Thanks, but that doesn't address what you quoted. I'm *very* familiar with the CVC as it applies to bicycles and its meanings; I was looking for *specific* wording, which I have been as-of-yet unable to find. "As close as practicable" is not *specific* wording.

I don't believe there is any specific wording -- I've always thought of that phraseology as cycling lingo.

Even in bike friendly states such as OR, there is no specific right listed and in fact we don't have a blanket right to take the lane as many cyclists believe. The reality is that the right to take the full lane only applies if you can maintain normal traffic speed ORS 814.430 - Improper use of lanes - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes Otherwise, you're supposed to be as far right as practical.

But whatever the law says, rules of physics and common sense must predominate on the roads.

I hardly ever have issues with vehicles. I just try to look like I know what I'm doing and put myself in the driver's position. I think most people understand when a cyclist merges into the lane due to debris or a soft shoulder or various other reasons just don't coast and take selfies while doing it.

This could work -- if I wanted to just toodle around my local neighborhood.

Wrong.

DC area here.

Some of the most aggressive drivers I've ever dealt with. And you better believe I take the lane when there's not enough room to pass.

Because if I DON'T, then just about everyone will pass dangerously.

I've also biked a lot in the LA area.

So please don't try to tell me about the best ways to deal with aggressive traffic.

Probably have to dig through case law.

Have fun. :D

Jeez... don't we have a whole forum devoted to this topic?

The winter that never ended....

I presume you feel that the CVC allows motor vehicle operators to 'take the lane' and under CVC 21200 a cyclist "has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle" except for those that physically cannot apply or where there are specific provisions in other sections of the CVC that apply. So the default situation is that cyclists are allowed to 'take the lane' in the same way that vehicle (which in the CVC is defined as motor vehicle) operators are allowed to.

That default allowance is subject to Sect. 21201 which requires cyclists traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic to ride as far right as practicable (FRAP), but this in turn is subject to several exceptions. If any of the exceptions is present then FRAP is not required and the cyclist reverts to having the default right to 'take the lane.' One of those exceptions is: "
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, ... substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge ...
[For purposes of this section, 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.]"

So wherever the right lane is too narrow to be safely shared by the cyclist and a passing motor vehicle the FRAP provision of 21201 does not apply and the cyclist is therefore allowed to exercise his 'all rights ... of the driver of a vehicle' which includes the right to take the lane rather than being confined to only the rightmost portion of it.

I think we can easily tell from this thread that there are times when one should and times when one shouldn't.

What I do:
If I'm riding on a 55 mph 2 lane busy highway without a shoulder, I shouldn't be. Good way to get killed. I should just stay off that road. However, there are exceptions. There is such a highway here which I ride. Mostly it has a shoulder. However, there are a couple bridges with no shoulder. For those, I sit and wait a hundred yards from the bridge and watch for a break in traffic. Then I take the lane and sprint up to speed and hope for the best.

There's another such bridge in a 35 zone which I ride all the time. I speed up reasonably and take the lane. After the bridge, I pull over again.

There's a 4 lane road with a curb I ride all the time. I only ride it during periods of relatively light traffic, light enough that it's easy for the traffic to merge into one lane. I take the lane. I would never ride this road during rush hour, ever. It has grates.

Possibly useful anecdotes:
I used to commute to work on a 4 lane road with a curb and no grates. As others have said, impossible to take the lane, so I rode FRAP. One time a car touched me and sent me into the curb and thence headfirst into a phone pole. I was lucky.

A friend who is an inveterate LCer was riding a 2 lane low traffic country road. A slow vehicle passed him. Immediately, another, faster car started to pass them both. That driver saw they couldn't make it due to oncoming and pulled back into the lane, hitting my friend. If he'd been FRAP he wouldn't have been hit.

On a group ride on a no-shoulder country road a driver passed our single file FRAP group immediately before a blind corner, completely in the other lane, only to be met by an oncoming police car. Much rejoicing.

On a group ride on a low traffic no-shoulder country road, we saw an oncoming FRAP cyclist coming around a blind corner. He was passed by a fast moving SUV completely in the other lane. We were FRAP and still had a moment of loose sphincter as the driver almost lost control swerving to miss us.

Ride enough and one sees all sorts of things. It's judgement call in the moment. One hopes one chooses correctly.

I ride in the same area as Ed, and have ridden together a few times. I wouldn't call the way we ride "taking a lane". We use the bike lane when available, ride only a safe distance (24-30") from the edge of the pavement when there is no marked bike lane, a always ride single file in areas without bike lanes.

Most of the high volume roads have marked bike lanes, and those that do not are not what I would call narrow by east coast standards.

Well, looking in an ODOT pamphlet for cyclists, entitled "Oregon Bicyclist Manual", I find this:

"When you should take a lane

If there is no shoulder or bike lane, and the travel lane is narrow,ride closer to the center of the lane. This will prevent motorists from passing you when there isn't room. You should also take the lane when traveling the same speed as traffic."

In another section, under "How far to the right you should ride" it says, as an example of "when you shouldn't ride too far to the right":

"When a lane is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side"

That's pretty close to a blanket statement, if you think about it.

That's awesome that it's in an ODOT pamphlet, and that right there could get you out of a ticket if you happened to run into a dick Portland Cop who doesn't like bicyclists.. but the actual law, the ORS, says only as homeboy said- ride in traffic if you're going traffic speed, otherwise you're to stay as far to the right as safely possible. Nothing in the ORS that authorizes you to take full command of the lane, for any reason, if traffic is going substantially faster than you.

I personally think you could make a very strong argument for the philosophy- "as safe as possible actually dictated that I take the whole lane, to avoid being struck by motorists making unsafe attempts to 'squeeze.'" But that's obviously open to interpretation. The law doesn't explicitly support you there.

Here's a link to the Oregon Bicyclist Manual. You can read it for yourself- maybe print out the pertinent pages and put 'em in your seat bag.

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/hwy/bikep...ike_manual.pdf

It would surprise me greatly if there wasn't Oregon law supporting this document, put out by the Oregon Dept. of Transportation. The verbiage in that manual is quite specific. If not based on law...... what?

It's the interpretation published in the Calif DMV layman-friendly sharing the road brochure.

"When to Take the Traffic Lane
A bicycle lane is adesignated traffic lane for bicyclists, marked by a solid white line, and typically breaking into a dotted line at the corner. A bicycle lane is different from a simple white line showing the edge of the road because it follows specific width requirements and is clearly marked as a bike lane. Many roads do not have designated bicycle traffic lanes, so bicyclists share the traffic lane to the left of the white line. If there is no shoulder or bicycle lane and the traffic lane is narrow, ride closer to the center of the lane. This will prevent motorists from passing you when there is not enough room. Bicyclists can travel at speeds of 20 mph, or faster. You should also use the traffic lane when you are traveling at the same speed as the traffic around you. This will keep you out of motorists’ blind spots and reduce conflicts with right-turning traffic.

"

That's very very similar to sections in the ODOT manual I linked to above. I *think* these pamphlets are put out in concert with an interest group or lobby- cyclists in this case.

Now I'm wondering what actual meaning they have. I mean, I'm in possession of a paper document put out by the State of Oregon saying things that may not be actually written into actual traffic law. So what power, what weight, does this pamphlet have?!

These things matter a LOT if you get in a bad accident where someone gets hurt or killed. Having been in an accident where someone died (his fault), and having gone through the ensuing process, I'm a little more tuned into the reality of these things more so than some might be.

There's a world, a universe, of difference between law and a pamphlet from a government agency. Or is there? Anyone?

I haven't seen anything in the ORS that gives authority to an agency or refers to administrative rule- generally when a state agency has authority actually regulate a specific thing, there's a specific reference and grant of authority in the ORS.

If you want, I'd be happy to send you my own personal reference on bike laws. It's comprehensive, and includes a lot of statutes that pertain to bicycles that aren't written TO bicyclists, like motorist responsibilities to bicyclists- stuff that's usually missing from most bike law pamphlets and things I've seen on the topic.

email me your email address if you want it - bkb0000@comcast.net

Hot damn, thanks for that! I've scoured the CVC for anything that said a bicyclist could specifically take the lane and never found anything. While that's an interpretation, it's an official interpretation being that it's straight from the DMV's site.

For what it's worth, I do "take the lane" when it's necessary. Luckily, I don't have to do it often as the areas where I ride have either very little traffic, wide bike lanes, or wide shoulders. When I do, I am *very* cognizant of what's going on behind me, because I have been purposely hit by a driver for taking the lane. I just think it's silly and dangerous when entitlement gets in the way of logical thought and decrees of "taking the lane is the ONLY safe way to ride" are made.

Yes it does - by using words like "as safely possible" along with "practicable".

I ride in an area primarily with bike lanes but I still 'take the lane' at right turns and I mean the middle of the lane. If I don't cars will pass me in the lane and almost always pinch me to the curb when they make their right in front of me. It is much safer for me to wait until I get close to the right turn, move to the middle holding cars back, make the right and then get back over to the right after the turn to let them pass. I do this everyday.

Yeah, I throw this in with being respectful of the drivers. Being 2' from the side of the road is still in the lane enough that the drivers know there is a reason why you can't be on the side of the road. It still gives them plenty of room to get around you when traffic clears. You don't ride two abreast and you're not hugging the center line so traffic has to drive on the shoulder of the other side of the road to get around you.

I still call this "taking the lane" as you're still out far enough that traffic has to slow and wait for oncoming traffic to clear before they can go around you.

I'll still disagree with you.

The first instinct for a motorist when they are on a no-shoulder road and a cyclist is blocking their route for more than 30seconds is "Whyt the F is a cyclist even on this road?!"

Even if there are clear signs indicating right of way to cyclists on such narrow roads. (I've been on these roads, marked, and even marked 'bike' on google maps, which is why I ended up on them in the first place when scouting commutes.

I guarantee you stick 100 normal drivers into a situation in non-rush hour where there's a narrow one-lane road, no shoulder, and a cyclist blocks them by taking the lane (no other option) and thus slows them from 35-40mph speed to 12-15mph speed for 30-45 seconds, and 98 of those 100's instinctive reaction will NOT be a relaxed, oh, let's protect this rider and yield the right of way, but significant frustration, and comments of "why the F is a bike on this road in the first place? What a stupid rider. Etc." I don't like it but that's the hard reality.

Having extensively bike commuted in urban LA, NY, and Sf in rush hour, I will add that the only time I 'took the lane' every time was on upcoming turns/corners. It is too dangerous to let a car right hook you (or left hook you), and the safest method here is to command the entire lane before the turn, and take up enough space so that there is no question of a car squeezing by on the right or left.

I will add that the typical amount of time required to command the lane in this situation is under 10 seconds, which is why one can get away with it. I've seen slower riders do the same but command the lane too early before the turn, and it ends up having the traffic speed dangerously around them since there's too big a gap in front of them and nobody wants to slow.

Basically you NEVER want to be timid at turns on a bike. You do them quickly, but with authority, and having driven and encountered cyclists who are timid vs assertive at corners, it's much easier even for the drivers to deal with an assertive rider prior to the corner, who makes it very clear what's going on and leaves no questionable squeeze-by options. Again, you have to do this briskly though - if you dilly dally, cars will just try and go around you which makes it a very dangerous situation.

I agree riding a bike is like driving a car. If you are authoritative and the others can determine what you are going to do you are much better off then being cautious and letting everyone guess what you might do. On left turns though most of mine have left turn lanes and I leave the cars turning left on my left, the cars going straight on my right and I sit on the line between.