View Single Post
Old 12-04-17, 02:24 AM
  #74  
Ninety5rpm
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
The bone of contention is the proposed recommendation for allegedly reducing bicycling risk incurred from close passes while riding anywhere to the right side of the right lane, to include bike lanes or shoulder -

The solution: Ride nowhere near the right portion of the traffic lane and instead to ride much farther to the left or near the middle of traffic lanes in order to allegedly be more visible, regardless of traffic conditions.

The proponents of this solution ignore the possibility that cyclists following this dogmatic "solution" could increase their risk of overtaking collisions with the likely increased risk of catastrophic injuries by following such a recommendation, and furthermore that "taking the lane" does not necessarily remove or even reduce whatever risk exists from close passes.

Anecdotes about an alleged history of "lane taking" reducing risk from close passes that lead to collisions, let alone any reduction in overall bicycling risk do not become more convincing with constant repetition, nor by use of enlarged blue typefaces, nor by citing unproven/unsubstantiated bicycling safety theory on the topic from Vehicular Cycling Promoters/ideologues.
You conveniently ignore that at least some of us here, apparently, use mirrors and don’t just blindly ride in the middle of the lane oblivious and vulnerable to the catastrophic injuries you worry so much about.

Turns out the main benefit of using the full lane with a mirror is not avoiding such catastrophe but observing how and when motorists react. That’s how you realize the probability of a hit from behind would be extremely unlikely even if you weren’t observing and prepared to avoid.
Ninety5rpm is offline