as far left as needed to be safe, as far right as practicable
 

these two factors help a cyclist determine their lateral position. contradictory, no. not mutually exclusive.

in a wide lane, that means as far left as needed to be safe, and as far right as is practical.

on a road with a shoulder, that means as far left as is needed to be safe, and also as far right as practical.

on a road with integrated velo lanes, that includes as far left as needed for safety, as far right as is practical.

positioning maxim #1 for maximum safety.
"As far left as needed for safety, as far right as practicable."

actually, thats #2.

Maxim #1 is: Safety First.


any commentary?

What does it mean that left is safer and right is more practicable? Or do we have to wait until you dream up Maxim # 3 to learn the answer to this?

Did you mean to post this in the state the obvious thread in Foo? I was under the impression that most cyclists already understood the concept.

In my experience, few cyclists understand the concept. Most think they're just supposed to stay out of the way of cars.

I guess that's probably true.

hey, i thought safe riding position was all over A&S!!!

practicable in title
practical in post
why the change?
definitions are similar but not identical

I reviewed the Florida traffic laws when I lived in Florida and it says "... as far right as practicable [safe] except when ...". So the law already implies that "as far right as practicable" is determined by being able to accomplish it safely.

So ... no matter where you are in the lane ... it can be considered "... as far right as practicable [safe] ..."

http://www.p0stwh0res.com/images/captainobvious.jpg

Sorry Bek, couldn't resist :)

I'm just trying to refine all this A&S talk of lateral lane dancing and the drunken sailor lane swerve techniques into a modified, basic technique, something that can actually be explained in simple english.

That's my motto !

jw

As far left as needed for safety, as far right as practicable

+ hold a steady line and courtesy to all.

practicable is just fancy engineering talk. It means essentially the same thing as practical.

I don't know how I can hold a steady line when I'm always moving to the left to be safe and moving to the right to be practicable. Sounds a lot like DLLP to me, and you guys just convinced me in the other threads that DLLP is a crazy scheme cooked up by Helmet Head. How come it's a good idea when you and Bek say it, but a bad idea when HH says it? What gives? Is this another one of those dancing angels arguments?

dllp, a.k.a. the drunken sailor swerve, or DSLS, involves a lot of undue, unecessary swerving in front of overtaking cars independant of a bicyclists safe positioning on the roadway.

I dig it.

Or, for those who didn't get what I said...+1

Whereas your method calls for "due and necessary" swerving? I mean, if you are "moving" to the left to be safe, then at some point "moving" to the right to be practicable--might that look like "swerving" to an outside observer? Or is it "moving" when some people do it, and "swerving" when other people do it?

And I forgot--how many angels did we decide can dance on the pin?

I am confused.

Are you from England?

Many of your post have been anything but simple english.

HH's DLLP requires that you ride way far to the left, even when there is nothing obstructing or otherwise making a more rightward path unsafe, all for the sole purpose of making yourself "conspicuous" and "relevant." DLLP requires that you believe you are not safe unless someone behind you is making a visible, physical effort to avoid you.

That doesn't have much to do with riding steady and straight, as far to the right as practicable.

In some cases, riding further to the left makes you safer in regard to traffic entering your lane from left and right, and safer in regard to oncoming traffic. In some cases, riding further to the right makes you safer in regard to traffic coming from your rear.

My maxim would be "Ride farther to the left when you're most concerned about oncoming and turning traffic; ride farther to the right when you're most concerned about overtaking traffic."

Does this make sense?

there are times the rider will have to do NEITHER of those things, Roody, so it's not entirely accurate.

although it is what a rider should do if necessary.

Practicable is fancy lawyering talk. It means feasible, but also legal and safe.

I honestly believe that the whole "practicable" language was inserted to make it seem like the law says the opposite of what it really does, to trick lawmakers into voting for something while thinking they were voting against it.

I know. That's why I said "in some cases." Twice. It's almost impossible to write "maxims" about dynamic processes like traffic movement on real streets. But you can come up with some useful "rules of thumb" or heuristics that cover many situations.

Like==being further left often puts you in a better position to deal with traffic coming from ahead or to the side. But if traffic is overtaking you from the rear, obviously it is often better to be further to the right to deal with that traffic. Thus, some lateral movement within the lane is sometimes required when dealing with ever-changing traffic dynamics. Thus, "dynamic lateral lane positioning". Or you can call it weaving or swerving if you like. I think it's a good way to ride, much of the time. Do you agree?

roody, your 'sometimes' rules complicate and needlessly add something already covered in maxim #2.

I know you want to defend the pet theory of 'swervy dog' riding, but making adjustments by the rider is already covered by 'as far left as is safe, as far right as is practical.'

DLLP, the DSLS "PEEK-A-BOO" techniques bandied about in A&S try to predicate a rider swerving in front of every vehicle on the roadway, and that is not part of my maxim.

stop tying to include DLLPs' "drunken sailor lane swerves" into my system.

If you want to be taken seriously, at least try to explain a technique in a way that approximates the original intent.