Not me. I'm just some guy who rides a bicycle, and I make no claims to any expertise. That aside, I was fortunate enough to able to train with some pretty high-level racers; people that you would have known, at least if you followed the racing scene 20 years ago. And those folks tended to ride a lot like 1Easyrider has described. So in the "My expert is better than your expert" game, I've got a bunch of men who made a living racing bicycles, and you've some fat guy who used to ride to work and then wrote a book about it. :p
Other than some basic bike handling skills that overlap both areas, racing and traffic cycling are two different skill sets. This is not to say that all racers don't have good traffic cycling skills, but that being a good racer doesn't necessarily make that person a good traffic cyclist. After all, would you consider someone that rides only on the track to be a skillful traffic cyclist?

In one sense, some fat guy who used to ride to work and wrote a book about it could be more of an authority about riding in traffic, because unlike the racer, he can't rely on a sudden sprint to take advantage of a small gap to get to a left turn pocket, for example. :D

The trouble, IMO, is with the insane interpretation of "as close as practicable" espoused by many here. In one breath it'll be "Of course, we'll be to the right when it's safe" and in the next it'll be "But it's never safe." In the scenario described by the OP and later illustrated by another poster, top riders would position themselves out of traffic. But the OP and his defenders insist that despite the opinions and actions of top level riders, the police, AND a judge, the only safe way to negotiate that section of road is by blocking traffic. Hmm...
There's going to be situations where 99.99% of those on this forum would consider wide enough to safely share, and other situations where 99.99% would consider too narrow to safely share. But then there's situations that are a gray area, where 50% of cyclists might feel it's wide enough to safely share but the other 50% of cyclists feel it is not. Most police and judges would probably say that cyclists should always be out of the way of traffic, regardless of the lane width and other factors (debris, etc.). Unfortunately, rather than giving the cyclist the latitude to determine where is a safe place to ride without second guessing from non-cycling police and judges, the law puts the burden on the cyclist to justify why he's not riding near the curb - something that is not required for other road users, not even other slow road users.

Most police and judges would probably say that cyclists should always be out of the way of traffic, regardless of the lane width and other factors (debris, etc.). Unfortunately, rather than giving the cyclist the latitude to determine where is a safe place to ride without second guessing from non-cycling police and judges, the law puts the burden on the cyclist to justify why he's not riding near the curb - something that is not required for other road users, not even other slow road users.

Unless you live in California, the law cannot require you to ride in an unsafe manner and AASHTO defines what is safe.

In general, 4.2 m (14 feet) of usable lane width is the recommended
width for shared use in a wide curb lane.
AASHTO guide for the development of bicycle facilities pg 17

Riding on roadways or on highway.
(a) Riding to right side of roadway.- Each person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter at a speed less than the speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing on a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable and safe, except when:
...
(6) Operating in a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motor scooter and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

MD's law which I believe is fairly common wording.

Other than some basic bike handling skills that overlap both areas, racing and traffic cycling are two different skill sets. This is not to say that all racers don't have good traffic cycling skills, but that being a good racer doesn't necessarily make that person a good traffic cyclist. After all, would you consider someone that rides only on the track to be a skillful traffic cyclist?
This would be a great point if not for the fact that racing cyclists and commuting cyclists are both riding on roads. And as has been pointed out, often they are the same roads during the same peak-traffic hours. Yet the commuters seem to be the only ones making noise about all their "special" skills and requirements.


There's going to be situations where 99.99% of those on this forum would consider wide enough to safely share, and other situations where 99.99% would consider too narrow to safely share. But then there's situations that are a gray area, where 50% of cyclists might feel it's wide enough to safely share but the other 50% of cyclists feel it is not.

My experience at this site has been that many participants feel the typical lane is too narrow to be shareable and thus spend most of their time in the middle of it. I am sure that you have seen -- if not partaken in -- the fanciful calculations showing how an 11 foot, 15 foot, or even 21 foot lane is "too narrow". This was amply illustrated in the satellite pic put up of the area in question: the only person who would dream of riding in the middle of the lane in that scenario is the VC Kool-Aid drinker. Everyone else, from Lance on down, is going to be on the right side of the solid line.

Most police and judges would probably say that cyclists should always be out of the way of traffic, regardless of the lane width and other factors (debris, etc.). Unfortunately, rather than giving the cyclist the latitude to determine where is a safe place to ride without second guessing from non-cycling police and judges, the law puts the burden on the cyclist to justify why he's not riding near the curb - something that is not required for other road users, not even other slow road users.
I think most police and judges are going to give plenty of leeway in situations where the lane is genuinely too narrow to allow safe passing, or where road hazards momentarily force the cyclist into traffic. Of course, they haven't attended the A&S "re-education" camp, so they won't readily believe thing like "All shoulders contain debris so are not ever safe", Any lane narrower than 21 feet is too narrow for safe sharing so must be blocked by th cyclist at all times", or " Any time I'm within a half-mile of an intersection I need to take over the lane".

And BTW, both the law and common manner require that slower vehicles of any stripe stay to the right.

HTH!

My experience at this site has been that many participants feel the typical lane is too narrow to be shareable and thus spend most of their time in the middle of it. I am sure that you have seen -- if not partaken in -- the fanciful calculations showing how an 11 foot, 15 foot, or even 21 foot lane is "too narrow".

I think you'll find that such people are by far in the minority. They're just very noisy. That said, 11' is too narrow to share.

Amidst all this pontification, argument and debate I think that most people on here have missed the real crux of the matter.

The real crux of the matter is that JoeJack was was quite plainly and simply "BEING A SMART ARSE".

He was riding down the centre of the lane with a tailback of traffic queing up behind him whistling dixie and saying to himself: "up yours car drivers".

Unfortunately the Law was in the que behind him and was obviously pi$$ed of with the smart arses behaviour so he gave him his come uppance.

JoeJack, IF YOU CAN'T PAY THE FINE, DON'T DO THE CRIME and stop behaving like a smart arse because, 1) you're giving us sensible cyclists a bad name and 2) you're taking up far too much bandwith (as well as lane width).

11' is too narrow to share.

Rubbish. There hasn't been a road built that that can't be shared, provided that the cyclist keeps as far to the right (or left, depending upon which country you're riding in) of the road as possible.

These cyclist's that aren't able share the road with motorists are either poor ones that shouldn't be let loose on a road or they are "JoeJack type" smart arses.

...riding down the centre of the lane with a tailback of traffic queing up behind him whistling dixie and saying to himself: "up yours car drivers".


Shorthand for this technique is "VC".

And thanks for asking! :roflmao:

Rubbish. There hasn't been a road built that that can't be shared, provided that the cyclist keeps as far to the right (or left, depending upon which country you're riding in) of the road as possible.

These cyclist's that aren't able share the road with motorists are either poor ones that shouldn't be let loose on a road or they are "JoeJack type" smart arses.


:beer:

Where I commute you would probably not get a ticket, but a manditory 3 day
stay in a mental health facility for VC'ing traffic if you werent dead already.
You learn to make do with a whopping 10" when the lanes end. And, its no
problem, really.
I hate cars on many differnt levels but in our society the onus is put on us to work
with them, unfortunately. But, VCealots who need to double up on their prozak and
lithium everytime a car passes them think the same way cars do....they are not
going to be inconvenienced in any way by a car. A look at all the "I got road raged
today" and "Cut off by angry driver", "pulled over and ticketed" post shows how well
this theory works.

JoeJack, IF YOU CAN'T PAY THE FINE, DON'T DO THE CRIME and stop behaving like a smart arse because, 1) you're giving us sensible cyclists a bad name and 2) you're taking up far too much bandwith (as well as lane width).

I’ll just say I strongly disagree with this AND it’s all us other smart arses who are taking up the bandwidth not JoeJack.

If you want to support that there is one and only one correct place on the road for a cyclist to ride under all conditions and any other position that unduly requires a motorist hardship by having to turn the wheel a bit to move to another lane should be severely punished by the law, that is your prerogative.

If you want to support that there is one and only one correct place on the road for a cyclist to ride under all conditions and any other position that unduly requires a motorist hardship by having to turn the wheel a bit to move to another lane should be severely punished by the law, that is your prerogative.

And what if there isn't another lane for the motorist to turn the wheel a bit to move over into ???????????

It's up to the cyclist to stop being a smart arse and get his smart arse moved over as far to the right hand side of the lane as possible......... if he isn't able to do this then he should get off push the damned thing and get to his LBS to buy a full suspension and get cycling off-road as he isn't fit to cycle on the road.

And what if there isn't another lane for the motorist to turn the wheel a bit to move over into ???????????

Then the car would just pass as it would another car.

1Easyrider is a mountain biker who never cycles on the road. He hates it when he is delayed by a road cyclist for all of 10 seconds when he is racing to the trail parking lot in his motor vehicle.

Edit - too bad he does not read his own quote:
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"!
ABRAHAM LINCOLN (1809 - 1865)

1Easyrider is a mountain biker who never cycles on the road. He hates it when he is delayed by a road cyclist for all of 10 seconds when he is racing to the trail parking lot in his motor vehicle.)

Totally wrong Smart Arse...... 80% of my cycling is road cycling. OK smart arse?

I think you'd better take heed of old Abe.....................

And what if there isn't another lane for the motorist to turn the wheel a bit to move over into ???????????

It's up to the cyclist to stop being a smart arse and get his smart arse moved over as far to the right hand side of the lane as possible......... if he isn't able to do this then he should get off push the damned thing and get to his LBS to buy a full suspension and get cycling off-road as he isn't fit to cycle on the road.

You are not talking about legal responsibilities but courteous behavior and that should be mandated on all road users and not cyclists alone. I strongly encourage all cyclists to be willing to be delayed to the same extent that they delay motorists. But *****ing about how cyclists should endure significantly increased travel time and should increase their chances of the most frequent of all car/bike collision just to save motorist the hassle of changing lanes is way overboard.

I can’t speak for all states but in MD you are only required to stay to the right if the lane can be safely shared side by side (14’) that is the law and all your whining isn’t going to change that. Next if you want to set yourself up as some sort of national expert and go head to with LAB be my guess but until you can convince LAB to change this:

Ride in the right third of the lane if there is not sufficient room for lane sharing
I think you are just full of it.

My personal experience is most drivers can get around me with no delay what so ever, 99.9…% fall within at MOST 5 seconds of delay dispersion (which is a total washout at the next light.) To advocate that cyclists must put their own safety at risk at all times to accommodate less then 0.1% of the situations is absurd to the extreme.

My point in all this is if JoeJack had been riding in the right hand turn lane as the police officer insisted and if a motorist turned cutting him off causing an accident JoeJack would most likely would have been found at fault for going straight in a right hand turn lane (this happened to me before I got involved in cycling advocacy.) Too many times police and the courts read cycling law as “as long as I can make a case that the cyclist should be riding somewhere else then they are at fault. Which equates to cyclists are almost always at fault no mater what. A case in DC where a cyclist got doored, the cyclists was at fault because “he was not riding in the center of the lane just like a motorcycle.”

There was a local case were a cyclist was making a left hand turn and got ticketed for not riding on the shoulder. As the policeman explained “You should have ridden down a half a mile to the crosswalk and used that to cross the road.” Would some cyclists do that? Sure but that does not make it a legal requirement to always use a crosswalk over a left hand turn lane.

Rubbish. There hasn't been a road built that that can't be shared, provided that the cyclist keeps as far to the right (or left, depending upon which country you're riding in) of the road as possible. These cyclist's that aren't able share the road with motorists are either poor ones that shouldn't be let loose on a road or they are "JoeJack type" smart arses.

Some lanes are not physically wide enough for a motorist to pass a cyclist without crossing the line marking. Whether or not you want to share is irrelevant. They have to move at least partially out of the lane to pass. You can't argue with physics.

Joejack's problem was that, while the painted lane was indeed too narrow to share, there was plenty of servicable pavement in the RTO lane that he could've used. He thought otherwise. Whether or not he was correct is also kind of irrelevant to the case. The point is that, adviseable or not, there was nothing illegal about what he did and shouldn't have got a ticket, especially when the issuing officer can't tell the difference between a bike lane and a right turn only lane.

My point in all this is if JoeJack had been riding in the right hand turn lane as the police officer insisted and if a motorist turned cutting him off causing an accident JoeJack would most likely would have been found at fault for going straight in a right hand turn lane (this happened to me before I got involved in cycling advocacy.)

You don't ride down the right hand side of the lane. You ride just to the right of the rightmost through lane. Cars turning right in the RTOL can either pass you on the right if there's room, or wait and turn behind you since they're slowing down anyway.

Too many times police and the courts read cycling law as “as long as I can make a case that the cyclist should be riding somewhere else then they are at fault. Which equates to cyclists are almost always at fault no mater what. A case in DC where a cyclist got doored, the cyclists was at fault because “he was not riding in the center of the lane just like a motorcycle.”

Sounds like Serge. How will they learn how to avoid such collisions if they don't get blamed for them?

You don't ride down the right hand side of the lane. You ride just to the right of the rightmost through lane. Cars turning right in the RTOL can either pass you on the right if there's room, or wait and turn behind you since they're slowing down anyway.

That was my position as the two lanes were very narrow (8’-9') so just to the right of motorists in the thru lane puts you in the far left of the right hand turn lane.

Sounds like Serge. How will they learn how to avoid such collisions if they don't get blamed for them?

Ya, in DC you'll get a ticket for riding in the middle of the lane and if you are in an accident you'll get a ticket for not riding in the middle of the lane. Sounds like a good system for learning how to ride safe. :rolleyes:

Totally wrong Smart Arse...... 80% of my cycling is road cycling. OK smart arse?

I think you'd better take heed of old Abe.....................

Riding in the gutter does not count as road riding.:rolleyes:

Riding in the gutter does not count as road riding.:rolleyes:

Who's counting? Who cares? :rolleyes:

Just what I like, 1Easyrider and ILTB competing in the same thread to see who is the biggest curmudgeon.

1Easyrider’s fundamentalist/absolutist stance is amusing. I’d not tell him where to ride on the road, but he vehemently advocates that we should all ride in the gutter like him.

Why do so may people feel the need to hector other cyclists with their so-called “best practices”?

Why do so may people feel the need to hector other cyclists with their so-called “best practices”?

I really wish I new. It also bothers me if the underling logic is just think of those poor motorV drivers who have to change lanes.

I have this thought floating in the back of my head about starting a campaign aimed at motorists:

Did a cyclist cause you to change lanes or have to slow down?
We are here to help. Call 1-800-POR-BABY
for your free ice pack for your strained wrist or ankle.

Rubbish. There hasn't been a road built that that can't be shared, provided that the cyclist keeps as far to the right (or left, depending upon which country you're riding in) of the road as possible.

Where do you position yourself to share this outer lane?

http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=34620&d=1168965110

Al

I have this thought floating in the back of my head about starting a campaign aimed at motorists:

Did a cyclist cause you to change lanes or have to slow down?
We are here to help. Call 1-800-POR-BABY
for your free ice pack for your strained wrist or ankle.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Thanks for the laugh.

You don't ride down the right hand side of the lane. You ride just to the right of the rightmost through lane. Cars turning right in the RTOL can either pass you on the right if there's room, or wait and turn behind you since they're slowing down anyway.
By Just to the right of the rightmost through lane do you mean riding where the X is (along the right edge of the rightmost through lane), or where the Y is (which is just to the right of the rightmost through lane, but in the right turn lane)?


|.....................|.......................|
|.....................|.......................|
|...................X.|.Y.....................|
|.....................|.........+--->.........|
|.....................|.........+.............|
|.....................|.........+.............|
|.....................|.........+.............|
|.....................|.......................|
|.....................|.......................|
|.....................|.......................|
|.....................|.......................|
|.....................|.......................|
|.....................|.......................|
|.....................|.......................|
|.....................|.......................|

Then the car would just pass as it would another car.

Correct, but not if the smart arse cyclist was taking the centre line

You are not talking about legal responsibilities but courteous behavior and that should be mandated on all road users and not cyclists alone..

Wehey, spot on. Congratulations!

Get JoeJack and all the others on here to buy into it then

Some lanes are not physically wide enough for a motorist to pass a cyclist without crossing the line marking.

Well that goes without saying, but when there is room and the cyclist is cycling near to the kerb the motorist can cross over this line to overtake. It's not rocket science is it?


Whether or not you want to share is irrelevant. They have to move at least partially out of the lane to pass. You can't argue with physics.

Joejack's problem was that, while there was nothing illegal about what he did and shouldn't have got a ticket, especially when the issuing officer can't tell the difference between a bike lane and a right turn only lane.

JoeJack got the ticket for being a smart arse riding down the centre of the lane when he could easily have pulled over to the right

Well that goes without saying, but when there is room and the cyclist is cycling near to the kerb the motorist can cross over this line to overtake.

The important question for most of us is whether motorists are reliable enough at detecting that there is too little width left in the narrow lane when the cyclist hugs the curb, compared to the safety of the cyclist using a more assertive position in the lane in order to communicate the inadequacy of the width.

Many cyclists have found it to be safer to ride in the center of the lane when the lane is too narrow for same-lane passing, because drivers are much less likely to misjudge or intentionally squeeze by too closely. And when riding farther from the curb, the cyclist who does get passed too closely has more room to take evasive action. This is why many cycling education programs and some state publications on cycling safety encourage cyclists to ride closer to the center of the lane if it is narrow.

Most of the police reports I've seen involving same-direction car-bike collisions are of the passing-too-closely variety where the cyclist was riding very close to the edge of a narrow lane and collided with the side of the overtaking vehicle that passed at unsafe distance. By comparison, these overtaking collisions are very rare on roads with wider lanes. The threshold between wide enough and narrow seems to be around 12 feet, but this of course depends on vehicle sizes and the condition of the edge of the road as well.

It's hard to estimate the rate of overtaking collisions involving cyclists riding closer to the center of narrow lanes because we don't know what percentage of cyclists do this. We have a scarcity of police reports describing this type of collision where I live, and a substantial number of experienced cyclists who ride near the center of narrow lanes habitually. I do it habitually wherever the lane is narrower than 12 feet (we have lots of wide pickup trucks pulling trailers where I live) and I have never heard the sounds of emergency braking behind me. The close passes are significantly less frequent when I ride in the center of these narrow lanes than when I ride near the gutter.

Experienced road cyclists desire to be allowed to decide for themselves where in the lane they should operate. Persecution of cyclists who make assertive use of a travel lane has a chilling effect on the employment of valuable defensive cycling techniques.

Well that goes without saying, but when there is room and the cyclist is cycling near to the kerb the motorist can cross over this line to overtake. It's not rocket science is it?

True. The danger is if you ride too near to the kerb, drivers can get the impression that they can pass without crossing the line, and will try it if they can't easily get into the next lane, and that's when it gets dangerous. If the lane is too narrow for them to do that safely, it's better to ride a bit more into the lane so that there is no doubt in their mind that they have to leave the lane at least partially to pass.

I don't necessarily recommend taking the centre of the lane as others do here. A metre or so from the kerb is usually sufficient I've found, but the end result is the same.

JoeJack got the ticket for being a smart arse riding down the centre of the lane when he could easily have pulled over to the right

Last I heard, being a smart-arse wasn't illegal.

By Just to the right of the rightmost through lane do you mean riding where the X is (along the right edge of the rightmost through lane), or where the Y is (which is just to the right of the rightmost through lane, but in the right turn lane)?



It's plain English Serge. Read it again and see if you can figure it out for yourself. The Human Car did it without assistance, and I believe you can too.

Where do you position yourself to share this outer lane?

http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=34620&d=1168965110

Al

How fast are they going?

How fast are they going?
In that picture probably about 20mph quickly speeding up to 45mph.
This image is 50yrds later
http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=34621&d=1168965122

This is same road with traffic at 45mph
http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=40120&d=1174496455

Al

In that picture probably about 20mph quickly speeding up to 45mph.
This image is 50yrds later
http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=34621&d=1168965122

This is same road with traffic at 45mph
http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=40120&d=1174496455

Al

I'd be riding approximately in the right tyre track then, about metre from the kerb.

I dug up the old May 26-2006 video from CDR. The truck pulled in front of me as I was going about 22mph and I followed it for a while 28-29mph as it pulled away going 35mph or so.

I know from experience on this road that centerish is far better, drivers will pull into inside lane long before they get to me and before they have to slow down. This was a unique case due to slower truck and adjacent vehicles.

I just uploaded the video - looks like I am in the right tire track:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvhon7TkwtA

Al

It's plain English Serge. Read it again and see if you can figure it out for yourself. The Human Car did it without assistance, and I believe you can too.
My understanding was that you meant Y. But I didn't want to assume, and so asked for clarification, especially since that means you seem to be encouraging through cyclists to use turn lanes.

True. The danger is if you ride too near to the kerb, drivers can get the impression that they can pass without crossing the line, and will try it if they can't easily get into the next lane, and that's when it gets dangerous. If the lane is too narrow for them to do that safely, it's better to ride a bit more into the lane so that there is no doubt in their mind that they have to leave the lane at least partially to pass.

I don't necessarily recommend taking the centre of the lane as others do here. A metre or so from the kerb is usually sufficient I've found, but the end result is the same.

In a narrow (say 12') lane riding 3' (a "metre or so") from the curb is hardly enough to discourage drivers from getting the impression that they can pass without crossing the line.

The reality is that there are two main variables.


how soon (before you're overtaken) will the driver approaching from behind realize that he cannot pass without crossing the line?
What is the likelihood that a given driver will have this realization before it's too late for him to avoid having to do something unsafe?


So what we are really trying to accomplish is to achieve a very high likelihood that each driver will have this realization soon enough.

And, in a rare reference to my own experience, I find that riding a mere 3' from the lane edge does not accomplish this nearly as well as riding 5-7' from the lane edge (still assuming a 12' wide lane). YMMV.

In a narrow (say 12') lane riding 3' (a "metre or so") from the curb is hardly enough to discourage drivers from getting the impression that they can pass without crossing the line.


And, in a rare reference to my own experience, I find that riding a mere 3' from the lane edge does not accomplish this nearly as well as riding 5-7' from the lane edge (still assuming a 12' wide lane). YMMV.

Well I guess drivers here are more competent than drivers there, then, because in my experience, a metre is enough.

Well I guess drivers here are more competent than drivers there, then, because in my experience, a metre is enough.
Huh. With wheels tracking about 3' from the curb, the 2' wide cyclist's left shoulder is about 4' from the curb, and 8' from the left edge of the lane (still assuming 12' lane), leaving 8' of space to his left. Around here drivers of 6' wide cars often seem to think that they can squeeze into the 8' space to the left of the cyclist riding with his wheels tracking about 3' from the curb. Of course, even if they drive along the very left edge of the lane, they are passing with only 2' of clearance. Drivers with cars wider than 6' who still try to squeeze in... even closer.

That's why I prefer to be at least another 2' to the left.

Which brings us right back to the point that, to at least some of the VCers around here, the "average" lane in America is "too narrow to share", thus the "best practice" is to ride around blocking traffic most of the time.

Hence all the threads by people who are astonished when they get honked at, yelled at, flipped off, ticketed, and admonished in courts of law.

Huh. With wheels tracking about 3' from the curb, the 2' wide cyclist's left shoulder is about 4' from the curb, and 8' from the left edge of the lane (still assuming 12' lane), leaving 8' of space to his left. Around here drivers of 6' wide cars often seem to think that they can squeeze into the 8' space to the left of the cyclist riding with his wheels tracking about 3' from the curb. Of course, even if they drive along the very left edge of the lane, they are passing with only 2' of clearance. Drivers with cars wider than 6' who still try to squeeze in... even closer.

That's why I prefer to be at least another 2' to the left.

And to think you believe drivers there are competent. :rolleyes:

Do as much maths as you want, Serge, my experience is still the same - riding in the kerbside tyre track is taking enough of the lane to be clear that they need to move over to pass.

Also, 2' of clearance is plenty, unless you're a nervous nelly and can't hold your line.

it's sad that you have to waste a day of your valuable time just because a cop is an idiot.

you should be able to sue them if you win.

:roflmao:

Well I guess drivers here are more competent than drivers there, then, because in my experience, a metre is enough.

Yes, one meter is enough to prevent dangerous passes in a narrow lane, if you are on a low speed road. On higher speed roads you need to make it clear much earlier that approaching motorists can not squeeze by so they have time to react. Moving further left will do this.

yes, and on a busy, high speed road like Joejack was on,

one with ample, 12 foot shoulders/right turn lanes, most savvy VC bicyclists would likely be riding IN the shoulder/turn lane and, like allister illustrates, just to the right of the rightmost thru lane. riding there, and taking due caution to avoid right hooks, moving into the main travel lanes only where necessary.

did all you rabid VC miss the section about how riding on shoulders and to the right on high speed roads is proper VC technique?

this thread is hilarious. how much have you raised for your legal defense fund, joe?

On higher speed roads you need to make it clear much earlier that approaching motorists can not squeeze by so they have time to react. Moving further left will do this.
IMO, suggesting that bicyclists should react to faster traffic by spending more time in front of it is dangerously reckless. It is almost impossible for me to believe that a rational human being can look at a 50+ MPH arterial and think that the safest place to ride a bicycle is in the middle of the lane.

IMO, suggesting that bicyclists should react to faster traffic by spending more time in front of it is dangerously reckless. It is almost impossible for me to believe that a rational human being can look at a 50+ MPH arterial and think that the safest place to ride a bicycle is in the middle of the lane.

If the lane is too narrow to share and there is not a suitable shoulder to ride on, real life experience will teach you that taking the entire lane is the safest way in this case. Do you ever ride in these conditions?