Taking the lane?
 

Sorry if this was talked about in another forum! When you say take the lane, do you meen you ride the middle of your lane even if cars are behind you? What do you do if they want to pass? Thanks for all info.

Definitions vary a bit, but to me it means that if the lane is too narrow to safely share with the motor vehicles behind me (usually requires about 14' of width) then I'll move far enough to the left to make it clear that a passing vehicle will need to move over the lane line rather than try to squeeze by. I don't generally move all the way to the center of the lane (that tends to be where the oil drips are anyway), but just a couple extra feet out so as to discourage a squeeze pass and give myself some escape room to the right if someone still tries it.

Thanks a lot!

Yep, that's it. This is also known as "Commanding" the lane in a lot of official legal road jargon/state description. Since a bicycle is technically a vehicle and has full rights to the road, at any point* you can use the full lane if you feel necessary (unsafe conditions, narrow road, bad shoulder conditions, etc.). Following drivers are supposed to deal with you the same way they deal with other drivers: wait for a safe opportunity to move to the next lane and pass you. This is your prerogative*, but it will probably irritate some motorists, so use sparingly.

*I believe this is a general rule, but it may vary with location. I have heard that you are confined to a bike lane when they are present in some cities/states. Worth checking up on your specific location.

Both the above replies cover it in my mind, too, although I will add that in some situations I take the lane to improve my visibility, and move right when overtaking traffic arrives.

As I generally see it represented, taking the lane means it should be obvious to motorists that it would be unwise, from a vehicular homicide point of view, to try and share the lane.

Taking the lane in 99% of American cities is ludicrous. It is pushed by militant bicyclists. If you take the lane in a state like Michigan you are asking for big trouble. Taking the lane means exactly that, riding in the middle of the lane.

You might be able to do it in NYC, Portland, Madison but that is about it. I dont care what the laws state , if you take the lane in 99% of America you are endangering your life, for no good reason.

I ride year long 15 to 40 miles daily.

First, familiarize yourself with your own state's vehicle code regarding bicycles. In Oregon, the ORS (our code book) states that even when "taking the lane," bicyclists are to stay as far to the right as is safe, if you're not traveling at normal traffic speed.

If you're in downtown Portland, you can ride right in the lane, and any lane you like. Nobody is even going to care, and it's perfectly legal. But once you get out on 35mph+ roads, you need to GTFOOTW.

As mentioned, there are places where a wise man will ride a little farther out from the curb than is necessary. Going over our St. Johns bridge, or either of the small bridges on Barber Blvd (locals will know exactly what I'm talking about), I will move into the right rut in the asphalt, so that people can't try to squeeze past me. But I GTFOOTW as soon as it's safe to do so.

That right there is awesomely said.

Taking the lane vs. not taking it is ~ a 12" proposition for me. I generally ride a bit left of the fog line. I'll cross it to the right, by a bit, if it's safe, to facilitate cars getting by the hazard (me). I'll also swing out from it, by a bit, as necessary to establish a safe position on the road.

Take the lane anytime the car behind you cannot see oncoming traffic, such as when you are close to cresting a hill, on a plateau with a downhill coming, or a very sharp blind curve.

All you are doing is forcing the car to treat you as it would another car. Basically saying, "If you want to pass me, then you are going to have to go all the way into the oncoming lane to do it."

They won't pass you if you take the lane becuse it is unsafe for them...if you don't take it, they will try to sneak around you, and if an oncoming car crests the hill at the same time, you will find yourself three-wide and guess who loses that battle.

I have the plateau situation on my commute, and I learned early on to take the lane in that spot after two close calls.

Riding to the right as far as practicable is the way it is usually written.
prac·ti·ca·ble
ˈpraktikəbəl/
adjective
1.
able to be done or put into practice successfully.
"the measures will be put into effect as soon as is reasonably practicable"
synonyms: realistic, feasible, possible, within the bounds/realms of possibility, viable, reasonable, sensible, workable, achievable; More
able to be used; useful.
"signal processing can let you transform a signal into a practicable form"

Pirk

One situation where you'll almost always "take the lane" is in a left turn lane. Turning lanes are usually narrow, there is traffic passing on both sides (the right side passes from behind, the left side passes from the front), and there's no reason if a cyclist can't turn that a car can turn. So everyone needs to wait.

If a road is narrow then a cyclist needs to use some judgment. It may be legal to do something but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. When a guy pulls out a gun and starts waving it it your face you can rest assured that if you're not trying to kill that person that the law absolutely prevents him from shooting you, but that's no guarantee that he won't shoot you.

When I am on a narrow road and there's a way for me to let cars go by I'll do it. The other option is if you can travel the same speed as the cars, even briefly, it takes the "get out of my way" bit out of the equation. Therefore I tend to go as hard as possible when there's a lane closed and traffic has to take turns going through the affected area, etc. I also pull way over as soon as possible so it's clear that I wasn't "racing" them, just trying to reduce any inconvenience to those around me.

When at a multi-way stop if there are a couple cars waiting at the stop I'll let them go first. Better they go first and not have to pass you 50 or 100 yards down the road than me "asserting my rights" and then stressing them out as they try to pass me without killing me or themselves.

Also, as a relatively inexperienced trailer-hauler, I now realize just how difficult it can be to pass even a single cyclist while pulling a trailer. I'm a cyclist and naturally have concerns for cyclists/etc on the road, but some people are not that way or are driving distracted. Pulling the (8.5x20) trailer on a road with a pretty wide shoulder (40 mph speed limit, good pavement, good visibility) I had to slow to 25 mph for a bit of time before I could pull out enough to pass one cyclist safely. It was even a serious cyclist (local racer) so I had some confidence in their bike handling skills. If it were a kid on a bike I would have had to pull over even farther and I wouldn't have passed when I did, I'd have waited.

Way too much of a blanket statement.

There are situations where it's a lot safer to take the lane - no matter what the driver behind you thinks.

Some of them have even been mentioned already in this thread.

I understand what you are saying, and why you do it, but I would never give the same advice. Largely because there is, IMO, no one always right approach in those situations.

Cresting hills, I see some drivers go into the other lane and crest regardless of visibility, regardless of how much of the lane the cyclist takes. So if there is a car there, the cyclist loses regardless of whether they did or didn't move right. Same with blind curves. If the driver is responsible and prudent, you taking the lane gets you nothing that not taking it does. If the driver is irresponsible, you taking the lane saves you nothing that not taking it didn't. It is a very much a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

And for what it is worth, I take the lane when I feel it is appropriate, based on my situational judgement at the time. I would never suggest to anyone else to globally do or don't do what I do, because I don't globally do anything. Left turning, or going straight on a road with right turn lanes, requires me to frequently take the lane, and that is probably the only close to global that I do.

Of course, I am also anti-filtering, so feel free to ignore me entirely. :D

That's a nice bit of hyperbole; I've ridden this state from metro Detroit, to Grand Rapids, to Traverse City to Houghton, and my experiences just don't jive with your opinion.

It's true that riding techniques suitable to rides around Ann Arbor may not suitable to riding around Troy, but I still believe there are circumstances in any city where "taking the lane" (according to popular definitions, not yours) is the safest and wisest course. I admit I don't know how I'd ride Big Beaver in Troy, or Woodward in Birmingham, and probably avoiding those roads would be best, but if it were necessary to do so, I can't help but think that commanding 1 of the 4 same-direction lanes would be wiser, at times, than being squeezed invisibly up against the curb, especially in this period when the road surface is so bad with potholes etc.

The key, I think, is to be aware (of your impact on traffic) and respectful (of laws, common courtesy, and conditions). Take the lane when it's necessary, signal your intent, and surrender the lane when it's acceptable.

Yes, those are good examples. I always go wide and take the lane when there is no sight-line through a turn.

The other thing, and Carpediem mentioned this, is that there are times when we, as cyclists, need to give a little too, by which I mean we may need to bust our lungs to speed up a bit, or we may need to slow and surrender to safer timing. Sometimes, the discussions center more around asserting our rights than issues of road user courtesy, and I understand how that raises red flags for some people.

[QUOTE=RollCNY;16591362
Cresting hills, I see some drivers go into the other lane and crest regardless of visibility, regardless of how much of the lane the cyclist takes. So if there is a car there, the cyclist loses regardless of whether they did or didn't move right. [/QUOTE]

Since I started taking the lane in that one critical area years ago, I have never once had anyone pass me in that dangerous spot. Motorists may not care about our safety, but they sure as heck don't want to run head-on into an oncoming car.

Before I started taking the lane there, I had two close calls in relatively short order because motorists thought they could sneak by. Both times the oncoming car had to swerve into the right gravel shoulder to avoid hitting the car that was passing me.

I stand by my statement. Taking the lane in that situation is 100% the correct safest move.

[MENTION=136089]thump55[/MENTION], I am not criticizing your judgement at all. You are there. I am not. But you have experience in that locale to form your plan. I can tell you that I have several hills that if I took the lane to crest, I would not survive a month. I have experience with this locale. All I was saying is that people need to use their own judgement, in the situation they are in.

Here in Sacto and other Nor-Cal metropolis areas I've ridden in, taking the lane does NOT seem ludicrous. I get almost 99% motor vehicle cooperation and safe passes. And I ride a LOT!

Are you sure you didn't mean to type "9%" ?

Taking the lane
Lane Controlling
Lane Commanding
Is a contentious issue here.
It is ANTI FRAP FRAP means Far Right As Practicable -which is The law MOST PLACES
Yeah PRACTICABLE-typical chiseling lawyer word
The entire phrase was MEANT to mean "far right as you safely can"

VC Lane controllers have interpreted it to mean they can legally control the entire lane by riding in the middle or left of middle of the lane to PREVENT DISCOURAGE drivers from trying to pass them too closely(and they sometimes have better sight lines)
FRAPPERS interpret it MUCH more narrowly- as far right as road conditions-road surface road debris door zones allow.They very specifically DON'T attempt to control drivers.

No real proof it works better than FRAP-and no real proof it doesn't work better.
All based on the idea that bike position can prevent close passes-and that close passes are actually a significant safety concern.

Occasionally drivers-car forums-complain about LC-
Some have actually posted signs suggesting LC riders might get run over(San Diego recently)
but it rarely even crosses most driver's radars-it is pretty rare (except on bike forums)
LC or FRAP doesn't really matter in real world riding -contentious issue of course

Do not ride on roads that require you to "take" the lane. You're trading the danger of cars passing too closely for the danger of cars road raging at you. Not a good trade!

Where is this place with all bike lanes and 30' roads that you speak of?

I agree with the above - despite the 'take the lane for safety' advice above, in my experience, this NEVER ends well for the cyclist. You will get honked at, buzzed, or worse every single time you do this if it obstructs the motorist for more than 5 seconds, even if you have complete right of way of doing it. I've done this enough times to know this hard reality. I don't think I've ever had a car wait patiently behind me even when it was totally unsafe for me to yield to them - to the point that I found at one point of a commute I once had, I simply had to walk the bike through off the road completely (over lawns) because nobody would wait the 40 sec in took me to ride through their if I took the lane.

Just avoid those types of roads completely is the best advice. You will get too much grief otherwise. This has nothing to do about not standing up for your cyclist rights and everything to do with the reality of motorists not willing to wait more than 5 seconds behind a cyclist going under 30mph.

Wut?

Some people don't have that much choice of routes.

Who appointed you Lord High Dictator and Arbiter of What Everyone Else Must Do?