No one has a response to this? Really? Why not take the lane? Why advocate riding FRAP when it's an option? I'm dissapointed.
Like I said. for me its about safety. there are times when it is very logical and insane "NOT" to "take the lane"
I made a "RIGHT" and had a guy almost clip me years ago. you know how people clip the curb with the rear wheel of their truck? imagine if YOU were in that spot when they did that (its called wheel cheat by the way the rear wheels take a different path than the front wheels)
when I am in the lane. I DO own that lane. legally and morally. you don't like that surrender your license and get off our roads. you are a danger to the rest of us.
hagen your points are irrelevant. the person not paying attention because they are texting are going to hit me whether I take the lane or not.
your logical falacy is that you think by staying to the right of the lane that I magically become immune to texters etc..
SO lets do a simple deduction.
if the driver IS paying somewhat attention and simply does not notice me
on the edge of the road higher chance of hitting me in "high risk" situations (such as turning left)
if I present myself in front of him I am a larger IMPOSITION to him and therefore increase the odds of him noticing me.
my risk is reduced.
if the driver is flat out not paying attention ie texting them its not relevant whether I am taking the lane or on the edge of the lane so my risk is "unchanged"
so probability says my risk overall is reduced is I "take the lane" when appropriate to do so.
therefore I will continue to do so.
again reality is funny that way. it imposes itself on you whether you agree with it or not. so "declaring" my posts alien to reality in spite of the reality you face won't suddenly "make them so"
sorry. just don't work that way.
the evidence is simply logical conclusion. not empirical evidence.
you are less likely to notice a cycle on the shoulder than you are the cycle sitting directly in front of you. if you require empirical evidence for this simple obvious clearly correct conclusion then a logical conversation with you on the subject at hand is not possible.
I reworded that a few times I am not trying to be name calling or nasty about it I think I worded it pretty neutrally.
I don't need evidence that gravity exists. I can think of plenty of examples that show it exist that would not qualify as "evidence" in an empirical sense.
This is what I mean when I say Reality persists and imposes itself on you whether you believe in it or not.
some thing are so blatantly obvious as to be ludicrous to debate.
I don't "stay" in the lane. I would be impeding faster traffic for no logical or sensible gain.
I "take" the lane when appropriate. many locals even recognize this in law. there are a few bridges in PA where cyclists are INSTRUCTED to take the entire right lane when crossing because its DANGEROUS to try and use the non existent shoulder. Cars use the other lane.
when I make a turn to the right with little or no shoulder I TAKE the lane. the reason is simple. if they don't see me they will run me down if I don't there is not enough margin for error.
when there is a really wide margin or a grass/sidewalk for me to use then I do not need to take the lane therefore I don't
when I make a LEFT turn if there is no cross walk I TAKE THE LANE for the left turn. once I complete the left turn I vacate the lane.
this is all simple logical stuff. your apparent need to argue about it confuses me a bit.
I am genuinely curious. is it simply for the sake of argument?
You don't believe gravity exists? Really? I've got an apple from a tree for you....
You toss around "empirical", "ludicrous"...do you really understand those terms?
This is my point..." I don't "stay" in the lane. I would be impeding faster traffic for no logical or sensible gain." Really? I just think you like to hang out there and cause an imposition to drivers. If you don't want to stay in the lane, then by all means move over.
clearly you do not. you also seem to have grammar issues as well. I will leave that to you.
your reply as a whole lacks much sense and logic. I think before I can reply do it that you need to rethink and repost it using some sort of logic to make it clearer. its seems very "rambling" like.
The only part that makes any sense is
"Sorry...but you cannot claim that riding in the center of the lane is safer than riding on the right side. If you can claim that, please provide statistical information."
yes I can. and yes it does. I won't bother telling you why as I already did so I refer you to post #63. There is no further information that I need to add to that post to satisfy your request.
well not grammar as in punctuation etc.. (which I am horrible at) but grammar as far as understanding meaning and context (for which you appear to be horrible at)
I provided plenty of info to support my position. the problem is the position YOU support has nothing to do with the position I support yet you seem to want to claim it does.
I don't have to provide any evidence to disprove what your saying because I am not trying to. I don't care about what your trying to say (using the lane) I care about what "I" an saying (using the lane when appropriate)
you do not seem to make a distinction between the two. this is your problem not mind. I don't have to prove you wrong because what you want me to "prove" has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
its like I am saying the sky is blue and your saying no the sky is red see and you hold up an apple and that is somehow proof I am wrong and you are right.
now this behavior of shifting context when inappropriate is normally a "troll" behavior indicator but you lack the other indicators of "trolldom" so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your not trolling.
care to clarify?
post #63 stands. you have stated nothing to contradict or bring valid information to bear regarding what I hate stated so there is nothing for me to reply to. sky apple.
I am talking about the "sky" your for some strange reason talking about apples and that somehow makes you right and me wrong.
In one instance, though, I did have the pleasure of calling a "If You Don't Like My Driving" number who said the president of the trucking company would be contacted. Hope that was true.
ahh so maybe its a lingo issue we are having here?
Normally I ride the shoulder. ie right of the right hand white line. no impedence to traffic.
for me taking the lane literally means just that. I move the the CENTER of the desired lane and occupy the entire lane.
I do this only when prudent. not for safety reasons (that is why I TOOK the lane) but only when prudent because why slow others down.
but when prudent (such as when turning with no safe shoulder means to turn or no safe crosswalk) then you can wait a few seconds to keep me alive. don't like it? surrender your license your a public danger.
I have NEVER had a driver complain to me. when I turn onto green lane I TAKE the left turn lane. I make the left turn and then I resume travel on the shoulder.
if I "stayed left" to turn I invite (and it happens ALMOST every single time which is why I don't do that anymore) the car "shares" the lane with me IE comes up along side me.
this is dangerous because if he does not notice me or forgets I am their he may cut the left turn "too tight" and take me out in the process.
right and wrong don't matter. squished is squished. :-)
same thing on right turns at some intersections. they do not tend to "stop" before turning on red and or even LOOK red or green and the curbs show the number of "tires" that have impacted them. imagine YOU in that spot when that happens. yeah No fun.
by "taking the lane" in full just long enough to "make the turn" I completely avoid this issue all together.
safety is improved no one is "impeded" since I am going just as fast around the turn as he would be for all relevant intents and purposes.
does that clarify things for you? I had assumed I was pretty clear on what I meant by "taking the lane" I was unaware their was another definition for those words in use.
My only response to this is that you are NOT riding your bike in a "vehicular" manner. There is no way a vehicular cyclist would ever ride to the right of the "fog line". As a matter of fact, I never do that...I'm always in the right tire track, or just left of that. Everything else you posted was fine, but to be vehicular you need to ride in the lane (at least some part of it). Riding on the shoulder will make you look like a victim to many here, and by doing so you give up your right to be seen as a vehicle on the roadway. If we (group) are trying to improve motorists beliefs in bicycle riding on the roadway, then we must exercise that right to the road (and not ride on the shoulder). Hopefully my grammer has improved enough for you to understand this post.
I understand your post but I don't understand what your trying to say.
your reply does not appear to be a valid response to anything I have said. in fact its more of what I was talking about before Sky versus apples. I think we are using the same words to describe something COMPLETELY different since what your saying does not make sense with what I am saying.
I am not "vehicular" in the same sense as a motor vehicle is so I have no need want or desire to "be seen" as vehicular in that regard.
I have never heard the term "fog line" (at first I thought you were from another country but I see your from CA so the lack of knowledge appears to be mine)
I assume the white line along the shoulder is the fog line.
if there is sufficient space there "why" would you wish to impede traffic needlessly?
Once "safety" is satisfied politeness then comes into play. Safety always trumps politeness but once your "safe enough" why be rude?
I don't have a "right" to be seen as a vehicle on the roadway (using the term vehicle to be similar to a motor vehicle)
I am a bicycle. bicycle versus car bicycle loses every time. no exceptions no arguments no discussion. Does not matter who is right and who is wrong. the two should not be mixed without consideration of this fact.
4000 pounds of metal will always beat even my 455 pounds of flesh. period.
I don't understand what your objective is ?
so say that a bicycle has as much right to position in the road as a car is preposterous. you might as well say its my right to "WALK" in the middle of the roadway too.
not even all motor vehicles are treated the same. there are plenty of roads where I can not take my 100cc motorcycle I am working on.
the reason is not about rights its about safety. its not SAVE to operate a typical 100cc motorcycle on a roadway with 4000 pound cars doing 65mph wherein the 100cc can't even DO 65mph.
should bicycles have usage rights to our surface level roadways and any other roadway with a safe path for them? Absolutely.
should they impede traffic WHEN there is sufficient safe space for them to operate without doing so? NO.
no more than I should be able to WALK in a roadway when there is a perfectly good sidewalk to use.
There must be balance. Bicycles should have road usage rights but not "unlimited" road usage rights.
just like I can't walk on the turnpike and can use local section of 95 as a runway for my airplane bicycles and cars should work WITH each other when it can be done safely.
when it can not be done safely the bicycle loses. its that simple.
the proper method is to educate the populace and to improve the roadways to be more bicycle friendly.
Last edited by nerys; 10-02-12 at 02:04 PM.
Where is CBHI when I need him? Nerys, enjoy riding, and do it as much as possible. Be safe. I'm out.
Okay, can we agree that someone who only occasionally looks where he's going so as to correct his course, will go in a more or less straight line, or at least be more inclined to do that than to sway? If so, then you're more inclined to be hit in the middle of the lane than near the curb/roadside.
Can we agree, too, that drivers will often see you without noticing you? In that case see the conclusion above.
Can we agree, too, that Walker's investigation showed that the further out in the lane, the closer the passes? If so, etc. etc.
Edit: This is not to say that one should never "take the lane". One must, on the other hand, be aware that it puts one at considerable risk where car speed isn't reduced one way ot the other, and the faster the traffic, the higher the risk. Personally, I'd never, ever risk it at car speeds above 35-40 mph.
Last edited by hagen2456; 10-04-12 at 10:01 AM.