:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :lol:

Contrary to what some may think, I am NOT a dogmatic lane taker. I do my best to share the lane with motor traffic as much as possible. I also consider shoulder width and “ride off shoulders” (where I could safely ride off the road in a bail out situation) when determining when I will or will not control the lane. In practice, on my commutes, lane control vs. “let ‘em pass” is somewhere around 50/50.

My point is that in my experience, the vast majority of cyclists error on the side of not (or never!) controlling the lane, even when it would be in their best interest to do so.

I believe this practice makes it worse for the rest of us, as it colors motorist expectations, and encourages passing under any situation.

Fun thread!

Interesting way to frame the discussion so that anyone who disagrees is in a very small minority and is also a lunatic who endangers all cyclists. Broaden the discussion to the real world. Now, we can say that there are some cases where taking the lane is wrong. There are some cases where taking the lane is the safest way to proceed. Some cyclists are jerks, some drivers are jerks. Each situation must be taken individually.

Use your eyes and ears, evaluate the situation, communicate with your fellow road users and things go a lot smoother.

Lunatic? Not sure why you said that. “Misguided” would be more appropriate.

In the “Real World”, motorists are presented with a majority of cyclists sidewalk riding, curb/gutter hugging, and door zone riding. Pretty much doing everything they can to allow motorists to squeeze by ASAP, even when it may not be the safest thing to do.

So yes, I absolutely believe this widespread cyclist behavior contributes to motorist behavior to PASS PASS PASS… and endangers us all. Not a hysterical amount because cycling is still pretty safe even when best practices are not followed, but some.

Agreed! I do this every day and advocate that all cyclists should... Which happens to coincide with my belief that more cyclists should be controlling more lanes more often.

I apologize, I mis-interpreted your intent.

"Ditto!"....
:thumb::thumb::thumb::lol:

..."situational awareness and responsiveness..." is another way of saying defensive driving/riding.

Sure, semantics.
What matters is ones method of carrying it out, and whether its effects are real or imagined, and positive or negative. It stands to reason that one size fits all doesn't, and will have avoidable undesired results.

Yes, because being in the lane is where I would be far more likely likely to be seen by an insufficiently attentive driver. If I'm not seen, it doesn't matter if I'm in the lane or riding right; they're still very likely to hit me, so my best chance is to be where they are most likely to be seen, i.e., in the lane.

No, lane control isn't just "wishful thinking." It's a useful way to keep motorists from passing in an unsafe manner. The fact is that the single best way to discourage motorists from passing too closely is to move left into the lane. Most urban cyclists learn this counterintuitive fact as they gain experience riding in the street amongst motorized traffic.

Motorists are only less likely to pass when one takes the lane to the extent that controlling the lane makes it more difficult for motorists to pass until it is actually safe to do so. So the overwhelming majority of cases in which a motorist would pass a bicyclist riding right, but not a bicyclist in the lane are cases when the motorist would not be able to pass in a safe manner anyway.

While your reasoning is sound and valid for the conditions you reference, its not universal true, and I often ride in environments where phoebeisis's point of view is equally sound and valid, but also not universally true.

Hence, ride right when it's practicable, but be aware that it's usually not practicable. When it is not practicable to ride right, position oneself in the lane.

Absolutely, other than the need to recognize that only ones actual location will define what's "usually practicable". Unfortunately some advocate otherwise, causing themselves and others needless frustration.

If you LANE CONTROL
You will have fewer close passes.
But CLOSE PASSES- don't kill you.

Close passers are attentive drivers-
not "I didn't see him" drivers

Yes, but unskilled drivers also make errors in judgment, so why accommodate what can't be done? There's a difference between not safe and not possible.

Because you can't prevent a driver from just swinging father left-into the oncoming lane
and making the pass anyway
Of course it is a bigger risk-
and if they suddenly realize they aren't going to be able to make the pass
they will just swerve right
RIGHT INTO YOU.
Some might suggest are enticing the WORST drivers to make an even LESS SAFE pass-
the drivers with the POOREST JUDGEMENT will just swing wider-and make the pass
or not quite make the pass-and wipe you off the road.


You can't control what drivers do-
LCing trades close shaves for a lane position in the highest probability kill zone
and it entices the WORST drivers to swing WAAAAAAY into the oncoming lane

You can't control drivers with a 25 lb bike-better not ride as if you can
Ride as if they don't see you
The driver that hits you-won't see/notice you.

I suspect most of us live and ride in locations where the lanes in which we ride are less than 14 feet wide, which is, in itself, a sufficient criterion to conclude that it is not practicable to ride right, since that's the minimum width for which it is safe to share the lane. Add in debris, surface condition, curb height, and other factors, and it's safe to say that for 99+ percent of us, it is usually not practicable to ride right.

We aren't trying to prevent that. That's exactly what we want to encourage by riding in the lane. What we want to prevent is passing us while remaining in the lane, which is usually unsafe. If it's not safe to exit the lane to pass, most drivers won't attempt to pass if the cyclist is in the lane. If it's not safe to share the lane, many drivers will still attempt to pass, leaving insufficient passing room. Hence, it's typically better to be in the lane than riding right.

Well if your goal posts exclude shoulders, and bike lanes that more often than not preclude such considerations, and traffic volumes that make position irrelevant that may be reasonably true, but rather limited in scope and relevance.

Only if they fully understand their whole width... including mirrors.

But if you have no other choice than being in the lane, its best to match your choices to the actions of the 99%, not the 1%.

To reinforce the point; I have been hit from behind three times when I was right in a lane. Once resulting in quite serious injuries. I have never been hit while taking the lane, which I do often on some narrow two lane roads. My anecdotal observation has been that if there is an appearance of being space for a car, there will be a car in it. Often that is at the expense of safe space for a cyclist. Two weeks ago mini van mom clipped my elbow with a mirror while I was right of the fog line in a demarcated bike lane because she was giving space to the car going the opposite way. I have no doubt that had I been in the lane she wouldn't have hit me. If there is an obstruction in the travel lane, the driver will exercise greater caution unless they lack any attention to the road.

In my experience, good route planning tends to eliminate riding on streets with shoulders, not because they have shoulders, but because such streets tend to have higher speed limits and higher traffic volume than other available options. Of course, sometimes such streets cannot be avoided. In such cases, if it's practicable to ride on the shoulder, then that's where I ride. But it has to be practicable; I don't increase my risk exposure just to placate motorists.

I'll happily take a bike lane if it is reasonably well implemented, but some bike lanes are poorly implemented. They might be too narrow, filled with debris, or placed in a door zone. If they are poorly implemented, then I take the regular lane. Poorly implemented bike lanes are, fortunately, gradually becoming less common as city planners realize that there's more to proper bicycle infrastructure than a white line 2-3 feet from the curb.

Edit to add: For inter-city travel, I like riding on interstate shoulders when legally allowed to use that option. Urban travel provides different hazards than inter-city travel, so shoulder riding isn't as appealing in the city.

Here's an informative animation on the topic.

Given the fact cycling really isn't that dangerous regardless of what position one chooses, I guess some folks will choose perceive things in a way that placates their concerns.