Ninety5rpm

The superstition about the supposed dangers of cyclists using the full lane on 45 and even 55 mph posted roads are rampant, never mind that it's done every day all over the country, safely.

Show me a story of a cyclist getting hit from behind on a 45+ mph road, and I'll show a story of a cyclist riding in a bike lane or on a shoulder who was overlooked and drifted into.

mr_bill

Category is transportation.

The answer is!

The location of a sharrow left of center of a lane on a 55 mph road.

[Final Jeopardy Theme Music.]

What is nowhere?

That is correct. How much did you wager?

-mr. bill

mcours2006

I know you're trying to come off as clever and funny...but it's not coming across as that at all. At all!

Ninety5rpm

Don't take "edge riding" so literally; that's not how it's meant. Basically it means positioning in a manner that encourages rather than discourages others to use at least some of the lane next to them. Where exactly you have to ride to accomplish this varies based on the situation, but edge riding generally refers to positioning anywhere from the right tire track and rightward.

Actually, you are so special for seeing bicyclists as not deserving the attention that all other road users take for granted. Some people refer to this as the cyclist inferiority complex.

Most motorists don't have a need to release because they can maintain the normal speed of traffic. However, slow moving vehicles do release.

Ninety5rpm

Next he'll be gloating about his discovery that stop signs are octagons and he'll expect us to be amazed.

vol

Had a close pass today when I tried to avoid a steel road plate and went around to its left, at the same time a driver was going to make right turn (so the car started veering to the right closer to me) and rushing before the light turned red (so it sped up). As soon as I saw him in the mirror, I abandoned the plan to avoid the steel plate

Paul Barnard

As a motorist, I always give bicyclists as much space as I reasonably can. Why? Just in case. A few years ago I was riding my bike a fairly busy two lane with enough lane width for a car to pass with 3 feet of clearance without crossing the center line. Since traffic was fairly heavy, I was monitoring it closely. I didn't see a decent sized stone and hit it with my front tire. It shot me well to the left. Had a car been passing at the minimum legal distance or less, it could have been ugly. So when we talk about close passes that go well, we need to consider that there are some things beyond either party's control that can change the complexion of the encounter.

Paul Barnard

I have never heard it put that way, but it is exactly what I do.

Paul Barnard

I don't have the data to support it, but I think this is the best practice. Being out in the lane makes you more visible and more likely to be processed as traffic by the approaching motorist. Then when you move right, you send a message that you know the vehicle is there and you want to interact courteously with them. Based on the whole of the situation, I may even wave them around, then give a friendly wave as they pass.

Happy Feet

I know I will regret this as these types of discussion rarely go anywhere but for the record:

For me cycling is a joyful and relaxing way to travel; whether that be to school, work or for pleasure. The last thing I want to do is engage in a cycling philosophy that pits myself against every other motorist on the road, either by trying to control their behavior or by tainting my mind to view them in an "Us vs Them" paradigm failed mathematicians etal. My philosophy is more akin to mutual cooperation and an understanding of each user groups needs. Perhaps this comes from actually belonging to each user group. In any case, this philosophy has stood me well for over forty five years of constant riding.

While I appreciate that each person can ride as they choose and that I would violate my own premise to try to control the actions of others I find the "take the Lane" philosophy troublesome so I occasionally voice my opinion. The notion that one is more visible in the middle of the lane is an intersesting one and I am not sure it is valid. I would suspect one is either visible or not, usually due to clothing, reflectors and lights, and that being 3 feet one way or the other has little if any effect.

On the other hand. The entire regime is predicated on the act that the rider cedes control of their safety to every vehicle on the road. If for some unfortunate reason, a vehicle does not see the rider they (the rider) has little ability to avoid a collision as they have positioned themselves far from a bailout position. I ride closer to the right and in shoulders when possible because those areas are less occupied by cars. The fact that most times, a car can pass while we both travel this way without my needing to interact with that vehicle or even really be aware of its presence, allows me to focus more of my energy and attention to actually avoiding issues ahead of me - where the danger exists. If I do need to avoid a vehicle approaching from behind it is a simple matter of merging right a foot or so instead of half a lane. Having heard squealing brakes close in behind me I can attest that is a reassuring fact.

I also object to the notion that taking the lane teaches safety for the rider. It does not except in the grossest form of instilling the idea that a rider needs a ten foot buffer around them to feel safe. In fact it instills a false sense of danger by not actually teaching what room a cyclist really needs to travel safely through space. A few sessions mtbing on single track would serve well there. How much room do vehicles and bikes occupy in a lane? How much room do you really need to avoid dooring? How hard is it to avoid right or left turning vehicles? How does one negotiate obstacles? This is never learned if the default safety strategy is to create a ten foot buffer zone around the rider.. just in case. One never progresses beyond primary school into actual cycling finesse which is where safety is found on a 30lb vehicle with no bumpers, seatbelts or airbags. Don't kid yourself you are a vehicle like all those other vehicles out there.

I would loath the day thay I felt I needed to ride my bike as a vehicle on the road. Gone would be the greatest assets it provides; freedom, maneuverability, agility. Often I sit in gridlock and look longingly to the right where I know I could swiftly negotiate the course if only I were on my bike. Long swathes of tarmac sitting idle because I am in a vehicle taking the only lane available.

So, I protest (fruitlessly I know) because I see this idea appealing to new riders from a conventional wisdom POV but ultimately leaving them less aware of their physicality, more paranoid of imaginary dangers like the OP of this thread and less joyful because they are in constant conflict trying to control traffic to allow their bicycle to be treated like a farm tractor or Amish buggy.

In any case; Have fun out there. Be less concerned with how you might die than with how you might live.

Ninety5rpm

Another B I N G O!!!

Did you watch the "you lead the dance" video from CyclingSavvy?

cyclingsavvy.org/2010/06/you-lead-the-dance/

In addition, "FAQ: Why do you ride like that?" is perhaps their best article (though they have so many good ones). They deal with all these issues and questions:

• “Biking in the middle of the lane like that sure looks dangerous.”
• “I thought bicyclists had to keep all the way to the right.”
• “Why weren’t you in the bike lane?”
• “Wouldn’t you just be safer biking on the sidewalk?”
• “You’re gonna get run over.”

cyclingsavvy.org/hows-my-driving/

mcours2006

There is quite a bit of science behind this idea of how our brain works with regard to vision.

Do We Only See What We Want To See? Experts Don't Notice A Gorilla In Their Midst... | Science 2.0

The fact that there are so few cyclists out there riding in traffic here means that drivers don't expect to see us, and so they don't, especially when you are close to the curb. If more people were out riding their bikes and it became a regular occurrence where motorists encountered a cyclist every few hundred meters, then yes, perhaps it might be safe to stick close to the curb. Presently that is certainly not the case.

Ninety5rpm

I hope this does not make you regret it, but your post is so full of misunderstanding it really requires a response.

The CyclingSavvy philosophy is ALL about cooperation. It is the exact oppose of the "Us vs Them" paradigm. Please click on and study the two links I just posted above. You don't have to agree but at least find out what you're disagreeing with.


The phrase is "control the lane" and "lane control" - they are not "control the driver" or "motorist control". What is being controlled is lane space, not people.

Only people who have not seriously experimented with lane positioning are not sure whether a cyclist controlling a lane is more visible. And, frankly, the correct word is not "visible" but "conspicuous". There is much within our field of view all the time that is visible but we don't notice. Of course, we don't notice what we don't notice, by definition, so we're unaware of how much we're not seeing. As a cyclist being visible is only part of it - we also need to be relevant in order to be noticed - we need to grab their attention. That's what lane control gets you.

That's just nonsense. The CyclingSavvy article addresses this:


Bicyclists across the nation who drive their bicycles in this manner have logged millions of miles without serious crashes or injuries. By comparison, bicyclists who hug the edge of the road, or ride on the sidewalk get into crashes much more frequently.

The video below demonstrates why riding farther into the lane is not only safer for a cyclist, but creates less disruption for motorists.

https://vimeo.com/17300276


First of all, if you don't have a mirror you'll never be able to react in time regardless of where in the lane you're positioned. Cyclists riding on shoulders or in bike lanes are hit quite often, by motorists who did not notice them and drifted.

Secondly, if you're riding "out of the way" the behavior of motorists who notice you and those who don't is indistinguishable, so you have no way to know you're vulnerable to one who is going to drift into you, until it's too late. On the other hand, if you're riding "in the way", the extremely rare motorist who does not notice you will stick out like a sore thumb, long before it's too late for you to evade: he will be the only one who is not slowing and/or changing lanes due to your presence.

The flipside of you positioning yourself such that you think you don't need to be aware of the overtaking car's presence is its driver thinks he doesn't need to be aware of your presence. And that's true for thousands of cars/drivers that you pass you like that. Until it's not true, for one, because that driver, unaware of your presence, is about to look at his phone and drift onto the shoulder. The good news is you'll be unaware...

It's not about how much space a cyclist needs to maneuver; it's about where does the cyclist need to be ensure g r a b b i n g the attention of motorists to inhibit them from choosing to look at their phone (and possibly drift) until after they have passed you.


It's sad that you see using traffic lanes on roadways as inhibiting your freedom, maneuverability, agility. To the contrary, it expands your options.

rachel120

Two things.

First of all "us vs them" is true of all road traffic. As a motorist you constantly have to be aware that everyone else in the other cars could easily and likely is a jerk and an idiot, and if you don't want an accident you have to drive as if they are. You have to plan the distance on all four sides to have a decent safety margin. In front is the easiest, but you do have to speed up or brake if the guy on your side feels snuggly, and you do have to deal with tailgaters in a way that gets them off of you, even if it means slowing down 25 mph below the speed limit to get them to pass. Plus, you have to assume that people will change lanes or merge in or pull out from a side street when there is no room and be prepared to brake suddenly. And if you need to change lanes, you either have to just do it regardless of space or you have to content yourself for waiting for a while as people aren't going to let you in. So yeah, you have to drive just like how you should ride - they aren't going to be nice and you are going to have to take actions to keep yourself protected and also to deal with their aggressiveness that will keep you from easily getting to your destination.

Second, the Dept. of Transportation in my state has actually put out a handbook that says -
"Stay right if you are moving slow compared to traffic, but remember: the farther from the curb you ride, the better motorists can see you - whether they are in your lane, oncoming, or on cross streets. Riding farther from the curb keeps cars from passing you on the left and then turning right immediately in front of you - and gives you more room to avoid car doors, debris, and potholes."

It goes on to say to ride in the middle when the lane is too small for cars to pass you safely. It does not say the road is too small, it says "lane". It also says to be in the middle for curves and underpasses, as well as avoiding the doors of parked cars, and even specifies to be 4 feet away from cars parked on the side.

Please forgive my naive mind, but I figure if the Maryland Department of Transportation flat out says you are more visible to everyone if you are away from the side of the road, then taking the lane for visibility is a very valid conclusion.

WNCGoater

I'm just shaking my head.

The lengths to which some will go to say to an unknown stranger on an internet forum, "You're wrong".

Ninety5rpm

Saying "you're wrong" is easy, and useless. Backing that up with facts and reasoning is what takes "lengths".

mcours2006

I think we're all being trolled. Well played, sir!

I-Like-To-Bike

Especially when the "backing" argument is light on credible facts and heavy on a unique brand of unsubstantiated "reasoning" rhetoric.

Ninety5rpm

You think Happy Feet is insincere? That did not occur to me.

mcours2006

Hard to believe someone with 45+ years of riding would advocate this kind of behaviour on the open road.

I-Like-To-Bike

As presumably so have millions of bicyclists who do not ride their bicycles "in this manner."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninety5rpm

By comparison, bicyclists who hug the edge of the road, or ride on the sidewalk get into crashes much more frequently.

"get into crashes"? So careless to use this vague ill-defined phrase when comparing danger/risk of various activities. So typical.

BTW, any credible source for the alleged frequencies of these so-called "crashes"? What was measured and by whom; when and where?

rachel120

I totally missed this the first time reading the post. 10 foot buffer? In what reality does taking the lane lead to a 10 foot buffer? I don't know about the bikes everyone else is riding, but my bike measures 30 inches from the end of the handlebar to the end of the mirror. The major roads around here, at least the ones I've been on, are 10 feet wide. I may not be the greatest at math, but that comes to a 3¾ foot buffer. The law requires a 3 foot distance. Those few extra inches allow for a bit of maneuvering around any obstacles without forcing a motorist to break the law.

If something freaky happens and you fall on the road, do you really want the guy in the right turn lane to drive over you? Or the guy pulling into the lane behind you whose view of the far right is obscured by a building edge or a bush or a parked car? Or do you want your buffer on both sides so the risk to you is minimized?

Ninety5rpm

How many people have to explain to you how many times that the studies have not been done and would be very difficult and expensive to do and so the measurements and frequency calculations that support either side do not exist and likely will not exist for a long time, if not forever?

Yet we still all have to decide where to ride, and why. We all have to decide whether it's safer to ride the shoulder or take the lane. The best we can do is explain why each of us chooses as we do.

Happy Feet

But if you do it it's education and if I do it's trolling... interesting. Didn't know VC owned A&S as they have their very own subforum to advocate that philosophy. But it does fit with the notion of having to control others.. everywhere for fear some dangerous action or thought might prevail.

What kind of behavior was that exactly? Cooperation, knowing your own physicality, having skill to avoid obstacles...? What unsavory practice did I advocate?

As I said, regret discussing anything with zealots. So much of what goes on here is based in unreasonable fear and re enforced by painting those who are perceived to be opposed with a negative brush.

Carry on.

Ninety5rpm

I believe you're sincere. FWIW.

I know plenty of very experienced cyclists who espouse similar views.