Six jours

If the slow moving tractor has nowhere else to be, then motorists are generally going to understand the necessity of it. The same goes for the cyclist. The issue is a handful of hardcore VCers who have decided that it's their right and obligation to block the road at pretty much every opportunity, and are then confused why other road users consider them rude and obnoxious.

Six jours

Blocking traffic is blocking traffic, no matter how much the internet tells you otherwise. And blocking traffic unnecessarily tends to get you buzzed and honked at. The OP obviously bought into the VC nonsense that's been thrown at him on sites like these, and was apparently genuinely surprised to find that just because the internet said it doesn't make it true.

Daves_Not_Here

Thank you. This works very well in California. Motorists here seem to understand that cyclists can't ride in the door zone.

The only time I've observed a problem with "taking the lane" is when a cyclist is in the middle of the road holding up traffic when there is plenty of clear space to his right (rare). Just like an inconsiderate and stubborn driver pulling a trailer up a mountain road who refuses to take the pull-outs.

Chris516

Cyclists' are part of the traffic, not an addendum to the traffic. Read up on state traffic laws and a cyclists' right to be on the road.

Daves_Not_Here

Agreed, but let's be fair -- besides the few BF'ers who brag about how they persist in taking the lane in spite of being frequently honked at, how often do we actually see or experience this in real life?

Daves_Not_Here

People who stubbornly drive 50 mph in the fast lane when they could have been in the right lane are a part of the traffic and have a right to be on the road. Doesn't mean they should be.

So no, we'll not be reading up on any traffic laws. Nobody doubts or misunderstands your rights. Nor your aggressive stupidity.

If, as you repeatedly report, you often provoke disputes and drama with motorists, the ill-will you so blithely generate affects other cyclists like me. I damned well don't appreciate it, and I suggest that, to the extent that beginning cyclists are influenced by your "advice" to ride inconsiderately, you cause frightening experiences for them, at best.

Bottom line -- there's a time to "take the lane". It's not always.

iheartbacon

Lanes in town are a bit wider than normal for snow removal in the winter.

hagen2456

Those are exactly the occasions where taking the lane is suicidal.

Chris516

I am not bragging about it. But asserting my right to ride on the road. I used to have a big problem with being honked at. But apart from being honked at for being on the road, even motorists' get honked at. In some situations, I even thank the motorist for honking at me. While in other situations, I just ignore their angry(sometimes, even antagonistic) honks.

Chris516

Your analogy of the 50mph motorist in the fast lane, would make definite sense if instead, they were persistently driving 50mph in the slow lane, not the fast lane. I do not 'provoke'. If I 'provoke', that insinuates premeditated intentions on my part. As if, I want motorists' to honk at me, just so I can tell them to shut up. The only time I want a motorist to honk at me, is when they would be honking at another motorist in the same situation of not paying attention to the light going green, or the traffic starting to move.

gcottay

Handful is right. With the exception of some pack riding I can't remember the last time I saw a cyclist "taking" a lane that would allow for safe sharing. To me the occurrence is rare enough to be ignored in our thinking. (In some locales, alas. pack riding is another story with rude, unsafe, unskilled and obnoxious behavior a seeming requirement.)

The "blocking traffic" comment shows the confusion of many riders.

I am traffic. When a lane is too narrow for safe sharing it is my responsibility as a vehicle operator to make the situation clear by my lane position. The other option is to provide a false impression and then get all out of shape when vehicles brush by. I am not more blocking traffic than any other vehicle traveling at less than the typical speed.

It happens almost all of roads I ride are wide enough for safe sharing so I ride right.

John Forester

Six jours is exactly correct when he asserts that "Blocking traffic is blocking traffic." That is a tautological statement that is always true but conveys no meaning whatsoever. If Six jours desires to present some useful information, then he should inform us with the definition of "blocking traffic" that he chooses when making this argument.

Chris516

Especially when bikes' are defined as vehicles in the traffic code.

vol

Thanks for the discussion. I'd like to know what you guys would have done in my situation:

Here is a picture showing the avenue I was riding on (on the right side of the picture) when it happened to me yesterday that prompted me to start this discussion. Here another picture shows another portion of the same avenue, with the same feature, that is, wide avenue divided by a tree-lined middle area.

Yesterday I moved from the rightmost lane to the leftmost lane (in anticipation of a left turn) and took that lane (riding in near the middle of the lane), for which I was honked at and passed by. The reason I didn't ride on the very left edge of the left lane, next to the tree-lined dividing area, is that I think it would make me hardly visible even with my lights: for one, drivers don't usually expect a bike in that position; for two, the trees and the shades makes a bike even less noticeable. (Drivers on this forum please comment if this is so.)

So what would be the best way to prepare for left turn in this situation?

rdtompki

I don't have a position on what others choose to do, state law notwithstanding. My observation relatively to riding on 55 mph country roads is that the greatest hazard is getting struck head on by a car passing unsafely in the opposite direction. There is no way the driver of such a vehicle would notice a cyclist traveling the opposite direction; I've had a few such close calls. In these situations "taking the lane" would be deadly.

Digital_Cowboy

As I've said before about the only time I experience what you've experienced is when I am riding too far to the right. Yes, on occasion I get the jackarse who doesn't know how to share the road. But knock on wood, they're typically few and far between. And I ride on both "narrow two lane roads, i.e. roads that from edge-to-edge typically measure about 20', with speed limits of 25MPH. To roads that have multiple lanes with narrow lanes and speeds of 45MPH. As well as all sorts of roads in between. And except for those few roads that actually have wide outside lanes i.e. 14' or wider (as that is the minimal width as set forth by the FDOT) I ride either in the center of the lane or in the left side tire track.

Actually the driver that I encounter more often then not is one who feels the need to honk, even though they have had time as well as room to move over and safely pass without having to result to honking or passing too closely.

In any case I may or may not honk my own air horn/flip them off and just continue riding, or just continue riding without responding to them.

Bekologist

how wide is a tractor compared to a bike?

Daves_Not_Here

If it's not comfortable to get over and make a "vehicular" left hand turn, can't you just stay in the right lane, go through the intersection and then cross over like a pedestrian in the "new" right lane?

vol

I know there is this option and I often did just that (btw do most of you do so or not?). But I would be interested to know if others (especially drivers) agree that riding on the left edge of the left lane in this particular case (see linked pictures of the avenue with tree lined middle dividing section) would make it hard for drivers to notice.

Digital_Cowboy

I refer you to the case of Trotwood v Selz.

Agreed, that is the point that the Judge who heard the appeal in Trotwood v Selz said, that and he reinforced the fact that we as the driver of a bicycle ARE part of traffic and that as such we cannot be impeding traffic if we are traveling at a speed that is safe and reasonable for our form of transportation.

Digital_Cowboy

Agreed, it sounds as if more people here need to familiarize themselves with the case of Trotwood v Selz.

Digital_Cowboy

Again, agreed. Taking the lane also is not being rude or inconsiderate. We have just as MUCH right to the road as anyone else. As I've said in other posts on this topic the only time that I "leave" the road for motorized traffic is when it is safe for me to do so. If there is no safe place for me to pull over and let them pass then I don't and it is on them to slow down and NOT hit me.

A couple of days ago I had an arsehole use his high beams to try and get me to move over. This on a two-lane road that the entire width was only about 20 or so feet.

I had another arsehole the previous month honk at me as I/we approached a narrow bridge with a concert divider to the left and steel guardrail to the right. And the lane was only about 7 - 8 feet wide, where the hell did he expect me to go to "get out of his way?"

Digital_Cowboy

I agree with most of what you're saying. It also helps to be predictable and to communicate what you're going to do and when.

Digital_Cowboy

The problem is that it is neither rude nor inconsiderate, nor obnoxious to "take the lane." As I've already said we have just as much right to be there as they do, and our destination is just as important as theirs.

And sadly, as I've said on the rare occasion I've had motorists expect me to somehow be able to move "out of the way" even when there is clearly NOWHERE for me to go.

Digital_Cowboy

Again, all I can say is to refer you to Trotwood v Selz.