You used a "standard" to describe "substandard".

"Substandard" has to have some legal definition.

If something is an "exception", that something doesn't describe the "general" case (not legally).

The "substandard lane" exception is not universal.

In a strictly rational sense if you're in the right tire track you're already taking the lane. A car will have to enter the next lane to pass. So objectively speaking it doesn't matter if you're in the right tire track, in the center of the lane, or in the left tire track.

But people don't tend to react in a strictly rational manner. They all know, at least vaguely, that we're supposed to be over as far right as we can. Even those who do know about the exceptions won't recognize them, because they only actually see it through a car's window and not from a bike seat. So it generally works best if we stay right even when taking the lane. Right tire track, at most. That's not a dogmatic rule, of course! Even this morning, in a separated right turn lane I moved to smack in the middle, leaving no hint of a suggestion that someone could squeeze past me. For all of 10 or 15 seconds.

The left tire track is my default territory on a motorcycle. But on a bicycle, most of the reasons for it do not apply. Just stay to the right until for some reason that doesn't work, and when moving into the lane still stay right. Definite and direct - when drivers think we know what we're doing they're less apt to be emotional and irrationally reactive to us.

Yep. Pretty much this. The left of center zealotry doesn't seem to be catching on around here. This is Portland, OR. Ground zero of the critical mass vehicular cycling movement. Like zealots everywhere, LOC zealots have come up with all kinds of objections to the status quo and feel entitled to modify statutes to suit their own warped perspective. If 12' car lanes are the norm, how does one figure that they are "substandard"? Cars pass me IN THE LANE daily and I am glad they do, because anything else would require them going over the center line. Impossible to do in downtown, and I for one do NOT want them tailing me until its "safe" to pass. I have little hope or expectation that my city is going to rip out 4,000 miles of substandard laneage and use eminent domain to create proper (wider) lanes that allow cars and bikes to pass each other with the 3' necessary to ensure cyclist comfort, if not safety. So my personal solution has been to HTFU and deal with conditions as they are on the ground.

When I stayed pretty far to the right, despite there being two lanes going in my direction many cars refused to cross over partially into the inside lane. They would not cede an inch of the lane and I was being passed by less than a foot. Once I moved pretty close to center, the fact that cars then had to move over at least some meant people quit buzzing me. The frequency went from at least every other day to only one time over the last three weeks I rode my bike.

Plus staying far to the right meant that cars in a dedicated turn lane were forced to come too close to me, probably scaring both of us. Certainly scared me.

I don't know other state laws, but my state simply says to stay to the right as is practical and safe. So since going far right led to increased buzzing which isn't safe, I can scoot over left some if it leads to being passed more safely.

It's not me that uses "standard" to describe "substandard". It's the law that does that.

My understanding is the terminology was introduced in California's CVC 21202 back in the 1970s by people who were under the impression that such lanes were the exception, rather than the rule. They were wrong, but we're stuck, at least for now, with the unfortunate and misleading terminology they chose.

The law does define a substandard width lane: "a “substandard width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane"

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=21202.

The intent and underlying belief is or was that the general case is described by the main requirement ("shall ride as close as practicable to the right") and the exceptions are the exceptions, but the reality is that they got it backwards. At least one of the exceptions (or the cyclist is not slower than traffic at that time) applies most of the time on most roads without bike lanes. This is becoming more and more obvious to everyone (not just us advocates) as traffic engineers are realizing it and applying sharrows and BMUFL more and more, and that's just to designate substandard width lanes.

I'm with you to this point...

Let me fix that for you: They believe that we're supposed to be over as far right as we can, but they're wrong about that..

This is exactly opposite of my experience. Regardless of how ignorant they are of the law, a cyclist at the right tire track or further right appears to be leaving space for overtaking motorists to use the remainder of the lane. From a distance it's easy to assume there is sufficient space to pass within the lane, and not even consider the need to straddle pass, much less the ramifications, so what tends to happen all too often is the overtaking motorist realizes too late that there isn't sufficient space to pass within the lane, and the adjacent lane is occupied, and so is left with two options: slam on the brakes or attempt a squeeze pass. More on this below.


I definitely agree with "when drivers think we know what we're doing they're less apt to be emotional and irrationally reactive to us", and that's exactly what positioning left of center accomplishes by me and everyone I know who has seriously experimented with LOC lane positioning.


Exactly. Left of center positioning makes it clearer, sooner rather than too late, that a lane change is required for safe passing.

https://scontent.fhou1-2.fna.fbcdn.n...b0&oe=5A1F09DE

The California law defines a a "substandard width" lane. California isn't a "3 foot" state (as far as I can tell) so what "safe" means isn't clear. This definition isn't very helpful.

An average car width is 6.5 feet. With the three foot rule, plus a generous 2 feet for handle bar width, a non-"substandard" width lane could be 12 foot wide (especially, if there's a good shoulder).

If it's specified, the common requirement for "safe passing" is 3 or 4 feet.

You are arguing that it has to be (like) 6-7 feet.

If 3-4 feet is "safe", then a lane change isn't "required" (as long as the 3-4 feet distance is achieved).

California does have a 3 foot law (CVC 21760).
http://www.ncsl.org/research/transpo...icyclists.aspx

About half the cars are wider than the average car width - why would use you the average car width to determine whether vehicles and a bicycle can both safely fit within a lane? Vehicle bodies can be up to 8.5' feet wide, and that does not even include mirrors.

Cyclists generally need some space on their right too, at least a foot. This is why bike lanes are minimum of 4 feet wide. Even a very narrow 10 foot lane adjacent to a minimum width bike lane is a total width of 14 feet. An 8.5 foot wide vehicle with mirrors in a 10' lane cannot pass a cyclist in an adjacent 4 foot wide bike lane without violating the 3 foot law. It's not even close.

You can't argue with basic numbers and I'm puzzled as to why you would even try.

This graphic posted at BikeWalkNC demonstrates that for a cyclist to get 3 feet clearance from an F150 14 feet is insufficient, and the lane has to be 16 feet wide to get 3 feet clearance from a bus.

More info:
Safe Passing Principles, Laws and Recommendations

http://www.bikewalknc.org/wp-content...sdistances.jpg

Sorry. I wasn't entirely clear when I wrote this: " Left of center positioning makes it clearer, sooner rather than too late, that a lane change is required for safe passing."

I did not mean a full lane change is necessarily required for safe passing, I meant at least a partial lane change is required for safe passing. That's what you want to convey sooner rather than too late, and that's exactly what left of center positioning accomplishes.

It depends, and there should be no dogmatic rules that we slavishly adhere to. If you're getting buzzed move to the left some, if not, keep right. Like I said, in a dedicated turn lane this morning I went to the center - no buzzing OR right hook allowed. If I were going straight, I either wouldn't even be IN that lane or else at the left side of it. Depending on the space and what traffic does there.

Narrow lanes are FRAP exceptions, but people buzzing us in a wide lane are not. The statute doesn't help you there, but nevertheless it does happen that way and DO take the space when it does. I've found that people get the idea and stop doing it to us. On the same road, sometimes in the same line of vehicles.

I can tell you for certain though that I get buzzed far less now than I did the first few years. Part of it is the manner of how I ride as a predictable routine part of traffic as opposed to uncertain, or an anomaly to be negotiated. The VC folks have that part right. Part is that they've learned that I'll get out of their way soon enough (because I don't ride down the middle every day just because I got buzzed there last week). Being sensible about it, and mutually cooperative, goes a long way.

All FRAP laws are "as far right as practicable", which to drivers mean "as far right as we can". Taking into account the obvious exceptions. Don't fix what ain't broke ;)

If there's enough room for them to reasonably believe that there's room to pass in the same lane, with you in the right tire track, it's probably not a substandard width lane and in that case you shouldn't be there in the first place. Where there is a wide lane, try moving to a reasonably safe distance from the edge and keep a straight confident line, and you might be surprised to find that there are fewer close passes.

The picture you used showed a full lane change. It's also want some people advocate is necessary.

Unqualified, "lane change" will generally be interpreted as a "full lane change".

I couldn't get confirmation quickly. For my argument, I assumed it was.

I implied that some space on the their right was needed too.

Picking an arbitrary number for a substandard lane (you picked 14 feet) is a problem because it varies (as I and you showed).

So, what is "substandard" varies (which was my point). Your "14 foot" non-substandard lane isn't always (as the picture shows).

Not in any of the areas I've lived. "Lane change" as understood by everyone was crossing the dotted line. You got out of your lane and into another. It didn't matter if it was your whole car or just your left tires.

What you describe - "get ouf of their way soon enough" and "being sensible about it, and mutually cooperative" - is pretty much what CyclingSavvy teaches. They teach a practice they call "control and release".

Although the cycling savvy folks are more explicit about it, I think being cooperative, sensible and releasing was always implied in VC as I understand it. After all, that's part of driving any slow moving vehicle, and VC is acting like a driver of a (slow moving and particularly narrow) vehicle.

That's not really "changing lanes" (it's an partial lane change). Just like "building a house" will generally be understood to having built a complete house (one not missing a roof).

And the picture showed a full lane change.

It's unreasonable to dynamically change the legality of a given cyclist's positioning based on the width of the vehicle that happens to be overtaking him next. A cyclist cannot be held responsible to constantly look back and to assess the width of approaching vehicles and adjust positioning accordingly.

So, what is reasonable is to assume the maximum width vehicle to be encountered and determine the legality of the cyclist's positioning based on that. In most states that's a standard bus... 8.5' feet plus mirrors, rendering almost any lane of any road to be "substandard width". I understand that's not the intent of the law, but that's the only reasonable way to interpret it, and for very good safety reasons.

Or, you can be unreasonable.

Your "14 foot" standard lane requires it.

Now, you are arguing that there are no non-substandard lanes (you are arguing all lanes are substandard).

You suggested 14 feet was not-substandard. Now, it's 16+ feet.

It's true that left of center positioning usually results in full lane changes (and thus as shown in the picture), but, again, a key point to the conspicuous positioning is to alert approaching drivers to the need to use at least part of the adjacent lane to safely pass sooner rather than too late.

But there are many arguably more important advantages to left of center positioning:

1. Higher conspicuity to potential conflicts with cross traffic ahead (less likely to be victim of left cross, pull out, etc.)
2. Improved vantage to hazards ahead.
3. Discourages (practically eliminates) right hooks.
4. More buffer space from edge hazards (like a kid or dog suddenly running out into the road from an obscured location).

With a "far right as practicable" law, a left of center position can't generally be legal.

You're catching on faster than most.

Actually some areas do have 16 foot and even 18 foot wide lanes, but they are so rare they're practically moot.

But the point is even if you use the conservative 14 foot measure for a minimum width lane that is sufficiently wide to reasonably require cyclists to ride "as close as practicable to the right", this applies on so few roads it's not worth it.

That's why many conclude this law shouldn't even be on the books.

https://scontent.fhou1-2.fna.fbcdn.n...3d&oe=5A1EC748

But the law exists.

Just because some random picture claims it applies to "< 1% of roads" doesn't make it so. That is, what happens in the real world apparently contradicts that claim.

And not all states have the "substandard" lane exception.

Cyclists all over the country who ride in accordance what this random picture is saying have few if any issues. I, for one, have had no legal issues in 15 years of riding this way, and much fewer problems with traffic than when I mostly rode closer to the edge. That's what happens in the real world as far as I can tell; so I see no contradiction.

Reading this thread reinforced my choice to give up recreational cycling on roads that do not have bike lanes or shoulders. Problem solved. No need to obsess over the least dangerous auto lane position to ride a bicycle upon. Someone looking at their phone will run over all of them! The green guy - dead, the red guy - dead, and perhaps the orange dude will have a mirror and time to bail onto the grassy margin.

Actually, if they have mirrors the orange guy (closes to the edge) will have the least amount of time to recognize an inattentive motorist who is a threat.

The green and red guys will normally see motorists in their mirrors slow or change lanes long before they reach them; the aberrant motorist continuing at speed without changing course will stand out like sore thumb, leaving plenty of time for them to try to get his attention as well as bail if necessary.

The orange guy on the other hand will observe almost all motorists behaving identically, maintaining course and speed until a few moments before reaching him when they move over a bit to pass, usually with at least 3 feet of clearance but not if the adjacent lane is occupied in which case he's likely to get buzzed. But if one of those happens to be inattentive to the point of not noticing orange guy, by the time his behavior differs from the norm it will likely be too late for Orange to notice, much less react effectively.

The red and especially green guys are much safer not only with respect to traffic behind, but especially with respect to potential conflicts ahead.

"Safe and practical" is written into law. The determination of exactly how far to the right one should be requires those two words be met.

I was in a situation where "safe and practical" meant I actually had to be in the inside left lane, not the outside right lane. I was waiting for the light, a cop got into the left turn lane, and he clearly didn't think the straight left lane was too far over to the left. "Safe and practical" are abstract terms, but their definition at the exact moment they are being used is what determines the legality of a bicyclist's position.