Originally Posted by
ChipSeal
Yes, taking the lane by a cyclist presents the lowest risk profile for a variety of reasons and hazards when compared to riding to the right, riding on the fog line and riding on the shoulder. The relative advantage of taking the lane increases as the closing speed of overtaking traffic increases. So you got that part right.
Taking the lane can be safer but it does not "increases as the closing speed of overtaking traffic increases" (if it did, then "picnickers" would be safe). Risk decreases with a reduction in relative speed in many cases.
Originally Posted by
ChipSeal
A cyclist and a fixed object are perceived identically by an automobile operator traveling at speed. A motorist will take great care and give all his attention to avoid colliding with a stationary object. It would be unusual for a motorist to overlook any object in his path.
Yet, motorists do this fairly frequently!
Originally Posted by
ChipSeal
A distracted motorist is more likely to drift out of his lane. He is also more likely to drift to the right than to the left.
What percentage of "distracted drivers" drift out of the lane? Certainly, not
all of them.
A "distracted driver" is pretty-sure to run into things in front of him.
Originally Posted by
ChipSeal
A fixed object, and a cyclist, are equally at risk of being hit by traffic if they are both on the same portion of the lane or shoulder. But that risk becomes less the further into the travel lane they go.
Based on what (other than anecdote)? In all situation? (The risk can't be "equal" and "less" at the same time.)
Originally Posted by
ChipSeal
The chances of being struck in any case is low, as experienced cyclists like Widsith (Years of shoulder riding) and I-Like-To-Bike (Years of taking the lane.) can testify.
Anecdotal.
Anyway, since collisions are rare and most cyclists do not take the lane, the correlation to of "riding in the shoulder to collisions does not mean causation.