Advocacy & Safety - Lane Control

Check out this animation to see all the hazards a bicycle driver faces when trying to stay to the right.

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/animations/lane-control/

Great video! Thanks for the post.

When I started riding over 40 years ago it quickly became evident if I rode too far to the right many people would do a dangerous same-lane pass. Generally I ride about three feet in on a 12-foot lane. How about others?

FAIL
That's THEIR one side of the story. Where the hell is the OTHER side of the story.
Fahy bridge incidents, Murfeesborough hit and run, countless other VC lane splatters.
Cars following too close to others = do not see cyclist and cannot swerve far enough to miss them.

Great video! Thanks for the post.

When I started riding over 40 years ago it quickly became evident if I rode too far to the right many people would do a dangerous same-lane pass. Generally I ride about three feet in on a 12-foot lane. How about others?

I 'take the lane' consistently, for this very reason, I will ride between the middle of the lane, and the left tire track. There is a local road that goes through the old city center. Every time I am on that road, I practically have to ride on the double-yellow line, to avoid from getting hit by cars' pulling out of one of the parking lots, for local restaurants.

I even reported a county school bus last week, for laying on his horn trying to get me out of his way. The bus driver was trying to pass me on a curve, where someone had been driving too fast and ran over the embankment, stopping on the northbound track of a major MUT(Multi-Use Track) line.

I think the true savvy cyclist rides right when practicable and moves left to prevent the problems shown in the animation. If passing in the same lane is unsafe, move left to force cars to go into the other lane. When coming up to an intersection, move left to show other traffic that you're there and planning on going straight.

Riding in the middle of the lane all of the time just makes motorists angry and more likely to take out their anger on other cyclists.

I think the true savvy cyclist rides right when practicable and moves left to prevent the problems shown in the animation. If passing in the same lane is unsafe, move left to force cars to go into the other lane. When coming up to an intersection, move left to show other traffic that you're there and planning on going straight.

Riding in the middle of the lane all of the time just makes motorists angry and more likely to take out their angry on other cyclists.
+1000000 Every situation is different, and we as cyclist should consider the prudent, safe, and courteous action on a case by case basis. Sometimes, you simply have to deal with the impatient drivers and take the lane, but sometimes, it's better to move and let them by, or even pull off and let them by.

I think the true savvy cyclist rides right when practicable and moves left to prevent the problems shown in the animation. If passing in the same lane is unsafe, move left to force cars to go into the other lane. When coming up to an intersection, move left to show other traffic that you're there and planning on going straight.

Riding in the middle of the lane all of the time just makes motorists angry and more likely to take out their angry on other cyclists.

+++++++++ 10e12

Prudent+Safe+Courteous= Pleasant ride.

I think the true savvy cyclist rides right when practicable and moves left to prevent the problems shown in the animation. If passing in the same lane is unsafe, move left to force cars...

"Force"? Really?

FAIL
That's THEIR one side of the story. Where the hell is the OTHER side of the story.
Fahy bridge incidents, Murfeesborough hit and run, countless other VC lane splatters.
Cars following too close to others = do not see cyclist and cannot swerve far enough to miss them.

Indeed. Plus all the texters. And the DUIs. The teen age risk takers. The maniacs. The...

There ARE times where I'll take the lane, but only in slow traffic.

"Force"? Really?

Encourage. Induce.

Very cool and educational animation.

BTW, this is the 5,245th rehash of a topic for which an entire leper colony of a subforum was established.

Encourage. Induce.
I like that better ;) - but it still doesn't solve the problem that by taking the lane one puts oneself in the line of exactly the kind of drivers who are the most dangerous.

I like that better ;) - but it still doesn't solve the problem that by taking the lane one puts oneself in the line of exactly the kind of drivers who are the most dangerous.

I think the argument is that the most dangerous driver is the one most likely to hit you. That would be any driver that squeezes past you within inches, particularly at speed. And when you hug the curb on a narrow lane, you tend to invite and receive many more close passes than if you ride far enough to the left such that cars must at least partially enter the next lane in order to pass.

This only delays the passing driver when the next lane is occupied, which is not all of the time. So you have to weigh the risk -- frequent close passes versus occasionally delaying a driver.

Finally, you can "take the lane" without being a prick about it, by acknowledging drivers and pulling off when you can to allow queued up traffic to pass, just like you do when you tow a trailer up a mountain road. I'd surmise that for every BF'er that postures how they obstinately block angry honking drivers, not "letting" or "allowing" cars to pass, and "forcing" cars to change lanes, there are thousands of cyclists out there who ride in the lane courteously and without drama.

I think the argument is that the most dangerous driver is the one most likely to hit you. That would be any driver that squeezes past you within inches, particularly at speed. And when you hug the curb on a narrow lane, you tend to invite and receive many more close passes than if you ride far enough to the left such that cars must at least partially enter the next lane in order to pass.

This only delays the passing driver when the next lane is occupied, which is not all of the time. So you have to weigh the risk -- frequent close passes versus occasionally delaying a driver.

Finally, you can "take the lane" without being a prick about it, by acknowledging drivers and pulling off when you can to allow queued up traffic to pass, just like you do when you tow a trailer up a mountain road. I'd surmise that for every BF'er that postures how they obstinately block angry honking drivers, not "letting" or "allowing" cars to pass, and "forcing" cars to change lanes, there are thousands of cyclists out there who ride in the lane courteously and without drama.

Oh sure. But the idea that you get closer passes, the closer to the curb you ride, seems to be a (popular) myth, and nothing else:

http://www.bhsi.org/walkerfigs.pdf

The most dangerous drivers, by the way, are those who are distracted one way or the other. Most of us try to navigate a car with caution, and yet make mistakes, and on very rare occasions these mistakes will be dangerous, but I honestly don't think that the majority of accidents are cause by the cautious-but-still-human drivers. It's the distracted asshats that are most likely to hit cyclists, and they're exactly the people who'll never notice you however much you take the lane.

Personally, each version matches about 80 to 90 percent of my personal experiences of riding in an urban environment. Riding in the style of the first version, I may get motorists who will still move to the left as far as they can, and riding in the style of the second version, it fails to show the tailgating motorist.

Personally, each version matches about 80 to 90 percent of my personal experiences of riding in an urban environment. Riding in the style of the first version, I may get motorists who will still move to the left as far as they can, and riding in the style of the second version, it fails to show the tailgating motorist.

Hey Dynodonn -- clarifying what you mean by versions -- is the first version riding far right and the second version taking the lane?

Hey Dynodonn -- clarifying what you mean by versions -- is the first version riding far right and the second version taking the lane?

You would be correct, my apologies for not being more definitive in my post.

Oh sure. But the idea that you get closer passes, the closer to the curb you ride, seems to be a (popular) myth, and nothing else:

http://www.bhsi.org/walkerfigs.pdf

The most dangerous drivers, by the way, are those who are distracted one way or the other. Most of us try to navigate a car with caution, and yet make mistakes, and on very rare occasions these mistakes will be dangerous, but I honestly don't think that the majority of accidents are cause by the cautious-but-still-human drivers. It's the distracted asshats that are most likely to hit cyclists, and they're exactly the people who'll never notice you however much you take the lane.

Very interesting and thanks for posting the link -- I had not seen those stats before. I was able to find the study narrative on BHSI, http://www.helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm which provides some links to related articles including http://www.helmets.org/walkerchartsrev2b.pdf , in which Dan Guttierez analyses the data and takes minor issue with chart layouts (he feels by truncating the Y axis, small effects are made to appear larger).

He also notes that "The other point to be made is that if Dr. Walker had positioned himself further left still, say 7 feet from the curb (in a 12 foot lane), he would have observed lane change behavior from passing motorists, and the passing distances would have been larger than the numbers he measures at lateral positions closer to the curb." That was my question as I looked at the charts -- how was passing clearance measured when a motorist moved over a complete lane and left the cyclist completely alone in his lane -- was that data point even measured and included?

The reason I even raise the question is I'm trying to reconcile the apparent results against my own personal experience -- when riding further left, it seems that drivers more often change lanes completely. And, I've only been buzzed when I was hugging the curb. Of course, this only anecdotal and not statistically significant.

Finally, I agree with you that distracted drivers are dangerous, but I disagree that they will "never" notice you no matter where you ride. I think the less you blend in on the right, the more likely a distracted driver will wake up and pay attention. This is only my personal opinion -- I don't have scientific studies to back it up.

Finally, I agree with you that distracted drivers are dangerous, but I disagree that they will "never" notice you no matter where you ride. I think the less you blend in on the right, the more likely a distracted driver will wake up and pay attention. This is only my personal opinion -- I don't have scientific studies to back it up.

The "never" was a bit too definitive, and the Walker study certainly doesn't show a huge difference. However, both my points seem to show that the confidence in "lane taking" is misplaced.

The animation is a good tool but doesn't tell the whole story. There is indeed a time and a place to "take the lane" and ride as the animation suggests is the correct way to ride. There is also indeed a time and a place to ride to the far right preferably on the shoulder on the other side of the white line.

What personally annoys me the most as far as riding position is "continuous white line riders" those being the bicyclists who seem to think that the white line on the right hand side of the road is a four inch wide bike lane and that is where they ride under almost all riding conditions and then gripe and complain about all the close "screamer" passes that cagers make on them.To my mind based upon my experience in most situations riding in the lane in the right tire track or to the right of the white line on the shoulder edge is a better choice then riding on the white line. Riding on the white line in most situations is like hanging a big sign on your back that says "Please make a close high speed pass on me and kill me by cracking my head open with your mirror." Actually hanging such a sign on your back while riding that way might actually be safer then riding that way without it since it would at least make motorists aware of the potential danger to you by this situation.

There is a time and a place for almost every lane position. Me personally:
----- On 45+ mph roadways with a ride-able shoulder edge I ride on the shoulder to the right of the white line and treat the shoulder as my own private bike lane and position myself within that lane according to conditions at hand which includes taking a far left position in my lane (the shoulder edge) when approaching an major intersection where "right hooking", "exit left cross T-bone-ing", and/or "entry T-bone-ing" are hazards since it improves my visibility. If I need to exit my lane (the shoulder edge) and switch to the next lane to the left I treat it just like any other lane change yielding to traffic already in the lane I intend to merge into (S.M.O.G. = Signal, Mirror, look Over shoulder, Go). To my mind and style of riding this is FRAP riding.
----- On 25 mph or less roadways (posted speed limit not actual traffic speed = if they want to speed and get annoyed at me because I am riding the speed limit or just barely under it its their problem not mine so they can just %*$^ shove it where ^&^*%* !#%@ ) I always take the lane regardless of whether there is a ride-able shoulder edge or a bike lane or a bike side-path or adjacent MUP or sidewalk anything else for that matter. I position myself in that lane as conditions merit usually riding on the left edge of the right side tire track beaten into the pavement but occasionally switching to dead middle of the lane or the left tire track as necessary under the conditions at hand. To my mind and style of riding this is VC riding.
----- I avoid riding on roadways with an average motor vehicle traffic speed greater then 45 mph that do not have a ride-able shoulder edge especially if then are narrow, whindy, and/or have heavy vehicular traffic. If I do have to ride on such a road to reach my destination since there is no other better route then I will take the lane riding in the right side tire track and pull over and let traffic pass if it starts to back up behind me when I reach a good pull out spot. Sometimes I will even ride a side-path or adjacent MUP instead of such a road although I generally consider riding them to be more hazardous then riding most roads but these roads are an exception to that generality.
----- On roads with with a ride-able shoulder edge or bike lane to the right and posted speed limits greater then 25mph but where the average speed of motor vehicle traffic is 45 mph or less I will either ride as I have previously outlined above VC or FRAP (on the shoulder or in the bike lane) as I believe is best for the conditions at hand at that time. I will not hesitate to ride roads without ride-able shoulders or bike lanes in this speed range VC style as I have previously outlined above.
----- The only time I am a "white line rider" is when I ride the white line in-between the straight through lane and the right hand turn lane at a major intersection on a high speed highway that otherwise has a ride-able shoulder edge or bike-lane to the right that I am riding FRAP style as I have previously outlined above. I will ride that white line or just to the right or left of it depending on immediate conditions just to pass straight through that intersection and will continue on my way riding on the shoulder or bike lane to the right after passing through the intersection. Why the idiots who designed most of the bike lanes I have seen almost always route the bike lane to the right of the right hand turn lane for straight through bike traffic is beyond my comprehension.

The "never" was a bit too definitive, and the Walker study certainly doesn't show a huge difference. However, both my points seem to show that the confidence in "lane taking" is misplaced.

One thing I had meant to ask -- your location is Copenhagen. My impression is that ridership is very high, accident rate is low, and cyclists are generally accepted and treated well by motorists. Is this correct? And if you ride all the way to the right, do you ever experience close passes? Or do motorists give you plenty of room in those cases?

One thing I had meant to ask -- your location is Copenhagen. My impression is that ridership is very high, accident rate is low, and cyclists are generally accepted and treated well by motorists. Is this correct? And if you ride all the way to the right, do you ever experience close passes? Or do motorists give you plenty of room in those cases?

I feel - but this is purely anecdotal - that on roads with no bike paths I get adequate room. But remember that "adequate" is a rather subjective term :).

I remember a few close shaves back in the days (late 70's, I think) when Copenhagen streets had a lot fewer bike paths. I also remember seeing how VC-style left turns killed two people right in front of me. And before the cycle path "revolution", the fight for space had become almost intolerable. I dare not think how it would be now, with a lot more traffic, both cars and bikes. The thing is, for a European city, we have a very high percentage of car commuters, as the sprawl is of almost American dimensions and the public transport is woefully inadequate.

I guess - judging from the stories I read here - that cyclists are generally more accepted by the drivers than in, say, the USA or GB. Still, every political move to improve conditions for cyclists is met with furious opposition by the car lobby which is (strangely) powerfull. And the "letters to the editor" or comments on divers blogs and Facebook, are exactly as vengefull and semipsychopathic as those you know from the USA.

I feel - but this is purely anecdotal - that on roads with no bike paths I get adequate room. But remember that "adequate" is a rather subjective term :).

... every political move to improve conditions for cyclists is met with furious opposition by the car lobby which is (strangely) powerfull. And the "letters to the editor" or comments on divers blogs and Facebook, are exactly as vengefull and semipsychopathic as those you know from the USA.

For me, "adequate" clearance is that which does not alarm me, which varies with closing speed.

Sounds like your area is more similar to the USA than I had realized.

Here is what I think could be a key difference -- you mentioned have not had close calls since the 70's. My experience is that in the USA, if you are on narrow road and you are riding within a foot of the edge, you are going to get frequently buzzed by drivers who "share" the lane with you. The buzzes happen when the driver neither slows nor pulls left partially out of the lane. And when that lane is narrow, there isn't much clearance available on either side. So this again is the rationale for controlling the lane, which by now you've heard here ad nauseum I realize.

much snipped
I also remember seeing how VC-style left turns killed two people right in front of me.



Hagen, you have repeatedly referred to the events above, as justification for opposing VC cycling. Presumably, you had a good look at the collisions as they were occurring. Well, then, please describe to us, for each of these two collisions, the movements of the two parties, including the traffic errors that caused the collisions.

please describe to us, for each of these two collisions, the movements of the two parties, including the traffic errors that caused the collisions.

macabre.

On this side of the Atlantic, RIP Bruce Rosar. A skilled and renowned bicycle driver, nonetheless killed executing a left turn in NC. And i wasn't there so i can't describe the crash other than what I've read of it.

As to the relentlessly fearmongering yet totally worthless video, i have one comment -

"FROGGER!"

I find it hilarious how some bicycle drivers think a extremely wide, out-of-compliance-with-national-highway-safety-standards 22 foot wide outside lanes effectively mitigates traffic conflict issues at intersections for bicyclists.

Judging by the video, the suggested infrastructure 'improvement' lauded by bicycle drivers -pavement width and nothing more specific - EXACERBATES traffic conflicts.

FAIL.

276473

Hagen, you have repeatedly referred to the events above, as justification for opposing VC cycling. Presumably, you had a good look at the collisions as they were occurring. Well, then, please describe to us, for each of these two collisions, the movements of the two parties, including the traffic errors that caused the collisions.

I was 8 respectively 9 years old when they happened. The only thing I recall, apart from the horror at the sight, is that they changed lane, and were hit. Of course, lots of people were never hit making that kind of left turns, but the number who were was sufficientlly high for the authorities to change the rules for left turns.

I was 8 respectively 9 years old when they happened. The only thing I recall, apart from the horror at the sight, is that they changed lane, and were hit. Of course, lots of people were never hit making that kind of left turns, but the number who were was sufficientlly high for the authorities to change the rules for left turns.

What you are telling us, Hagen, is that because some incompetent Dutch cyclists made incompetent lane changes and got smashed, the Dutch authorities then prohibited even the competent cyclists from changing lanes to make left turns. That's the kind of arbitrary anti-cyclist discrimination we have been fighting here, although much of it is most likely done for the convenience of motorists, shielded by the motorist-superiority/cyclist-inferiority superstition.

What you are telling us, Hagen, is that because some incompetent Dutch cyclists made incompetent lane changes and got smashed, the Dutch authorities then prohibited even the competent cyclists from changing lanes to make left turns. That's the kind of arbitrary anti-cyclist discrimination we have been fighting here, although much of it is most likely done for the convenience of motorists, shielded by the motorist-superiority/cyclist-inferiority superstition.

:eek:

:lol:

:love:

:eek:

:lol:

:love:

By the way: you never bothered to go to the Netherlands to check out things for yourself, did you? Nor did you ever bother to simply read David Hemrow's blog, did you?

Thought so.

I was 8 respectively 9 years old when they happened. The only thing I recall, apart from the horror at the sight, is that they changed lane, and were hit. Of course, lots of people were never hit making that kind of left turns, but the number who were was sufficientlly high for the authorities to change the rules for left turns.
Hit by oncoming traffic? Hit from behind?

People get killed in all sorts of other situations. Do you avoid all of those too?

macabre.
No. It's hard to say what informational purpose Hagen2456 (unfortunate) anecdote serves.


On this side of the Atlantic, RIP Bruce Rosar. A skilled and renowned bicycle driver, nonetheless killed executing a left turn in NC. And i wasn't there so i can't describe the crash other than what I've read of it.
So what?

Hit by oncoming traffic? Hit from behind?

People get killed in all sorts of other situations. Do you avoid all of those too?

Here, we avoid most kinds of bike fatalities, because the bike paths are working quite fine. Where they don't, like in the countryside, a disproportionate lot of riders are killed and injured. I think that there, the rate is similar to the general American rate. (4-5 times that of roads and streets where bike paths are implemented)

What you are telling us, Hagen, is that because some incompetent Dutch cyclists made incompetent lane changes and got smashed, the Dutch authorities then prohibited even the competent cyclists from changing lanes to make left turns. That's the kind of arbitrary anti-cyclist discrimination we have been fighting here, although much of it is most likely done for the convenience of motorists, shielded by the motorist-superiority/cyclist-inferiority superstition.
Copenhagen isn't Dutch ;)

To be honest, I would accept a ban on changing lanes to make left turns if it meant we had Copenhagen-style infrastructure. Seems like an acceptable compromise to me.

No. It's hard to say what informational purpose Hagen2456 (unfortunate) anecdote serves.

Only if you really don't want to get it, context and all.

So what?

You know, one could interpret that as being incredibly callous, if one wished to. But why should one wish to misinterpret what others write?

What you are telling us, Hagen, is that because some incompetent Dutch cyclists made incompetent lane changes and got smashed, the Dutch authorities then prohibited even the competent cyclists from changing lanes to make left turns. That's the kind of arbitrary anti-cyclist discrimination we have been fighting here, although much of it is most likely done for the convenience of motorists, shielded by the motorist-superiority/cyclist-inferiority superstition.

Classic John Forester! :lol:

Spins up his standard/classic know nothing about NL cycling diatribe into a bogus interpretation of what another poster is "telling us."

You know, one could interpret that as being incredibly callous, if one wished to. But why should one wish to misinterpret what others write?
:rolleyes:

There's nothing to "misinterpret". It was the barest mention of an accident. Not enough detail to be able to guess at his point.


Here, we avoid most kinds of bike fatalities, because the bike paths are working quite fine. Where they don't, like in the countryside, a disproportionate lot of riders are killed and injured. I think that there, the rate is similar to the general American rate. (4-5 times that of roads and streets where bike paths are implemented)

That's interesting.

Anyway, are you suggesting that people should ride where there are no bike paths?

Copenhagen isn't Dutch ;)

Makes no difference to John Forester. He hasn't been to either location and knows nothing about cycling in either country

:rolleyes:

There's nothing to "misinterpret". It was the barest mention of an accident. Not enough detail to be able to guess at his point.



That's interesting.

Anyway, are you suggesting that people should ride where there are no bike paths?

Eh? I don't get why you ask that question.

If one has to get from A to B outside the larger Danish cities, that's what one is left with in very many places. I also think that is one of the major reasons that our fatality rate is slightly higher than the Dutch, and it certainly contributes to the low rate of cycling outside the cities (not least among school children). Of course, if one is out for a round on the racer, that's the roads one will use, too. Luckily, on most of the larger roads with fast traffic, the shoulders are of a nice width.

Eh? I don't get why you ask that question.

If one has to get from A to B outside the larger Danish cities, that's what one is left with in very many places. I also think that is one of the major reasons that our fatality rate is slightly higher than the Dutch, and it certainly contributes to the low rate of cycling outside the cities (not least among school children). Of course, if one is out for a round on the racer, that's the roads one will use, too. Luckily, on most of the larger roads with fast traffic, the shoulders are of a nice width.

It's possible that the larger distances are enough to explain this.

Anyway...

In the US (at least), the amount of bike lanes (which, I guess, you think would eliminate the need to make "vehicular" left turns) is very small. If people want to ride bicycles in the US, they have to deal with what exists. They can't wait until enough bike lanes are present to start riding.

While it's likely that more bicycle paths will be built in the US, there will always be many, many places where bicycle paths will never exist. That means that many riders (in the US) are going to have to be able to ride in the roadway.

And, rather obviously, we have no idea why the unfortunate people you observed (or the person Bek mentioned) got killed.

We can guess that they would not have been riding bicycles where they were if bicycle riding required bike lanes.

It's also puzzling that bicycle riding is safe (no helmets required!) and unsafe.

In the US (at least), the amount of bike lanes (which, I guess, you think would eliminate the need to make "vehicular" left turns) is very small. If people want to ride bicycles in the US, they have to deal with what exists. They can't wait until enough bike lanes are present to start riding.

While it's likely that more bicycle paths will be built in the US, there will always be many, many places where bicycle paths will never exist. That means that many riders (in the US) are going to have to be able to ride in the roadway.

"Riding in the roadway" for most cyclists in the U.S. has little to nothing to do with "lane control," as the term "lane control" is used by our Vehicular Cycling advocate comrades. Cyclists ride on the shoulders (when available) or to the far right, including in the door zone in crowded city traffic, regardless if a bike lane is marked out or not. They do it because it works out better for them than the available alternatives. And have been doing so long before anyone ever dreamed of a bike lane.

The cyclists who practice "lane control" as the term is normally used, are relatively few and far between, anywhere, and the presence/absence of bike lanes is a red herring.

By the way: you never bothered to go to the Netherlands to check out things for yourself, did you? Nor did you ever bother to simply read David Hemrow's blog, did you?

Thought so.

I have not gone to the Netherlands to check things out for myself. What does that have to do with the two car-bike collisions in which the cyclists were turning left that you witnessed and which you use as justification for your opinions about traffic cycling?

And, yes, I have read Hemrow's (Hembrow?) article. I see no connection between his article and the subject of the previous paragraph.

"Riding in the roadway" for most cyclists in the U.S. has little to nothing to do with "lane control," as the term "lane control" is used by our Vehicular Cycling advocate comrades. Cyclists ride on the shoulders (when available) or to the far right, including in the door zone in crowded city traffic, regardless if a bike lane is marked out or not. They do it because it works out better for them than the available alternatives. And have been doing so long before anyone ever dreamed of a bike lane.
??? Should they be riding this way? If not, what do you suggest be done about it?

It seems that you think this sort of riding is OK (it's hard to tell).


The cyclists who practice "lane control" as the term is normally used, are relatively few and far between, anywhere, and the presence/absence of bike lanes is a red herring.

:rolleyes: hagen2456 seems to think that taking the lane is instant death (it's hard to tell).

What the heck are you talking about??

is this the semantics nanny forum or something? self appointed forum policemans ball?

Q: How does a cyclist control a 22 foot wide outside lane?

A: They don't.

:roflmao:

I think I-like-to-bike has a very good point about 'lane control'


"Riding in the roadway" for most cyclists in the U.S. has little to nothing to do with "lane control," as the term "lane control" is used by our Vehicular Cycling advocate comrades. Cyclists ride on the shoulders (when available) or to the far right, including in the door zone in crowded city traffic, regardless if a bike lane is marked out or not. They do it because it works out better for them than the available alternatives. And have been doing so long before anyone ever dreamed of a bike lane.

The cyclists who practice "lane control" as the term is normally used, are relatively few and far between, anywhere, and the presence/absence of bike lanes is a red herring.

I 'd have to say, though, that many cyclists i see riding on the roads today practice appropriate lane control when needed. That doesn't describe the frogger like scenarios depicted in the entertaining animations mentioned in the original post.

Again, how does a cyclist control a 22 foot wide lane?

Q: What does the phrase "Appropriate Speed & Destination Positioning" mean to a normal vehicular cyclist?

A: Choosing a position on the roadway dependant on your speed relative to other traffic and your destination. No big deal, a normal part of everyday riding.




Q: What does the phrase "Appropriate speed and destination positioning" mean to a vehicularly addled cyclist?

A: What?

:roflmao:

276473

posters like this make me seriously wonder about the bike law reform (sic) party's stated goal of fighting to repeal laws letting cyclists in florida control narrow lanes of traffic with their lofty, unsubstantiated and dubious projections bicyclists would retain the same rights to do so. There is a glaring, fatal flaw in their theory.....

It's possible that the larger distances are enough to explain this.

Larger distances, sure. But those distances have become longer, and traffic on the whole more intense. Still, most Dutch kids cycle to school, and a lot more errands are made by bike than in Denmark (not to mention GB or the USA).

The safety of riding has nothing to do with helmets and (almost) everything to do with infrastructure. And yes, there will always be places where people can't ride on bike paths. And, surpriiiise: those are very sparely inhabited areas. Like, not in cities and suburbs.

I don't really see the point in this. All the tired old VC myths have been refuted. Get over it..

??? Should they be riding this way? If not, what do you suggest be done about it?

It seems that you think this sort of riding is OK (it's hard to tell).
Who cares what you think is OK?
What cyclist gives a darn what you, or I, think is "OK" about where they ride?

I don't suggest that anything "be done" about cyclists choosing where they legally ride on the street or road, because who sez there should be?

Who cares what you think is OK?
What cyclist gives a darn what you, or I, think is "OK" about where they ride?

I don't suggest that anything "be done" about cyclists choosing where they legally ride on the street or road, because who sez there should be?

???

What are you talking about? You aren't making much sense.