There is no place for curb hugging in vehicular cycling. These represent practically opposite states of mind.
at what speed does hugging the curb replace taking the lane?
Never.

Thanks for clarifying your answer John.

doubtful.

at what speed do you start hugging the edge in narrow lanes, al?

Bekologist, you keep referring to hugging the curb and hugging the edge. Which side of the edge/curb are you talking about? The side in the travel lane or the side outside the travel lane?

To me there is a world of difference between the two.

I'm referring to john's statement, which needs clarification.


"...on a narrow 2-lane rural highway under the conditions in which one would anticipate 65 mph motoring, I think that I would not take the lane.

not taking a narrow lane of a high speed road is definetly either curb hugging, edge riding, or some other type of john's apparantly self-styled 'childish cycling' method.

Bekologist, you keep referring to hugging the curb and hugging the edge. Which side of the edge/curb are you talking about? The side in the travel lane or the side outside the travel lane?

To me there is a world of difference between the two.
Hugging the curb always refers to the side of the curb on the travel lane side.
Riding near the curb on the side outside the travel lane is called riding on the sidewalk.

I'll bite. What is the basis for asserting that pro bike messengers are more likely to get injured while riding lawfully than when riding unlawfully?

Observation.

Curb hugging is the act of staying very close to the curb, or other edge of the roadway, for either or both of two reasons. One reason is that the cyclist feels that this lateral position is the only one that is legal, and often, not very legal at all. The other reason is that the cyclist feels that this lateral position is the only one that is at all safe, and often, not very safe at all. In discussion, such a cyclist might admit to his motives, but by observation the act of curb hugging is detectable only when the cyclist stays close to the curb when a different lateral position would be better.
Earlier I questioned the definition above, contending that the reason one rides near the curb is immaterial: If you're near the curb, you're curb hugging.

Upon further reflection, I have to say that given how "curb hugging" is usually used, perhaps the reason one rides close to the curb does matter.

I mean, if you temporarily move aside to let someone pass, and that happens to put you near the curb, is that really "curb hugging". Isn't curb hugging normally used to refer to someone riding near the curb for no apparent good reason, and in a way that is inherently unsafe or unreasonable?

So yeah, if you define curb hugging like that, then of course curb hugging has no place in vehicular cycling. The reason is practically tautological.

I still think it's cleaner to define curb hugging simply as riding near the curb, and admit that although curb hugging is not necessarily contrary to the vehicular rules of the road, it's rarely safe and reasonable for the situation, and so is normally not part of vehicular cycling. But it's not an absolute, there are exceptions, some of which I listed above.

So where will the funding come from to maintain the surface infrastructure if all the money goes to the underground? That is, we cyclists benefit from the motoring community who builds all the smoothly paved roads.

That statement shows a lack of understanding of transportation funding. If more people cycled instead of drove, the infrastructure would be much cheaper to build and maintain. As it is, pedestrians and cyclists subsidize motorists and roads are overbuilt to accomodate heavy vehicles and long commutes.

Sounds like you are making this up.

Yes it does. But no.

Curb hugging is the act of staying very close to the curb, or other edge of the roadway, for either or both of two reasons. One reason is that the cyclist feels that this lateral position is the only one that is legal, and often, not very legal at all. The other reason is that the cyclist feels that this lateral position is the only one that is at all safe, and often, not very safe at all. In discussion, such a cyclist might admit to his motives, but by observation the act of curb hugging is detectable only when the cyclist stays close to the curb when a different lateral position would be better.At the risk of accusing you of being obtuse, it seems that you haven't clarified your position on where to ride in a narrow high speed lane, despite repeated calls for it. You wouldn't take the lane, you said, so presumably you would ride somewhat to the right, but apparently you also don't consider that to be "curb hugging". So where would you ride and what would you call it? Would you vary your position as cars overtook and passed you?

[Curb hugging is] not vehicular because, quite simply, most other vehicles don't do it. It's outlier behavior and the entire premise of riding bicycles vehicularly despite their obvious differences to most vehicles is that behaving like an outlier is generally a bad idea.

For the record, I don't pass other vehicles on the right. I've had too many close calls this way so I only pass on the left (the usual/vehicular way).
But comparing cyclist behavior to normal driver behavior is not fair. What's more fair is to compare cyclists to drivers of slow moving vehicles (like tractor drivers on rural roads) and drivers of narrow vehicles (i.e., motorcyclists) to establish what "most other vehicles do", or what is "outlier behavior", in comparable contexts.

It is quite normal for a driver of a slow moving vehicle to operate very closely to the curb/edge in order to allow others to pass.

It is also quite normal for a driver of a vehicle to pass stopped traffic slowly and carefully on the right, when there is room. Check out any intersection with a rightmost straight-or-right lane that is wide enough for two motor vehicles to fit side-by-side, and I bet you'll find plenty of tire rubber on the curb (from curb-hugging right turners trying to squeeze through to turn right on red).

And when it's too narrow for right-turning car drivers to squeeze through by curb hugging, that doesn't stop the motorcyclists...

At the risk of accusing you of being obtuse, it seems that you haven't clarified your position on where to ride in a narrow high speed lane, despite repeated calls for it. You wouldn't take the lane, you said, so presumably you would ride somewhat to the right, but apparently you also don't consider that to be "curb hugging". So where would you ride and what would you call it? Would you vary your position as cars overtook and passed you?

Under the conditions postulated there is no reason to control the lane. Therefore, why bother to do so? As for me, I don't bother about same-direction motor traffic on such roads. Let those drivers do what they want, as long as their actions are lawful, which they generally are.

If conditions changed so that it became advisable to control the lane, then I would do so, but that's not under the conditions postulated in this discussion.

Under the conditions postulated there is no reason to control the lane. Therefore, why bother to do so? As for me, I don't bother about same-direction motor traffic on such roads. Let those drivers do what they want, as long as their actions are lawful, which they generally are.

If conditions changed so that it became advisable to control the lane, then I would do so, but that's not under the conditions postulated in this discussion.
So where would you position yourself?

So where would you position yourself?

When, under what conditions? You people are crazy about the subject of same-direction motor traffic. As I said, I don't bother much about that under the conditions postulated in this discussion. I really don't. It is the responsibility of the overtaking motorist to overtake safely, but it is also the responsibility of the slower driver to be polite about accommodating that overtaking unless other conditions make that inadvisable. I'm not bothered about my precise lateral position when there is no reason to make one more advisable than another. You people are trying to make much out of nothing, and I will not play your dubious game.

When, under what conditions? You people are crazy about the subject of same-direction motor traffic. As I said, I don't bother much about that under the conditions postulated in this discussion. I really don't. It is the responsibility of the overtaking motorist to overtake safely, but it is also the responsibility of the slower driver to be polite about accommodating that overtaking unless other conditions make that inadvisable. I'm not bothered about my precise lateral position when there is no reason to make one more advisable than another. You people are trying to make much out of nothing, and I will not play your dubious game.
Are there conditions under which you would position yourself near the edge of the road? For example: You're being passed by a long stream of relatively high speed motor traffic on a straight road; level or inclined up; good long clear sight lines; no intersections, junctions or driveways; 12' wide outside lane of a 2 lane road; 4" fog line stripe; 2" paved "shoulder"; 4-10' varying width dirt shoulder.

Are there conditions under which you would position yourself near the edge of the road? For example: You're being passed by a long stream of relatively high speed motor traffic on a straight road; level or inclined up; good long clear sight lines; no intersections, junctions or driveways; 12' wide outside lane of a 2 lane road; 4" fog line stripe; 2" paved "shoulder"; 4-10' varying width dirt shoulder.

Under that circumstance, I'd probably be cycling a bit to the left of the fog line stripe. No reason to do anything else, no reason against doing it. I would be watchful, though, because the fake shoulder might well become discontinuous and persuade me to move left, as gradually as I could make the change.

You people are trying to make much out of nothing, and I will not play your dubious game.

I'm not sure who "you people" are. I ride with confidence on city streets. However, I don't ride on high speed highways with no paved shoulder very often, and when I do I definitely "hug the curb" and move completely off the pavement when overtaken. If I'm going to be overtaken on a section with no shoulder (say a narrow bridge) I'll wait for a long enough gap in traffic so I can pass through without being overtaken. I don't know what I would do if there is no gap.

You say above you would be polite in allowing others to pass "unless other conditions make it inadvisable". So that implies there are situations where you "take the lane". What would you recommend in the case I described?

the only thing dubious in this thread is john dodging his cyclist inferiority complex.

john, i think you are confused about needing to control narrow lanes.

if a lane is too narrow to be safely shared, a bicyclist must control the lane. however, on high speed, narrow laned rural roads, you state you would not take the lane.

Cowering at the edge, suffering a self-styled cyclist inferiority complex, is what you admit to.

how about this scenario, john? helmet head's is too easy.....

10 foot lanes each direction, white stripe, no paved shoulder, just dirt. 65mph traffic moving sporadically in both directions. you see ahead and behind you two trucks that will likely pass by each other at the same time they will pass you.

do you: take the lane? or cower at the edge?

how about 55mph traffic, 2 mile bridge deck, 2 narrow lanes, k rail. do you control the lane or suck up by the edge?

at what speed does riding the edge replace taking the lane for vehicular cyclists, john? let me quote you again.....


"...on a narrow 2-lane rural highway under the conditions in which one would anticipate 65 mph motoring, I think that I would not take the lane."

john, at what speed do you stop taking the lane?

at what speed do you recommend vehicular cyclists stop taking the lane of narrow laned roads?

can a bicyclist 'not take the lane' on narrow, 30 mph roads and still be vehicular cycling?

can they dart in and out of parked cars?

the only thing 'not take the lane' in a narrow lane context means edgehugging or close to the curb. correct me if you've perfected quantum cycling, jon.

Yes it does. But no.

If it is just from personal observation, given the assertion, it might as well be made up. Mind you, the intention is good and the thought is interesting. But you omitted the possibility -- something that is far more likely by my personal observation -- that you believe it to be true but are just plain wrong.

around here, people drive roads 10-15 miles over on a regular basis, so prevailing traffic often moves 65 on 50mph marked roads.

How do you know?

Pretty much all arterial roads where I live are posted 45mph. I've seen drivers at 65 and even 80, but 50mph is normal as the flow.

It seems that there are more (which still doesn't mean many or most) folks going the speed limit these days vs. 5 years ago. I notice this when motoring mostly. I wonder if some percentage of folks drive more conservatively these days due to gas prices?

Al

Perhaps. But if we believe self reported data, 80% of people are above average drivers. And we still don't even really know how good people are at judging the "normal flow" either.

Consequently, I wonder how many rural roads there are where the average velocity is 65 mph. My guess is that when cycling, people probably overestimate passing auto velocities. Moreover, they probably remember the fast ones while forgetting the unexciting normal ones.

do you think john doesn't take the lane when the traffic is actually only moving 50 miles an hour? ;)

staying in his self-described 'childish cycling' not-taking the lane position off to the side of narrow high speed rural roads where traffic moves 50 mph?

I really want to know, john, at what speed hugging the edge replaces taking the lane?

is traffic you estimate as a cyclist moving 65 actually moving, as invisiblehand postulates, slower than you estimate?

My guess is that when cycling, people probably overestimate passing auto velocities. Moreover, they probably remember the fast ones while forgetting the unexciting normal ones.

I agree. That's why I judge these speeds of traffic while driving, not cycling. FWIW, the roads I am talking about are suburban arterials.

do you think john doesn't take the lane when the traffic is actually only moving 50 miles an hour? ;)

staying in his self-described 'childish cycling' not-taking the lane position off to the side of narrow high speed rural roads where traffic moves 50 mph?

I really want to know, john, at what speed hugging the edge replaces taking the lane?

is traffic you estimate as a cyclist moving 65 actually moving, as invisiblehand postulates, slower than you estimate?

Just the questions that you ask, Bekologist, show that you are either stupid, ignorant, or just plain nasty. I won't play your stupid game.

If it is just from personal observation, given the assertion, it might as well be made up. Mind you, the intention is good and the thought is interesting. But you omitted the possibility -- something that is far more likely by my personal observation -- that you believe it to be true but are just plain wrong.

That's personal observation and familiarity with accident histories of probably hundreds of messengers over 16 years in the business. The observation is an obvious one and I think any old messenger would share it. What is your personal observation based on?

Just the questions that you ask, Bekologist, show that you are either stupid, ignorant, or just plain nasty. I won't play your stupid game. nothing of what i proposed had any nastiness, john. invisiblehand postulated bicyclists overestimate motorists speed, and I extrapolated that to your statement about traffic reaching 65...

by the way, this isn't 'playtime'.

Either you anwser the questions about you 'not taking the lane' or you concede you have cyclist inferiority disorder. you can't bluster your way out of this by taking the fifth, john.

You hug the edges of high speed roads, john. you've admitted it ......

"on a narrow two lane highway.......I think that I would not take the lane."


by not taking the lane, you admit you have a motorist superiority disorder.

explain not taking lanes, john, what you mean by 'not taking the lane' and if it's equally appropriate for a vehicular cyclist like yourself to not take the narrow lane on both 65mph roads and 30mph roads.

curbhugger. childish cyclist. john, if invisiblehand's postulations about incorrect speed analysis are correct, it sounds like you hug the edge when motorists start driving about 50.

at what speed does not taking the lane replace taking the lane in narrow lanes, john? why do you exhibit cyclist inferiority disorder when traffic starts going fast?

at what speed does hugging the edge replace taking the lane for john forester?

does john forester also 'not take the lane' of narrow 30 mph roads?

nothing of what i proposed had any nastiness, john. invisiblehand postulated bicyclists overestimate motorists speed, and I extrapolated that to your statement about traffic reaching 65...

by the way, this isn't 'playtime'.

Either you anwser the questions about you 'not taking the lane' or you concede you have cyclist inferiority disorder. you can't bluster your way out of this by taking the fifth, john.

You hug the edges of high speed roads, john. you've admitted it ......

"on a narrow two lane highway.......I think that I would not take the lane."


by not taking the lane, you admit you have a motorist superiority disorder.

explain not taking lanes, john, what you mean by 'not taking the lane' and if it's equally appropriate for a vehicular cyclist like yourself to not take the narrow lane on both 65mph roads and 30mph roads.

curbhugger. childish cyclist. john, if invisiblehand's postulations about incorrect speed analysis are correct, it sounds like you hug the edge when motorists start driving about 50.

at what speed does not taking the lane replace taking the lane in narrow lanes, john? why do you exhibit cyclist inferiority disorder when traffic starts going fast?

The fact that you cannot get any facts straight exhibits your ideological stupidity to it fullest extent, and brings utter ignominity to what you conceive to be your cause. In a way, one can be cheered that you cannot find real arguments for your cause, but have to rely upon ideological misrepresentation. If that's the best you can do, there's hope for good.

another dodge. :roflmao: there's no 'cause', we're taking about YOUR admitted submissive, childish behavior in narrow lanes in the face of high speed traffic.

explain your lane position when you describe hugging the edge, john...you say it's when traffic reaches 65mph.

Invisible hand thinks bicyclists overestimate overtaking traffic speed, making it entirely plausible you cower at the edge of a narrow lane when traffic is only moving 50mph.

"...on a narrow 2-lane rural highway under the conditions in which one would anticipate 65 mph motoring, I think that I would not take the lane. that's edge of the road, out of the way bicycling. AND in a narrow lane. ?????


You have conceded your cyclist inferiority disorder, john.

do you hug the curb on 30mph lanes, john? at what speed does 'not taking the lane' replace 'taking the lane' on narrow laned roads? should vehicular cyclists always 'not take the lane' if they aren't keeping up with traffic?

curbhugger john forester.

you have a chance to explain your submissive curbhugging behavior on narrow laned, high speed roads, john.

at what speed does hugging the edge- not taking the lane- replace taking the lane for bicyclists in narrow lanes? 65? 50? 45? 30?

John, if you could explain the difference in your mind between 'not taking the lane' versus 'taking the lane' of a narrow lane of traffic.

That's personal observation and familiarity with accident histories of probably hundreds of messengers over 16 years in the business. The observation is an obvious one and I think any old messenger would share it. What is your personal observation based on?

Actually, I am just making it up. :D

Not entirely, of course. I know some messengers and chat with the (young) fixie crowd which around here seems to have a big overlap. I can make an argument why it would be true; but I find it far from obvious.

Moreover, I would argue that what and how people remember their histories gives the observation not much more weight than a well intentioned guess. And that is from a long line of research on survey methodology.

However, I think that it is an interesting observation and, as long as it is given the proper caveats, I think that it is worthwhile to share. Although it isn't clear by the statement in the first place what it precisely means. Who are the VC riders? What does it mean to be a VC rider? What is VC? What do you mean by safer? Less mortality? How do you compare different injuries with mortality? Do you measure this per trip/mile/person? Do you always get the same results? Who are the bike messengers? Given that it was demonstrated to be true -- or at least something we have a good deal of confidence -- then we would have to think about how these guys ride and whether certain strategies were most associated with safer travel.

-G

I agree. That's why I judge these speeds of traffic while driving, not cycling. FWIW, the roads I am talking about are suburban arterials.

I think that assessments while driving will be much better. However, I wonder how well we make our generalizations regarding the "predominate", average, or whatever speed on the roads.

Personally speaking, the average or median speed is probably not the right metric for a cycling strategy anyway.

I'd still waiting for john forester to explain the differenc between 'not taking the lane' versus 'taking the lane' of a narrow lane of traffic.


'not taking a narrow lane' as john describes it is curbhugging/edgehugging. i think those of us that still ride are in agreement with that statement?

Personally speaking, the average or median speed is probably not the right metric for a cycling strategy anyway.

So do we always plan for the worst-case drivers? What could prove quite difficult.

i think average speed of traffic IS one of the metrics in ones' bicycling strategy, invisiblehand. it's a rule of thumb how fast most motorists will go. even if its exceeded, a road marked 25mph is generally driven differently by most motorists than a 50mph arterial.


however, it appears to john forestor, his strategy is childish cycling - anytime he cannot keep up with traffic, he hugs the side of the road, not taking the lane, staying out of the way of motorists in narrow lanes, exhibiting childish cycling behavior.

at what speed does not taking the lane replace taking the lane for john forester? at what speed does traffic have to be travelling before he starts to ride off to the side of unshareable lanes, a childish lane position? does john think bicyclists (except when making a left turn) ALWAYS have to not take the lane of narrow lanes regardless of the speed limit?

is vc really about staying out of the way of motorists? riding to the side in unshareable lanes? john forstor endorses childish riding off to the side- curbhugging, also known as not taking the lane- on narrow laned roads.

So do we always plan for the worst-case drivers? What could prove quite difficult.

Hmmmm, not the max ... perhaps the 85 to 90th percentile according to conditions.

Ironically, that might match people's perceptions of the average ... :D

i think average speed of traffic IS one of the metrics in ones' bicycling strategy, invisiblehand. it's a rule of thumb how fast most motorists will go. even if its exceeded, a road marked 25mph is generally driven differently by most motorists than a 50mph arterial.

I guess it sort of depends on how variable the speeds are Bek. I imagine that on certain roads, the fastest and slowest drivers are driving approximately the same speed; i.e., very little variability in speeds. Alternatively, there could be roads where the fastest drivers are going much quicker than the slow riders. Moreover, it could be the case that these speeds are not distributed symmetrically.

The legal speed limit, of course, is related to the road's characteristics. So I would expect it to be related to the observed velocities. Writing generally, I would guess that autos traveling the speed limit would navigate it along with any cyclists along the way safely. Otherwise the speed limit would be lower. Consequently, I would worry about the people at the top end of the "velocity distribution", as opposed to what the average driver is doing. Implicit in this statement is that the average driver is probably driving safely.

what, pray tell, does that have to do with some vehicular bicyclists like john forestor choosing to hug narrow lane edges?

I did like your insightful speculation some bicyclists overestimate vehicle speed, invisible hand.

TOPIC AT HAND: at what (passing vehicles') speed does john forestor suggest bicyclists go from taking the lane to hugging the edge of narrow laned, high speed roads?

Does john forestor endorse bicyclists ALWAYS 'not take' a narrow lane in the face of faster overtaking traffic?

at what speed is it vehicular to cower at the edge of the narrow lane?

at what speed do YOU start staying out of the way of faster traffic by not taking a narrow lane, invisible hand???

Hugging the curb always refers to the side of the curb on the travel lane side.
Riding near the curb on the side outside the travel lane is called riding on the sidewalk.

I don't consider the contiguous pavement of a highway which is separated from the travel lanes by nothing more than paint to be a sidewalk. Sidewalks are usually separated by a physical barrier like a curb (which is perhaps between the sidewalk and the shoulder) and are usually prohibited from being used by vehicles.

But comparing cyclist behavior to normal driver behavior is not fair. What's more fair is to compare cyclists to drivers of slow moving vehicles (like tractor drivers on rural roads) and drivers of narrow vehicles (i.e., motorcyclists) to establish what "most other vehicles do", or what is "outlier behavior", in comparable contexts.

It is quite normal for a driver of a slow moving vehicle to operate very closely to the curb/edge in order to allow others to pass.

It is also quite normal for a driver of a vehicle to pass stopped traffic slowly and carefully on the right, when there is room. Check out any intersection with a rightmost straight-or-right lane that is wide enough for two motor vehicles to fit side-by-side, and I bet you'll find plenty of tire rubber on the curb (from curb-hugging right turners trying to squeeze through to turn right on red).

And when it's too narrow for right-turning car drivers to squeeze through by curb hugging, that doesn't stop the motorcyclists...

I don't see how fairness has anything to do with it. For me, vehicular cycling is a matter of anticipation. I am safer when other vehicles can anticipate the past, present, and future positions of my vehicle.

It is not normal at all for the left side of a vehicle to be any closer than 5 or 6 feet for the curb simply because the vast majority of vehicles on the road are at least 5 or 6 feet wide. Riding closer than that destroys the ability for other vehicles to anticipate the presence of a cyclist.

I also don't think it's normal for drivers of motor vehicles to pass on the right. It may not be exceedingly rare, but it's not extremely common either and, I'll say it again, the entire point of vehicular cycling is to imitate the most common vehicle (not imitate a train, not imitate a motorcycle, not imitate an inline skater on a MUP, not imitate a drunk driver, but imitate the vehicle which comprises 9/10 vehicle interactions). Most passing occurs on the left and as such drivers of vehicles most often anticipate passing to occur on the left. In fact, when making a right turn many drivers don't even look to the right and as a result I bet you'll find plenty of shards of glass from collisions by the curb next to that tire rubber.

My guess is that when cycling, people probably overestimate passing auto velocities. Moreover, they probably remember the fast ones while forgetting the unexciting normal ones.

I agree and see this as true. I know the typical traffic flow speed from two points of view as a motorist and cyclist. As a motorist I never speed and always (unless it is to fast for conditions) travel locked to the posted speed limit. I have often observed how many drivers are at about the same speed, how many pass relatively slowly (i.e. 5mph over) and how many are notably faster (10mph over). 10mph over is a common default speed for many and this pattern can be seen. The 15/20/25mph+ crowd stand out too and yes are more memorable.

All over town approaching many intersections and between are speed reader signs. These confirm while motoring and while cycling the actual speeds of passing vehicles at the time - and confirm my estimates are good.

As to folks over estimating - When cycling with others and traffic speeds comes up most add 10mph to what they say a car passed at.

So in result, yes it does not take long to encounter a 15mph over speeder on any 45mph arterial, but generally the flow is 0-5mph over in the outer lane and 10mph over in the inner. Sometime the >15mph over crowd will use the outer lane to pass the 10mph over crowd. These are the too fast drivers cyclist tend to notice.

Al

what, pray tell, does that have to do with some vehicular bicyclists like john forestor choosing to hug narrow lane edges?

Seems to be in the vein of the discussion; particularly "at what speed does "hug the curb" replace 'taking the lane'?" If you are trying to make a decision rule, then one needs to interpret our fellow cyclists' observations and experiences.

TOPIC AT HAND: at what (passing vehicles') speed does john forestor suggest bicyclists go from taking the lane to hugging the edge of narrow laned, high speed roads?

Does john forestor endorse bicyclists ALWAYS 'not take' a narrow lane in the face of faster overtaking traffic?

at what speed is it vehicular to cower at the edge of the narrow lane?

at what speed do YOU start staying out of the way of faster traffic by not taking a narrow lane, invisible hand???

I just don't think that what one person does or thinks is really that important. Moreover, IMO, this emphasis on JF increases his impact and detracts from the core issue of whether there is a point where one should avoid curb hugging. But if you want to talk about JF, I will not stop you.

Personally, I can't recall a narrow high-speed shoulder-less road where I chose to consistently ride close to the curb instead of the right-wheel track. However, there are few roads like that around here that fit the description so I am probably a bad person to ask. That is, I rarely have to make that decision. Of course, it could be the case that I simply plan ahead and avoid those roads unless necessary.

Is there a threshold at which it is optimal to hug the curb instead of taking the lane? My guess is yes; but it would have to be a function of road construction, visibility, driver aggressiveness, and so on. So a single velocity would not make much sense.

I just don't think that what one person does or thinks is really that important. Moreover, IMO, this emphasis on JF increases his impact and detracts from the core issue of whether there is a point where one should avoid curb hugging. But if you want to talk about JF, I will not stop you.

If that one person is the spokesman or perceived spokesman for all cyclists... then what that person does or thinks is important.

Consider that JF has even gone before various state representatives and "spoken" for you, and recently has also spoken for "all cyclists" at such places as the American Dream Coalition (http://americandreamcoalition.org/forester.html) and even Google (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmT4x6eWDjA).

So right or wrong, JF has set himself up as our "representative."

I agree and see this as true. I know the typical traffic flow speed from two points of view as a motorist and cyclist. As a motorist I never speed and always (unless it is to fast for conditions) travel locked to the posted speed limit. I have often observed how many drivers are at about the same speed, how many pass relatively slowly (i.e. 5mph over) and how many are notably faster (10mph over). 10mph over is a common default speed for many and this pattern can be seen. The 15/20/25mph+ crowd stand out too and yes are more memorable.

All over town approaching many intersections and between are speed reader signs. These confirm while motoring and while cycling the actual speeds of passing vehicles at the time - and confirm my estimates are good.

As to folks over estimating - When cycling with others and traffic speeds comes up most add 10mph to what they say a car passed at.

So in result, yes it does not take long to encounter a 15mph over speeder on any 45mph arterial, but generally the flow is 0-5mph over in the outer lane and 10mph over in the inner. Sometime the >15mph over crowd will use the outer lane to pass the 10mph over crowd. These are the too fast drivers cyclist tend to notice.

Al

Those are good points Al. I do think that a person can calibrate their perceptions; i.e., learn what a 65 mph passing car looks like. I still that there are issues with memory, however (and I think you agree). Just speculating here -- based on Robert's assertion and my riding around guessing lane widths and whether it was + or - 14 feet with a measuring tape -- it probably takes practice and a regular re-calibrating over time. Although it could be the case that over time one gets better and better. If you have actively practiced this -- it sounds like you have -- you are probably pretty good at it.

So right or wrong, JF has set himself up as our "representative."

Perhaps. But it also matters whether you accept him as your spokesperson. What the LAB and other local organizations say might be viewed as being representative too. My guess is that many people figure out that like many issues, there is a wide range of opinions.

This "revelation" that Mr. Forester "curbhugs" on rural, single lane each direction, high speed roads (a misnomer if there ever was one - no rural highway is equiped with a curb, in my experience) is valuable to me. It shows that he, unlike some of the less experienced and more enthusiastic members of this forum, is ultimately worried more about practicality than ideological cleanliness.

Mr. Forester's solution to rural highways is exactly the solution that I have come to in my cycling experience on those particular type of roads. The high speed, no shoulder, two lane rural highway is a unique beast not usually encountered by commuting cyclists. Because speeds are so high, one cannot control traffic within the constraints of human patience for more than a few seconds, and clean opportunities to pass come intersectionless miles apart, particularly during rush hour. I have a suspicion that many on this forum do not have experience with these types of roads outside the weekend or off rush hour times when they are cycling for fitness or touring purposes. Those people who blithly suggest to ride in the right hand tire track suggest a starting strategy, but a person who has much experience quickly gravitates to a more rightward position in the lane as to not severely impede passing traffic and to lessen the probability of a dangerous, inopportune pass by a motorist. It is impossible to keep motorists bottled behind you for the several miles between clean passing opportunities on these roads; doing so doesn't result in less close passes, but rather, more dangerous passes in the face of short sightlines or opposing traffic. It also turns out to be less dangerous to let individual cars pass as cleanly as possible than to let a dozen cars stack up behind you and have them all pass in one big glob, trapping you inches from the edge of the road (no curb, remember?) for long periods of time.

Brian, YES, you have deciphered I WAS asking an ideological question to john forstor.

I'm confident I have ridden many more thousands of miles on rural high speed roads in the last 15 years than john forsestor has. Touring on rural roads, you ride during the week, during high traffic times, and on less than ideal pavement conditions.

My dispute is less the practical side of high speed road riding; every cyclist determines the 'best' road position depending on their techniques and abilities, all is equally 'legitimate' a road use as any other.

However, ideologically, I do take issue with john forestors' admitted incompetancy, and wonder at what passing traffic speed does john forestor turn from a 'take the lane' vehicular cyclist to a 'cower at the edge', not-taking-the- lane incompetant cyclist?

forestor likens riding off to the side of narrow lanes is incompetant, childish cycling. only by acting like a vehicle in narrow lanes can bicyclists get treated like the vehicles.

However, at a certain speed, john forestor endorses "NOT TAKING THE LANE"

to me this is a fundamental denial of the vehicular parity illuson vc is based on; john calls out some bicyclists 'childish' and 'incompetant' for riding off to the side of traffic. however, as traffic reaches a certain velocity, john himself takes a childish, incompetant road position of off to the side of narrow lanes.

I'm curious... if 'curbhugging' riding in door zones, riding off on the shoulders and riding the edge stripes is vehicular, if the true mission of john forstors' vehicular cycling is to just get bicyclists out of the way of motorists?


NEW or never used VC slogans......


"hug the curb the john forestor way"

"don't take the lane, the motorists are faster than you!"

This "revelation" that Mr. Forester "curbhugs" on rural, single lane each direction, high speed roads (a misnomer if there ever was one - no rural highway is equiped with a curb, in my experience) is valuable to me. It shows that he, unlike some of the less experienced and more enthusiastic members of this forum, is ultimately worried more about practicality than ideological cleanliness.
I don't know if it's intentionally, but you're playing semantics (again). But perhaps you have not read this whole thread.

We've all been fairly consistently using "curbhugging" to mean riding close to the curb OR EDGE (when there is no curb) of the road. Mr. Forester has gone a step further, defining curbhugging also in terms of the reasons one does this. He clearly said he would only ride there if he had no reason to ride anywhere else, whereas when we talk about the typical curbhugger, we're talking about someone who is very uncomfortable with the situation over all, and is riding there because he believes anywhere else is dangerous.

And I don't know who you're talking about when you refer to those who are "ultimately worried more about ... ideological cleanliness", but I suspect they only exist within the confines of your imagination. I, for one, have noted many specific situations in which riding close to the curb or edge would be practical, reasonable and safe in more than one post to this thread. Perhaps you should read the whole thread before you make such ignorant sweeping generalizations.


Mr. Forester's solution to rural highways is exactly the solution that I have come to in my cycling experience on those particular type of roads. The high speed, no shoulder, two lane rural highway is a unique beast not usually encountered by commuting cyclists. Because speeds are so high, one cannot control traffic within the constraints of human patience for more than a few seconds, and clean opportunities to pass come intersectionless miles apart, particularly during rush hour. I have a suspicion that many on this forum do not have experience with these types of roads outside the weekend or off rush hour times when they are cycling for fitness or touring purposes. Those people who blithly suggest to ride in the right hand tire track suggest a starting strategy,
Again, who are these people, and where have they posted?

no, head, he stated he would not take the lane solely when vehicle speeds were high and travel lanes were narrow. I beleive he endorsed 'taking the lane' only prepratory to a left turn and hugging the edge at all other times.

Your strategy in narrow lanes of high speed roads is to take the center of the lane and move aside only when you've noticed an overtaking vehicle moves laterally or slows noticably before moving over.

I would generally ride more centered in a high speed narrow lane without sufficient shoulder, and move aside prior to any slowing or lateral of the motorists, beleiveing my lane position and visibility enhancements are sufficient to get motorists to pass safely.

john hugs the edge of high speed roads with narrow lanes.

You DO see the difference, yes?

I wonder if helmet head would consider john forestor incompetant if he was hugging the edge of a 65mph road? what about a 30mph road?

does john forestor always hug the edge if he can't keep up with traffic? at what passing traffic speed does john go from claiming the lane vehicularity to hugging the edge incompetancy?

I'm beginning to suspect john forstor endorses curb hugging at any and all speeds a bicyclist cannot keep up with traffic. Even in unshareable narrow lanes.

is this the case? is it now vc to curbhug narrow, 30mph roads?

or is there no longer any concern by vehicular cyclists about lane width? are all lanes now regarded as 'shareable' by john forestor?

9foot wide, 2 mile long, 50mph bridge deck? shareable? does john hug the edge of this type of roadway?