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.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-24-12, 04:26 PM   #51
bandit1990
Senior Member
 
bandit1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chalupa102 View Post
(If this is in the wrong section, please move)

Quick senario. About a week ago I was driving on a curvy 2 lane road (1 lane each direction) with a narrow shoulder. From the white line to the edge of the road was probably about 2 feet wide at max. There was what looked like a pretty experienced cyclist on a nice road bike ahead. He was positioned, for the most part, on or a little to the right of the white line in the shoulder. I have never biked on the particular section of the road. I would think he would have been better taking the lane in the right tire track to make himself more visible, especially on a curvy road. I could be wrong though.

So I'm just wondering, when do you personally decide to take the lane? I know people have different views on it, but what is your preference? Also, if there's a decent shoulder and you use it, where do you position yourself in it?
Never.
bandit1990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-12, 01:06 PM   #52
bandit1990
Senior Member
 
bandit1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
bandit1990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-12, 07:00 PM   #53
nerys
Senior Member
 
nerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 19057
Bikes: Day 6 Dream 21
Posts: 484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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)

safety first.
nerys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-12, 01:44 PM   #54
bandit1990
Senior Member
 
bandit1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nerys View Post
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)

safety first.
Safety my a##. No one cares about the safety of the cyclist -- just have to prove a point that motorists (cagers) are out to get them. I"m not going to get into the "I've ridden 100,000 miles, and never had...." BS. If you take the lane, you are asking for trouble. No one is at fault except for you, the cyclist, who thinks that you own the lane. You don't. You will lose every time against the machine. Accept the fact that we are relegated to the sidelines...cycling is much more enjoyable.
bandit1990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-12, 03:05 PM   #55
nerys
Senior Member
 
nerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 19057
Bikes: Day 6 Dream 21
Posts: 484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
nerys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-12, 01:15 PM   #56
hagen2456
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Posts: 1,827
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
There has never, to my knowledge, been a study specifically of this point. However, the general car-bike collision statistics (the Cross study) show that a great many more car-bike collisions are associated with cycling close to the edge of the roadway than are associated with, or reasonably caused by, taking the lane.
Unlikely.

http://www.bhsi.org/walkerfigs.pdf
hagen2456 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-12, 01:21 PM   #57
hagen2456
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Posts: 1,827
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nerys View Post
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.
Again and again, we get this nonsense. Please realize that those drivers who are most dangerous to cyclists - and all other road users - are the distracted ones. They are far more likely to hit you the farther out in the lane you're positioned. Because they never saw you while texting, or reaching for something they dropped, or because they were DUI etc.
hagen2456 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-12, 01:31 PM   #58
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: 23,508
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
There has never, to my knowledge, been a study specifically of this point. However, the general car-bike collision statistics (the Cross study) show that a great many more car-bike collisions are associated with cycling close to the edge of the roadway than are associated with, or reasonably caused by, taking the lane.
Of course the Cross study never measured anything about where cyclists actually ride a bicycle, only where accidents occurred. Specifically not considered by Cross, and ignored by those who rely on this study: what percentage of cycling is actually done "while taking a lane" vice cycling close to the edge of a roadway. Not surprising that most accidents happen where cycling actually takes place.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-12, 02:03 PM   #59
nerys
Senior Member
 
nerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 19057
Bikes: Day 6 Dream 21
Posts: 484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
nerys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-12, 02:21 PM   #60
hagen2456
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Posts: 1,827
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nerys View Post
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.
Of course not.

Yours must be one of the most reality-alien posts I've encountered for a while.
hagen2456 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-12, 08:09 PM   #61
nerys
Senior Member
 
nerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 19057
Bikes: Day 6 Dream 21
Posts: 484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
nerys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-12, 01:37 PM   #62
bandit1990
Senior Member
 
bandit1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nerys View Post
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.
Nerys...plese stay in the lane if you want. No affect on me, or other riders that ride to the right side of the road. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and we can't disprove a negative. There is absoluletly no evidence that there are more car-bike interactions regarding placement in the road. I believe that persons taking the lane are placed in more danger than those that ride the fog line. You object. Until there is a scientific study disputing the claim, we are going to have to live with perception. Sorry.
bandit1990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-12, 02:03 PM   #63
nerys
Senior Member
 
nerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 19057
Bikes: Day 6 Dream 21
Posts: 484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
nerys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-12, 02:30 PM   #64
bandit1990
Senior Member
 
bandit1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nerys View Post
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?
I applaud you for taking the time to explain your position. However, ther are point in you essay that are wrong:
bandit1990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-12, 02:37 PM   #65
bandit1990
Senior Member
 
bandit1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nerys View Post
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?
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.

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.

Sincerely,
bandit
bandit1990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-12, 03:36 PM   #66
nerys
Senior Member
 
nerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 19057
Bikes: Day 6 Dream 21
Posts: 484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
nerys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-12, 04:23 PM   #67
bandit1990
Senior Member
 
bandit1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nerys View Post
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.
I'm glad you think I have grammer issues...so does my mother. As to your justification of your postion, you refer to post #63 (which, I believe, was posted by you). Evidently, you can not provide any more information which supports your position (post #63). Subjective opinion is great -- it gives a starting point for discussion. I don't have the time nor resources to debate you. I just have theoretical evidence that suggests riding on the right hand side of the road does not make an cyclist a greater target then riding in the center of the lane. If you can prove me wrong, please do so.
bandit1990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-12, 07:16 PM   #68
nerys
Senior Member
 
nerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 19057
Bikes: Day 6 Dream 21
Posts: 484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
nerys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-12, 07:41 PM   #69
Clarabelle
Senior Member
 
Clarabelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Sequim, Washington on the Olympic Peninsula
Bikes: Co-Motion Mocha, Fuji touring, Trex hybrid, Bike Friday Tandem Traveler
Posts: 438
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROJA View Post
Just to get the lingo straight, I think the common use of the term "taking the lane" refers to riding in such a way that an overtaking car or truck would have to change lanes to pass. That typically means riding no further right than the right tire track.
That is my interpretation. On a 2-Lane road with little shoulder, I ride in the right tire track to force cars to go to left to pass me. Years ago I learned that hugging a curb or riding on the fog line with little shoulder invites "squeakers." "Squeakers" being drivers of motorized vehicles who think they can safely squeak by a bike without crossing the center line. Being run into a curb is no fun.

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.
Clarabelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-12, 09:01 PM   #70
nerys
Senior Member
 
nerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 19057
Bikes: Day 6 Dream 21
Posts: 484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
nerys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-12, 12:41 PM   #71
bandit1990
Senior Member
 
bandit1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.


bandit1990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-12, 12:59 PM   #72
nerys
Senior Member
 
nerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 19057
Bikes: Day 6 Dream 21
Posts: 484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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 01:04 PM.
nerys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-12, 01:31 PM   #73
bandit1990
Senior Member
 
bandit1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Where is CBHI when I need him? Nerys, enjoy riding, and do it as much as possible. Be safe. I'm out.
bandit1990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-12, 08:55 AM   #74
hagen2456
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Posts: 1,827
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nerys View Post
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.
Well, though your post looks verty weird on my screen, and is very difficult to read, I think that I understand you to say that if you "take the lane" you're somehow easier to see for someone who doesn't look up.

Ahem.

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 09:01 AM.
hagen2456 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-12, 09:04 AM   #75
hagen2456
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Posts: 1,827
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandit1990 View Post
Where is CBHI when I need him? Nerys, enjoy riding, and do it as much as possible. Be safe. I'm out.
With friends like CBHI, who needs enemies?
hagen2456 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 03:45 AM.