Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > > >

Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-14-07, 03:48 PM   #1
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
The essence of cyclist rights/reasons to take the lane?

I think this passage (slightly edited) from another thread succinctly describes the essence of cyclist rights and practical safety reasons to take the lane, when it is appropriate to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Blocking traffic is unlawful conduct for any driver. The question concerns whether or not there is sufficient clear sight distance to safely overtake the cyclist. If there is, the cyclist should accommodate such overtaking, but if there is not, then the cyclist is entitled by law to occupy a lateral position that prevents such dangerous overtaking, because, if that danger actually materializes, he will be caught in the tangle and may well be the only person injured, even though the fault is that of the overtaking motorist.
What do you think?
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-07, 04:01 PM   #2
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,570
The ironic thing is that there is a message going around the SDCBC that basically outlines the same issues with the general response of motorists... that of the motorist believing that they own the road and therefore cyclists should get out of the way. This attitude is somewhat emphasized by road designed for 50MPH motor traffic.

If we expect motorists to act in any other way (ie properly)... surface street roads should not be built to resemble freeways and motorists must be reminded of their responsibilities to drive in a proper lawful manner. This responsibility must include the use of the brake pedal by the motorist when cycling traffic dictates. (oddly enough, motorists generally don't seem to have too much problem slowing down for other motorists... as evidenced by the twice a day "rush hour" display on every major freeway. )
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-07, 04:52 PM   #3
sbhikes
Dominatrikes
 
sbhikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
Posts: 4,920
JF's quote says as a cyclist I'm entitled by law to occupy a lateral position that prevents such dangerous overtaking.

But just because you are entitled doesn't mean that it's always the wisest choice or that you'll reap the bet results.
sbhikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-07, 10:58 PM   #4
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
sightlines and dangerous overtaking?

that's it?

weak. it doesn't jive with your pet powerweave technique either, head.

paltry and incomplete. not accurate or all-encompassing at all.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-07, 04:06 AM   #5
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head View Post
I think this passage (slightly edited) from another thread succinctly describes the essence of cyclist rights and practical safety reasons to take the lane, when it is appropriate to do so.

Originally Posted by John Forester: "Blah, blah,blah"

What do you think?

I think What a toady!
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-07, 07:49 AM   #6
sggoodri
Senior Member
 
sggoodri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cary, NC
Bikes: 1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
Posts: 3,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head View Post
I think this passage (slightly edited) from another thread succinctly describes the essence of cyclist rights and practical safety reasons to take the lane, when it is appropriate to do so.

What do you think?
This quote considers only one of many different legitimate reasons to operate in the primary (center-ish) position in the lane: A narrow two-lane road with insufficient sight distance. Here the primary concern is suprises from oncoming traffic that may occur during the motorist's pass, and the utility of discouraging a too-close same-lane pass in such locations.

The "essence" of cyclists' right to take the primary lane position derives from our right to use the roadway as vehicle operators, the safety benefits of increased visibility and hazard clearance near the center of a travel lane, and the reality that side-by-side operation of a bicycle and a motor vehicle in a single lane is often undesirably unsafe and should be discouraged in such situations. These situations are affected by everything from road design and maintenance to the speeds and destinations of the road users involved.
sggoodri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-07, 09:50 AM   #7
CommuterRun
Conservative Hippie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wakulla Co. FL
Bikes:
Posts: 4,271
What do I think?

He's right, as far as he takes it in that one paragraph. There are many other reasons to take the lane. Some even related to passing, even in situations where effective sight-lines are present.
CommuterRun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-07, 10:05 AM   #8
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Bikes:
Posts: 4,077
If we are talking about a lane that is not wide enough for a motorists and cyclists to safely share side by side John is basically correct. But if there is extra width (bike lane or shoulder) then things get a little tweedier. Technically a cyclist is not entitled by law to take this kind of lane but has to make a case that there is a “hazard” they are avoiding by leaving the right side of the roadway. Steve’s response is a better articulation of that case and the hazards that are being avoided.
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-07, 10:08 AM   #9
nova
hill hater
 
nova's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: norton ohio 5.5 miles from center road tow path trail head
Bikes: cannondale t400 1987 model and a raleigh gran prix from 1973
Posts: 2,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head View Post
I think this passage (slightly edited) from another thread succinctly describes the essence of cyclist rights and practical safety reasons to take the lane, when it is appropriate to do so.



What do you think?

Partially right. Heres why i take the lane at various points on various roads. When coming to a intersection/stoplight esp when turning left or going strait with a right turn strait and left turn lane. Simply put i do not want to be stuck trying to cross multiple lanes of traffic for my turn. Coming up on narrow bridges etc. Buddy of mine nearly fell off the jhonson road over pass going over 21. No car involved his chain decided to snap and he lost control. His bike ended up in the median on 21 while he hung on to the railing.

Now Why i take the lane in areas where passing is not safe etc.
It is not to force a 2 ton car to pass me safely sorry that will not ever happen they ither will or they wont. I take the lane so that i have more room to move over to the right when a driver passes to closely and i know they are going to do so. Instead of having a foot or 2 to work with i have 4 or more feet to work with.
nova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-07, 10:11 PM   #10
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post

I think What a toady!
I agree.

fawning adulation over a flawed, incomplete analysis.


weak. toadyism at its most stinky.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:35 AM.