Advocacy & Safety - Problem with taking the lane

If you take the lane, what is to keep a driver that clobbers you from behind from saying that you darted out in front of him or her? You will probably be dead, so it's not like there will be any witnesses or other evidence to refute the driver's story. The kind of people who are evil or reckless enough to mow down cyclists from behind are probably not moral enough to tell the truth or take responsibility for their actions.

I believe you are correct, they will say that. However,
they can hit you with any lane position and still say the same thing. The argument has always been that if you are riding on the white line, you are inviting drivers to ignore you and thus get closer to you on average. YMMV

The only person I know that was hit from behind (and killed) was on an 8' wide shoulder.

If you take the lane, what is to keep a driver that clobbers you from behind from saying that you darted out in front of him or her? You will probably be dead, so it's not like there will be any witnesses or other evidence to refute the driver's story. The kind of people who are evil or reckless enough to mow down cyclists from behind are probably not moral enough to tell the truth or take responsibility for their actions.

Hmmm. You know, I never thought of that. Back to the gutter for me, where nothing bad can ever happen.

I think we can discount the idea of protecting yourself against people who run you over because they are evil; lane position will not stop them. So basically the question becomes, are the drivers behind you more or less likely to see you if you are taking the lane. That is the crux of the argument, and can't be solved in an internet forum.

The scenario you describe has been coined as an acronym: SWSS (Single Witness Suicide Swerve)

So many overtake collisions with only the motorist as a witness have happened that the acronym was created. Not known is how many of the collisions happened while the cyclist was in the lane or on the shoulder. In either case the motorist would claim "he swerved in front of me and I couldn't avoid him" to mitigate his own negligence.

There are even cases where a co-ordinated suicide swerve by two cyclists in front of an automobile have been claimed. :rolleyes:

forensic evidence - gets em every time. Life is too short to spend worrying about what-if nonsense. ;)

The kind of people who are evil or reckless enough to mow down cyclists from behind are probably not moral enough to tell the truth or take responsibility for their actions.

Ah, but many times, I think those are also the type of creature who dislike it when you ding their precious car. Maybe the message on the jersey should be "Careful, or I'll dent your car!"

In all reality, I think it is the presence of witnesses that inhibits some.
:twitchy:

I don't worry about evil drivers who might hit me on purpose. I worry about those who aren't paying attention and won't see me there in the middle of the lane. The whole taking the lane idea has one big, show-stopping flaw: only cyclists know about it. It's a concept that doesn't register at all with the majority of motor vehicle drivers. Oddly enough, in my city, it seems the bus and taxi drivers are the ones most likely to know about it.

I still maintain that taking the lane only works for short stretches in slow traffic - like when you come to a narrowing due to a parked vehicle, some construction, that sort of thing.

Blanket promotion of taking the lane among relative newbie cyclists is going to get someone killed. Vehicular cycling is a valid concept, and I've been using it from a time before the term was even used, but it has to be applied with common sense and a certain amount of reasonable defensive cycling.

If you take the lane, what is to keep a driver that clobbers you from behind from saying that you darted out in front of him or her? You will probably be dead, so it's not like there will be any witnesses or other evidence to refute the driver's story. The kind of people who are evil or reckless enough to mow down cyclists from behind are probably not moral enough to tell the truth or take responsibility for their actions.
The point of "taking the lane" is to reduce the likelihood that a collision will occur. If "taking the lane" increases the risk of a collision, then it would make no sense to do so. The driver is likely to say "you darted" regardless of where you were when hit.

Drivers don't want a bike stuck under their car. It would ruin their whole day. So they slow down and/or change lanes. Easier than suffering a police investigation.

I don't worry about evil drivers who might hit me on purpose. I worry about those who aren't paying attention and won't see me there in the middle of the lane.

This is a silly concern. All motorists have the primary duty of avoiding hitting something. They make adjustments to meet this duty hundreds of times a trip. Their response to avoiding collisions is reinforced hundreds of times a trip. They pay special attention to the path directly in front of them.


The whole taking the lane idea has one big, show-stopping flaw: only cyclists know about it. It's a concept that doesn't register at all with the majority of motor vehicle drivers. Oddly enough, in my city, it seems the bus and taxi drivers are the ones most likely to know about it.

It doesn't require motorists to understand what we are doing when we take a lane. They simply have the duty to observe my right of way, just as they must for all public road users. When cyclists observe the rules of the road and fit into the normal traffic pattern, motorists revert to their ingrained training.


I still maintain that taking the lane only works for short stretches in slow traffic - like when you come to a narrowing due to a parked vehicle, some construction, that sort of thing.

(Snort!) Yeah, so you imagine. It has "worked" for me continuously for the past three years/10,000 miles on streets with speed limits ranging from 20 MPH to 65 MPH. You can compare your opinion to my experience. Taking the lane works every time it is tried. How else do you explain my astonishing continued existence?

(Snort!) Yeah, so you imagine. It has "worked" for me continuously for the past three years/10,000 miles on streets with speed limits ranging from 20 MPH to 65 MPH. You can compare your opinion to my experience. Taking the lane works every time it is tried. How else do you explain my astonishing continued existence?

I don't know how to explain your existance. No philosophy I ever studied has equipped me for that. I've existed road riding continuously since 1970. I'll reserve judgment on your experience until you have ridden like you do a little longer than 3 years.

I'm not the only person who has reservations about "taking the lane". I'm just someone who rides, not an expert. But there are some experts who question it too.


This is a silly concern. All motorists have the primary duty of avoiding hitting something. They make adjustments to meet this duty hundreds of times a trip. Their response to avoiding collisions is reinforced hundreds of times a trip. They pay special attention to the path directly in front of them.

But they are looking for cars, trucks, busses, maybe people darting out... and they may think of being on the lookout for bicycles also, but the fact of the matter is that a bicycle is a pretty thin object when looking at it from behind, and there are many circumstances in which the presence of a bike when not expected might go unnoticed. So, while I generally agree with taking the lane under some circumstances, it has to be applied with some common sense. Unfortunately, this is a commodity that seems to be in short supply.

If you take the lane, what is to keep a driver that clobbers you from behind from saying that you darted out in front of him or her? .

Every car wreck involing a bike I have ever read, or heard about, this is the story anyway. "I didn't see him" "he darted right out in front of me" "he came out of nowhere" "he was in the road"

I don't know how to explain your existance. No philosophy I ever studied has equipped me for that. I've existed road riding continuously since 1970. I'll reserve judgment on your experience until you have ridden like you do a little longer than 3 years.

I'm not the only person who has reservations about "taking the lane". I'm just someone who rides, not an expert. But there are some experts who question it too.

I've existed commuting by bike on the roads continuously since 72, earlier if you want to count riding to grade school. I have no reservations about taking the lane when I need to take the lane...which is pretty much any time there is not room to safely share the lane. If traffic builds up behind me in those situations, I will move off the roadway and allow them to pass, when it is safe for me to do so, just like I would in any other slow moving vehicle like a buggy or tractor.

I'm sure an experienced cyclist like you would not endanger yourself by trying to share the lane when there is not enough room to safely do so, right?

I look at it this way...if you are indeed involved in a fatal accident, you won't be able to write. Stop fussing and look out for your own good looks and charm and continue worrying about space junk falling on you and when they will design a helmet to save you from a Sputnik.

Hopefully E.T. doesn't have a hit out on you and RELAX.

But they are looking for cars, trucks, busses, maybe people darting out... and they may think of being on the lookout for bicycles also, but the fact of the matter is that a bicycle is a pretty thin object when looking at it from behind, and there are many circumstances in which the presence of a bike when not expected might go unnoticed. So, while I generally agree with taking the lane under some circumstances, it has to be applied with some common sense. Unfortunately, this is a commodity that seems to be in short supply.

Any cyclist with a lick of sense makes themselves plenty visible through both active and passive means...and any driver with a lick of competence is looking out for ANYTHING that might be in their path.
Maybe your old eyes are failing, but a cyclist is pretty easy to see in normal conditions..not much harder than spotting a motorcycle, scooter or moped.

But of course we can't assume that any driver is competent or has a lick of sense, can we. ;)

Maybe your old eyes are failing, but a cyclist is pretty easy to see in normal conditions..not much harder than spotting a motorcycle, scooter or moped.

But of course we can't assume that any driver is competent or has a lick of sense, can we.

Before my vision started failing and my teeth fell out, traffic was slower, drivers were more sensible, and motorists could be relied on not to be using a cellular phone or texting while at the wheel. All I'm saying is that "taking the lane" should be seen as one tool we have to protect ourselves as cyclists in some situations. It shouldn't be universally-applied. It's not a religion.

You can never take it for granted that you are visible as a cyclist no matter what you are wearing or flashing. When you are riding, you cannot possibly always be aware of what might be hindering your visibility to a fast overtaking or approaching driver. Lighting conditions change, where the sun is changes, what sunlight gets through foliage and buildings changes, backgrounds change. Plus, it can be hard for a motorist to judge relative distance when it comes to a bicycle when both are moving.

Before my vision started failing and my teeth fell out, traffic was slower, drivers were more sensible, and motorists could be relied on not to be using a cellular phone or texting while at the wheel. All I'm saying is that "taking the lane" should be seen as one tool we have to protect ourselves as cyclists in some situations. It shouldn't be universally-applied. It's not a religion.

You can never take it for granted that you are visible as a cyclist no matter what you are wearing or flashing. When you are riding, you cannot possibly always be aware of what might be hindering your visibility to a fast overtaking or approaching driver. Lighting conditions change, where the sun is changes, what sunlight gets through foliage and buildings changes, backgrounds change. Plus, it can be hard for a motorist to judge relative distance when it comes to a bicycle when both are moving.

Which is exactly why I said we can't trust drivers to be competent and that cyclists need to do their best to be visible. Beyond that, situational awareness comes into play...which is why I strongly advocate the use of mirrors. One can ride just fine without a mirror, but having one enhances your ability to monitor the patterns developing behind you...so you can plan accordingly. Knowing your environment allows you to ride in harmony with it. Ahhhmmmmmmm.

Going way OT here, but I must say Chip, your avatars are getting consistently more & more frightening.
:eek:

Every car wreck involing a bike I have ever read, or heard about, this is the story anyway. "I didn't see him" "he darted right out in front of me" "he came out of nowhere" "he was in the road"

If they sideswipe you while trying to squeeze by when you're over on the right, they'll just say that the cyclist hit them. Even the people that don't intend to hit us will lie.

Going way OT here, but I must say Chip, your avatars are getting consistently more & more frightening.
:eek:

Are you scared FOR Alfred, or OF Michael...or both? :D

I'll reserve judgment on your experience until you have ridden like you do a little longer than 3 years.

I'm not the only person who has reservations about "taking the lane". I'm just someone who rides, not an expert. But there are some experts who question it too.

Good news, Longfemur! You won't have to wait three years to find out if my experience is an anomaly or not. How about the VC experience from 14 people with a combined traveled distance of 631,000 miles from all over the USA? In a report published (http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2009/05/29/traveling-in-the-realm-of-very-big-and-very-small-numbers/) just today, you can get all the details!

Do let us know what you think. (I have a bet with a friend that more evidence will not sway you. In fact, I don't think any amount of evidence will cause you to change your mind, because you have some sort of emotional revulsion to taking the lane. You are probably unwilling to risk annoying automobile drivers.)

Every car wreck involving a bike I have ever read, or heard about, this is the story anyway. "I didn't see him" "he darted right out in front of me" "he came out of nowhere" "he was in the road"

Each of these "excuses" are really confessions by these motor vehicle operators of their gross negligence and a dereliction of their solemn duty to exercise due care.

Too bad law enforcement has abandoned their duty to uphold the law when such confessions are made.

It is also alarming that our society approves of shifting the blame from the reckless motorist to the cycling victim.

Good news, Longfemur! You won't have to wait three years to find out if my experience is an anomaly or not. How about the VC experience from 14 people with a combined traveled distance of 631,000 miles from all over the USA? In a report published (http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2009/05/29/traveling-in-the-realm-of-very-big-and-very-small-numbers/) just today, you can get all the details!

Do let us know what you think. (I have a bet with a friend that more evidence will not sway you. In fact, I don't think any amount of evidence will cause you to change your mind, because you have some sort of emotional revulsion to taking the lane. You are probably unwilling to risk annoying automobile drivers.)

Not that I disagree with the conclusion, but I wouldn't put much stock in that article or anything else that uses John Forester as a source or subject.

I can't comment on any survey like that one. I'm not sure it means anything, because self-reporting "studies" are notoriously inadequate.

I've been riding pretty long myself, and, while I may have gotten my first real "road bike" in 1970, I rode on city streets and country roads as a child. Unlike most Americans today, we rode everywhere and nobody worried about it. As kids, we rode mostly VC even without knowing it. Sidewalks were always a no-no. So, it all adds up to well over 40 years, but I have no idea how much mileage it's been. I don't even really know how much mileage I do now. I ride almost every day except winter, but I don't keep track of it, nor do I use a cyclocomputer. It's just not important to me to keep a running tally. But, I'm sure it has to have been a great many miles, and I've never had an accident.

You don't seem to understand that I'm not against taking the lane. What I'm against is the idea that it's the only way and it should be applied at all times. I apply it with common sense, because I don't intend to prove the worthiness of people's "rules" with my own flimsy body.

There are many things written in supposed authoritative books that make we wonder if the author really knows what he's talking about, because I have my own experience to go by. But, people do seem to like their "authorities".

I wear the jersey from 3feetplease.com and have noticed a marked difference in clearance vehicles provide.

I was hit once when I took the single lane signaling for a left turn. The driver decided that was a good time to pass on my left. I was only hit by his side mirror and maintained control of the bike. Unfortunately, I lost control of my temper and chased him down to the next light. Ripped the side mirror off his door after he gave me his vulgar version of "stay off the road". Not proud of my action but unused adrenaline is not good! At least he got an education.

Ripped the side mirror off his door after he gave me his vulgar version of "stay off the road".

Trophy! Stuff it & mount it.

I wear the jersey from 3feetplease.com and have noticed a marked difference in clearance vehicles provide.

Around here the only difference would be the driver that just ran me over ripping off one of my feet and beating me with it, after stomping on me with his other two. :thumb:

"Do let us know what you think. (I have a bet with a friend that more evidence will not sway you.)"


I can't comment on any survey like that one. I'm not sure it means anything, because self-reporting "studies" are notoriously inadequate.

CHA-CHING! :D

Enough with the kindergarten posts.

Some people who talk with bravado about "taking the lane" are only repeating things they have read. Yes, it's safer under some circumstances than would be to hug the curb (BTW, not hugging the curb is not the same thing as taking the lane). But we have a serious problem with overly fast and aggressive driving nowadays that we simply did not have to the same extent when the whole vehicular cycling idea was first written about. I know because I was there. We also have much more careless driving than we used to, with numerous driver distractions, combined with drivers who readily accept their own distraction. We also have a huge problem with drunken and drugged drivers. To blindly promote taking the lane presents a false picture about the safety of cycling. As I said before, it has to be applied with common sense, as does pretty much anything in cycling and in life in general. Cyclists who do or don't take the lane are always best advised to stick the bravado in their back pocket and think of ways to avoid having to "take the lane" on some roads. It's not just the guy immediately coming up behind you that you have to worry about, it's the one behind that one.

Cyclists who do or don't take the lane (should) think of ways to avoid having to "take the lane" on some roads.That's exactly what I do.

I find ways to share my lane whenever I'm not riding at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time, and I'm not overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction, and I'm not preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway, and I'm not avoiding conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes (a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane)) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, and I'm not approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

Whenever none of those conditions apply, I find a way to share my lane, usually by riding as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. But when any of those conditions are present, on whatever road, I actively manage my own safety by not offering to share my lane with overtaking drivers.

Around here the only difference would be the driver that just ran me over ripping off one of my feet and beating me with it, after stomping on me with his other two. :thumb:

Around here that would be called anger management. They would be successful. Then they'd sign up for Police Assistance League Extreme Sports (PALES).

That's exactly what I do.

I find ways to share my lane whenever I'm not riding at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time, and I'm not overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction, and I'm not preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway, and I'm not avoiding conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes (a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane)) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, and I'm not approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

Whenever none of those conditions apply, I find a way to share my lane, usually by riding as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. But when any of those conditions are present, on whatever road, I actively manage my own safety by not offering to share my lane with overtaking drivers.

It's actually quite a bit simpler than that. If it is safe to share the lane, share it, if not, take it.
There is no reason to over complicate the issue.

I think following what the majority of states have written in their vehicle codes is the best advice. Stay out of the lane if you can - i.e. it's wide enough for you and a car to travel safely side by side.

Move into the lane whenever those conditions end or are about to end due to a parked car, debris, or a narrowing road.

Unless you are a mob informant and the driver is a mafia hit man, cars seldom hit bicyclist they can see. The only exception is if you let yourself get squeezed and then the driver sees a big SUV coming the other way and jerks to the right. In that case, you're going down.

The other half of taking the lane is being aware of what is behind you and giving up the lane when cars pop up behind you to let them pass.

Hitting you from behind is unlikely as, the driver does not want to do that, and it will cost them money and time to repair the damage to the car, in addition to legal problems.

The other half of taking the lane is being aware of what is behind you and giving up the lane when cars pop up behind you to let them pass.If the conditions are appropriate (see the California (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm)-specific list I posted above) to share my lane with a motorist, I'm already riding far enough right to both (a) communicate my offer and (b) permit them to pass. If it's not a good place to share, why would I give up the lane to let a motorist pass?

If the conditions are appropriate (see the California (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm)-specific list I posted above) to share my lane with a motorist, I'm already riding far enough right to both (a) communicate my offer and (b) permit them to pass. If it's not a good place to share, why would I give up the lane to let a motorist pass?

Same reason Amish buggies, farm equipment, well-mannered cyclists and other slow moving vehicles pull over when traffic begins piling up behind them...common courtesy. Oh wait, you said California, where bikes aren't vehicles and courtesy isn't common. Sorry I blew up.

The other half of taking the lane is being aware of what is behind you and giving up the lane when cars pop up behind you to let them pass.

When I read what you just wrote, it sounds to me that you said this: The other half of taking the lane is cowering in fear from what is behind you and giving up your right of way and your right to operate on a public road.

If the lane cannot be shared with overtaking traffic, why do you think that a cyclist's interest in traveling on that road must be acquiesced to the interests of an automobile driver?

Operators of bicycles do not have a subordinated right to the road. Stop acting as though they do! Our right to travel on the public way is an equal right to that of any other vehicle.

For safety's sake, cyclists take the lane because of automobile traffic, not just when there is no traffic at all, as you seem to imply.

The other half of taking the lane is being aware of what is behind you and giving up the lane when cars pop up behind you to let them pass.If the conditions are appropriate (see the California (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm)-specific list I posted above) to share my lane with a motorist, I'm already riding far enough right to both (a) communicate my offer and (b) permit them to pass. If it's not a good place to share, why would I give up the lane to let a motorist pass?Same reason Amish buggies, farm equipment, well-mannered cyclists and other slow moving vehicles pull over when traffic begins piling up behind them...common courtesy.OK, that's a different situation than geo8rge described. Now you're talking about the requirement (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21656.htm) that slow-moving vehicles on two-lane highways turn off the roadway whenever five or more vehicles have formed up in line. Certainly I always do that, but it doesn't happen very often.

Instead, geo8rge seemed to be describing the very common situation where a motorist wants to overtake a cyclist. I agreed that I look for opportunities to offer to share my lane whenever possible.


Oh wait, you said California, where bikes aren't vehicles and courtesy isn't common. Sorry I blew up.I'm a very courteous cyclist, but courtesy and overtaking motorists' convenience is a lower priority for me than my own safety.

It's often repeated on A&S that being hit from behind is unlikely, yet the majority of fatalities I read about in my daily search (http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=bicyclist+killed) involve cyclists hit from behind. If both statements are true, then statistically, if you're hit, it won't be from behind, but if it's the hit that kills you, it will be.