Advocacy & Safety - Taking the lane on a narrow 4 lane road. (video)

Here is why I take the lane on this 4 lane road. . I purposely rode to the right. You can clearly see as I move left so do the cars. It isn't a 100 percent but it is much better than the start.
McKellips Rd east bound
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=E+McKellips+Rd+%26+N+Alma+School+Rd,+Scottsdale,+Maricopa,+Arizona+85256&sll=33.452194,-111.936307&sspn=0.285304,0.463486&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=FS1__gEdxjFV-Q&split=0&t=k&ll=33.453178,-111.852579&spn=0.008916,0.022638&z=16

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mu1HeRczNQ

Here is why I take the lane on this 4 lane road. . I purposely rode to the right. You can clearly see as I move left so do the cars. It isn't a 100 percent but it is much better than the start.
McKellips Rd east bound
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mu1HeRczNQ

Congrats. Perfect example of why one should take the lane. This really ought to be in the post on "as far right as practicable crap" thread

At some point you get far enough left that drivers know they have to use the other lane to get around you and so they just move over into the other lane. It's a good example of using lane position to communicate with drivers about how they need to pass you.

I didn't really think anybody but the cargo van buzzed you though. Looked like you were getting 2-3 feet from most drivers and they weren't going that fast. Could be an optical illusion though.

At some point you get far enough left that drivers know they have to use the other lane to get around you and so they just move over into the other lane. It's a good example of using lane position to communicate with drivers about how they need to pass you.

I didn't really think anybody but the cargo van buzzed you though. Looked like you were getting 2-3 feet from most drivers and they weren't going that fast. Could be an optical illusion though.

I need to verify width measurement. In our state this is illegal. You can't share a lane with a bicycle which doesn't have enough width IE 13 feet or wider. I will edit this the issue is not buzzing it is lane sharing. You have 11 inches to the right via camera angle. If you use the left of my handle bars. Thank You.

I need to verify with measurement. In our state this is illegal. You can't share a lane with a bicycle which doesn't have enough width IE 13 feet or wider. I will edit this. Thank You.

No matter the lane width you can still use part of the lane a cyclist is in to pass a cyclist as long as one gives at least 3' of clearance.

Al

No matter the lane width you can still use part of the lane a cyclist is in to pass a cyclist as long as one gives at least 3' of clearance.

Al

More editting.

did you filter at the next light?

did you filter at the next light?



I never filter if I take a lane previously. I don't want to have them pass me again. Unless a rare gridlock which I will use a better sharable street, wait, or use a different route.

FYI I missed the green light and was the first one at the stop light.

I ride thru there sometimes. Gotta love the river crossing.

Ok I will stick with that I will post more video as I ride,



A shareable lane with a bicycle and a truck is defined as a having a width of more than 13 feet. In this video there is a narrow lane ( less than 13 feet) present.
This is what you can expect from motorists because there are no laws which require a person to move over to the other lane to overtake a cyclist. They only need to provide three feet of clearance.
It is ambiguous for me to try to define what is three feet as all they pass me. Clearly some don't and some are questionable. Some motorists simply move over to the other lane and allow the maximum clearance. What constitutes as a "safe three feet overtaking" is left up to someone who won't get hurt.
By law the two lane positions are correct, The first position to the right resulted in at least one close pass with a cargo van.
The second lane position to the left, yields better results in my opinion. The person who is subject to death and injury.
This is a good example of why a cyclist may choose to use the law and move to the left to communicate to the motorists that this is a narrow lane and a motorist will need to use a portion of the left lane to overtake the cyclist as the video shows, and provide better visibility for the motorists.
The camera angle is offset by 11 inches to the right from the starting point of the left handle bars


I ride thru there sometimes. Gotta love the river crossing.

Yea nothing like riding on a river bed, and much better than Alma School. I get to do this twice a week it just opened back up.

A shareable lane with a bicycle and a truck is defined as a having a width of more than 13 feet. In this video there is a narrow lane ( less than 13 feet) present.

Is it, where? A sharable lane (to me) is one that I choose to share. Under a range of circumstances (speeds, traffic, road surface, road edge design, type of vehicle passing, etc.) it may be less than 13' or more than 13'

Al

Is it, where? A sharable lane (to me) is one that I choose to share. Under a range of circumstances (speeds, traffic, road surface, road edge design, type of vehicle passing, etc.) it may be less than 13' or more than 13'

Al

edited thank you.
"In this video there is a narrow lane present which the motorists needs to use a portion of the left lane to overtake a cyclist with three feet of clearance."

i'd think 'as far right as practicable' protects all lane positions along that road. heck, it would for me.

I'm with noisebeam, if the lanes not safe enough to try and share, I'm going to control the lane until it becomes impossible for me to control. you'll know you've bitten off more road than you can control when the cars start passing you on YOUR right.

FYI I missed the green light and was the first one at the stop light.

I've gotten honked at twice this week on the commute being first one at the stoplight and controlling the lane after the light (at 20mph plus off the christmas tree....)

Ok, help me out here. It's hard to judge, but in the beginning of the video you appear to be at least 2 if not 3 feet off the fog line. About 20 seconds in you can see your front tire. On a road like this I like to sit about 6 inches from the fog line, I generally get at least 3 feet of clearance from cars. When I take a lane, there is no doubt as I sit over the half way point of the lane. To me 3 feet off the fog line is too far over on a busy street but not far enough to claim the lane.

It all depends on the circumstances. I have had drivers buzz me closer while taking the lane (two lanes each direction) than while riding all the way to the right.

Ok, help me out here. It's hard to judge, but in the beginning of the video you appear to be at least 2 if not 3 feet off the fog line. About 20 seconds in you can see your front tire. On a road like this I like to sit about 6 inches from the fog line, I generally get at least 3 feet of clearance from cars. When I take a lane, there is no doubt as I sit over the half way point of the lane. To me 3 feet off the fog line is too far over on a busy street but not far enough to claim the lane.

those are the left handle bars.
I have the camera center position. I am riding a lot closer to the fog line more like less than a foot as I see all the traffic coming I then inch my way left. I don't think I ever got more than 32 inches to the left.

It looked to me like they were passing at a reasonable distance. But at those speeds, cars passing by can still be rattling and unnerving to a cyclist. I don't know if I would feel safer taking the lane, though. Motorists don't always expect to see cyclists on the road. Some speeding motorists might not notice you until it's too late.

... Some speeding motorists might not notice you until it's too late.

To be seen at a distance, and securing the motorist's attention, is precisely why taking the lane makes this situation safer.

A distracted or speeding motorist will unconsciously dismiss a shoulder or fog line cyclist as a hazard because he is "out of the way". But when the cyclist is in the middle of the lane (In the way) the motorist's subconscious throws a red flag and draws full attention to "the hazard".

A centered in the lane cyclist is instantaneously understood to be a slow moving obstruction that must be contended with- either slowing to his speed or altering the path of the car. A large object in their lane is never overlooked.

Take peek at this video and notice the behavior of the overtaking vehicles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B18Pwdnybo&feature=channel_page

On high speed roads, being in the way is safer than being out of the way.

To be seen at a distance, and securing the motorist's attention, is precisely why taking the lane makes this situation safer.

A distracted or speeding motorist will unconsciously dismiss a shoulder or fog line cyclist as a hazard because he is "out of the way". But when the cyclist is in the middle of the lane (In the way) the motorist's subconscious throws a red flag and draws full attention to "the hazard".

A centered in the lane cyclist is instantaneously understood to be a slow moving obstruction that must be contended with- either slowing to his speed or altering the path of the car. A large object in their lane is never overlooked.

On high speed roads, being in the way is safer than being out of the way.

Do you have an advanced degree in pop psychology or did you just make up your findings all by yourself?

Are you seriously claiming that a cyclist centered in the lane on any high speed highway is at less risk of a catastrophic event than a cyclist riding on a paved parallel shoulder of the same road?

Does this incredible premise (presumably based on your assumptions stated above) apply at all hours, all weather conditions, and at any volume of traffic? If not, what conditions have to be met for your claim to be "true"?

Do you have an advanced degree in pop psychology or did you just make up your findings all by yourself? Are you claiming that a cyclist centered in the lane on any high speed highway is at less risk of a catastrophic event than a cyclist riding on a paved parallel shoulder of the same road? Does this incredible premise (presumably based on your assumptions stated above) apply at all hours, all weather conditions, and at any volume of traffic? If not, what conditions have to be met for your claim to be "true"?

Why don't you try it and report back.
Thanks

On high speed roads, being in the way is safer than being out of the way.

that's suuch a fallacious generalization.... I'm going to have to call "Bulshevit"

I live several miles outside of town, and the road to town has NO shoulder. In fact, once you cross the white line it's a 4 inch drop straight down. I try not to ride my bike on it because it is so dangerous. However, I see other cyclists go down it frequently.

When they ride on the white line, cars barely move over. If one of them even barely brushed the cyclist they would go over the edge and rolling into the ditch. The road is narrow, and sometimes you'll have two drivers passing each other at the same point where the cyclist is. Usually this results in much honking and screaming that can be heard from several cars back.

When they ride in the lane, cars will go completely into the other lane to pass them. If there is a car coming from the other direction, they will stop and let them pass, then go around the cyclist. I have yet to hear or see anyone honk in this situation.

The speed limit is 45 mph, but the lack of law enforcement on this stretch of road means cars frequently top 65 mph. When I do ride down this road, I make sure I'm dead center in the lane, just like a regular vehicle.

It really pushes the law though. Technically, you're supposed to ride as far to the right as possible. However, when a car passes a cyclist, stalled car, pedestrian, etc, they are supposed to go completely into the other lane to do so. They never do this unless you take up the whole lane yourself. So I use the defense that I'm breaking the law to ensure that other people follow it, plus I'm attempting to spare myself unnecessary pain and injuries.

On high speed roads, being in the way is safer than being out of the way.

This is why I just stop in the middle of the highway lane when I need to change a flat, have a picnic, etc!

Anyway, given that the "shoulder" looks like some gnarly dirt riding, I don't see that what the guy did in the video as anything unreasonable.


Technically, you're supposed to ride as far to the right as possible.
It's not "as far to the right as possible". It's "as far to the right as practicable". The law allows you to take the conditions into account. (You'd think that bicyclists would understand this (whether or not they agree with FRAP)).


However, when a car passes a cyclist, stalled car, pedestrian, etc, they are supposed to go completely into the other lane to do so.
Do you have a reference for this (regarding Kansas law)?

It really pushes the law though. Technically, you're supposed to ride as far to the right as possible. However, when a car passes a cyclist, stalled car, pedestrian, etc, they are supposed to go completely into the other lane to do so. They never do this unless you take up the whole lane yourself. So I use the defense that I'm breaking the law to ensure that other people follow it, plus I'm attempting to spare myself unnecessary pain and injuries.

Actually, Kansas conforms to most far to the right laws in that is says "practicable" not possible. Secondly, one of the listed exceptions is "narrow width lanes". Kansas law grants you the right to take the lane in the very circumstances you describe.



8-1590. Riding on bicycles or mopeds; riding on roadways and bicycle paths.
(Bicyclists must ride to the right)

(a) Every person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, except under any of the following situations when:

(1) Overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction;

(2) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or

(3) reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving bicycles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or narrow width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand edge of the roadway.

... It's not "as far to the right as possible". It's "as far to the right as practicable". The law allows you to take the conditions into account. (You'd think that bicyclists would understand this (whether or not they agree with FRAP)) ...

Congratulations you have attempted to educate 1 cyclist (that might actually want to learn) - now how do you address the same misunderstanding in 200 million car drivers (that currently enjoy and want to reinforce the misunderstanding - i.e. they do not want to learn)?

My basic rule is, if there isn't room for a car to pass me while another car is coming (that is if there isn't room for all three to occupy the road) then I take the lane. What is amazing here, the car passing the bicycle will actually force the oncoming traffic to stop instead of waiting for a safe gap. The road isn't even that busy and is only a 35mph road. We don't have 4 lane highways near here (that's why I live here).
It would be interesting to drive a slow moving tractor down the same street. Driving with one set of wheels on the shoulder so the tractor is no further out than a bike. I wonder what the car drivers would do then?

This is why I just stop in the middle of the highway lane when I need to change a flat, have a picnic, etc!



It's not "as far to the right as possible". It's "as far to the right as practicable". The law allows you to take the conditions into account. (You'd think that bicyclists would understand this (whether or not they agree with FRAP)).


Do you have a reference for this (regarding Kansas law)?

EDIT: I stand corrected. I had previously checked an out dated site that had clearly said "possible". However after checking a more recent one, I see that you are right.


And my only reference for the other one is a $200 ticket for getting "too close" to a stalled car. I attempted to argue in court, but to no avail. I've never looked for/found the actual law, but I make sure that it doesn't happen again. I know of several other people that have gotten tickets for similar things, so at least the cops think it's a law.

EDIT #2: It's been a couple years, but I believe the officer that pulled me over claimed I was reckless driving because I didn't go into the opposite lane completely to pass the car. One of my friends got a ticket for not going into the other lane to pass a pedestrian. I've never seen this situation dealing with bicycles, but it should be the same.

But this is Hutchinson, and some(many) cops here are rookies or have power gone to their heads, so I'm sure that accounts for part of it. Some of them say you have to ride on the sidewalk, others say you can ride anywhere. I've seen people in the lane, on the wrong side of the road, or without a headlight in the middle of the night pass a cop and have nothing done. This only happened once(all of those at the same time), but it seems to be 100% up the officer at that particular time.

It looked to me like they were passing at a reasonable distance. But at those speeds, cars passing by can still be rattling and unnerving to a cyclist. I don't know if I would feel safer taking the lane, though. Motorists don't always expect to see cyclists on the road. Some speeding motorists might not notice you until it's too late.

That is where a mirror and a bright ANsi II vest comes into play. Which I am wearing both.

Thats how I was able to inch over slowly.

Congratulations you have attempted to educate 1 cyclist (that might actually want to learn) - now how do you address the same misunderstanding in 200 million car drivers (that currently enjoy and want to reinforce the misunderstanding - i.e. they do not want to learn)?
Well, if cyclists are confused, don't expect the 200 million car drivers to get it! Anyway, it's a start. Unless you adhere to the fallacy that a problem isn't worth addressing unless you can be 100% successful!


EDIT: I stand corrected. I had previously checked an out dated site that had clearly said "possible". However after checking a more recent one, I see that you are right.
No big deal. The states do often try to use uniform wording for their laws.


EDIT #2: It's been a couple years, but I believe the officer that pulled me over claimed I was reckless driving because I didn't go into the opposite lane completely to pass the car. One of my friends got a ticket for not going into the other lane to pass a pedestrian. I've never seen this situation dealing with bicycles, but it should be the same.
I don't think it is the same for bicycles (generally). The "3-foot laws" that people talk about is evidence that supports my statement.


But this is Hutchinson, and some(many) cops here are rookies or have power gone to their heads, so I'm sure that accounts for part of it. Some of them say you have to ride on the sidewalk, others say you can ride anywhere. I've seen people in the lane, on the wrong side of the road, or without a headlight in the middle of the night pass a cop and have nothing done. This only happened once(all of those at the same time), but it seems to be 100% up the officer at that particular time.
The misunderstanding or the misapplication of the law is a different discussion. It might be useful not to mush the different discussions together.

Here is why I take the lane on this 4 lane road. . I purposely rode to the right. You can clearly see as I move left so do the cars. It isn't a 100 percent but it is much better than the start.
McKellips Rd east bound
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=E+McKellips+Rd+%26+N+Alma+School+Rd,+Scottsdale,+Maricopa,+Arizona+85256&sll=33.452194,-111.936307&sspn=0.285304,0.463486&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=FS1__gEdxjFV-Q&split=0&t=k&ll=33.453178,-111.852579&spn=0.008916,0.022638&z=16

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mu1HeRczNQ

This is a perfect reason why, I 'take the lane'. I don't ride to the far right. I ride to the far left, so that forces motorists to pass me, just as if they were passing another motorist.