There have been some changes lately Buzz http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=340368These sharrows have been put in on Thames St. and Spring St. and they are in the right place unlike on Memorial Blvd. There are yellow diamond signs with bicycle image on most of the blind corners and big dips on Ocean Drive. I take the lane any time there is an accomodation allowing me to. Most of the time I take lane on all roads that have two lanes in the same direction the red position is the fastest pavement and don't let people BS you about why they riding in the sweet spot for speed. I ride on all major roads in Rhode Island including Rt. 114, 138, 2, 102 ect. I am not afraid of taking space I did it today on both 114 and 138 there is no other way to ride on a 35-45 mph road with no shoulder. I tend to stay off during rush hours except for the 1/2 mile between Union Street and Glen Road today I just took the lane in the middle and folks calmly passed me by changing lanes. I don't think that using "rusty or beginner bicyclists" as the basis for cycling rules is good practice, lowering the bar isn't realistic and promotes fear and ignorance. As you can see Newport is promoting VC riding.

The sharrows on Thames St. are pretty much right where I would be riding on that street anyway. I suppose you could interpret their placement as "promoting VC riding" I see it more as the right position to ride on that particular street as well as reminding drivers bikes might be present in the roadway.

Yeah, picking and choosing the right time of day to ride on 114 is a smart idea. Just curious when you say you " take the lane" on 114 are you riding in the RED position or the GREEN?

Although you and I may not agree on exactly where the line between those two is we most certainly agree there is a line and both riding styles are appropriate and the best choice for different situations.

I personally have strongly adopted a "Get in or get out" philosophy for my riding based on mainly first hand experience (that's a nice way of saying I had to learn the hard way) which seems to work best for me. I either get entirely out of the main traffic lane and ride to the right of the white line or I get all the way in the lane, I don't try to ride the fence in-between those two options. In a situation where I make the decision that the best course of action is to "get in" rather then out I'm going to take a lane position that dictates that overtaking vehicles unless they are abnormally narrow have to at least straddle pass, with a narrow enough lane width riding in the right tire track can be sufficient for that, but usually it isn't quite and riding about a third of the way into the lane between the oil drip center line of the lane and the right tire track line is just about perfect for most situations.

I don't like to share a lane side by side with a big dangerous vehicle. A good deal of this I'm sure is the fact that lanes wide enough to safely share are extremely rare in my area, maybe I'd feel different if I lived somewhere that had a whole bunch of those rumored 14'+ wide non-substandard lanes that the unified federal vehicle code calls for but up in my area that is by no means the rule. Normal lane width up here is about 9' and with some a little narrower and occasionally on some high speed highways 10-12' wide lanes but the speeds are so great that you can't safely share those lanes even though one could argue that they could be safely shared with 6' wide cars at low speeds and maintain the minimum 3' clearance required by law for safe passing of a cyclist if the cyclist was way over in the right edge of the lane and the cars passed way over in the left edge.

I have no problem letting a non-fat motorcycle pass me within the same lane even in the narrowest 7-8' width two tire track lanes (yes, they do get that narrow up here sometimes where big trucks and buses have their wheels riding on the lines on both sides of them and can't completely fit in the lane). But I do watch my tail for all those other normal wider width vehicles and if I'm riding "In" on a narrow two lane road without shoulder edges or ones to narrow to be ride-able (quite common riding situation for me) and see some speed demon gashole jerk coming up behind me edging a line that shows he intends to straddle pass me with oncoming traffic and there won't be room for both the straddle pass and the oncoming traffic, I don't move right within the lane, I move left within the lane and I do it immediately when I see that situation developing so that if absolutely necessary I still have time to "bail it" to the right but that will mean going completely off the road and usually crashing off the edge of the road so that's the second to last option only short of getting hit.

Yup, sometimes when I do that after they hit the brakes and abort their intended crazy unsafe pass as a result of me moving to the left in my lane position to get it through their speed demon gashole heads that they couldn't safely pass at that moment they do switch to laying on the horn in a long hard blast after they are done hitting their brakes. But I'd much rather get honked at then have a straddle passer turn into me at the last moment when they are to the point where they figure out too late that they either turn into me and hit me or hit the oncoming car head-on.

Long story short, yes, sometimes I do make some heavy vehicle operators very angry sometimes via deliberate moves on my part further left in my lane position. But I don't do it unless its necessary and I do it soon enough that I still have time enough for a bail out option if they don't hit their brakes. Riding all the time as far left as the left tire track or just to to the right of it as suggested in the diagram posted by the OP ~ no thanks. There are times when moving that far left in the lane is necessary, but it's not something I'd habitually do.

I think that kind of situation where a speed demon gashole jerk intending to straddle pass realizes when he gets closer that there isn't room to do so and has to slam on his brakes (assuming he does rather then slamming into the cyclist and/or causing a head-on collision with oncoming traffic) is what the person who made that diagram posted in the OP was talking about as far as actually making people more mad by riding in the right tire track because they think they have room to pass until they get closer. There might be some validity to that but I don't think you have to be that far over to the left to prevent that for most motorists. There are the occasional ones where you do have to be that far left for them to "get it" and even then they still might not get it but since they are the minority I'd rather piss off a small minority then a large majority, seems like there would be less total risk that way.

Don't get me wrong if its necessary for my own safety and its a matter of life itself vs. a little bit of emotional trepidation on the part of some selfish jerks who get upset about the idea of having to actually take their foot of the gas pedal and use the brake pedal to slow down for a few seconds and wait to safely pass ~ I'm willing to piss off the entire planet if necessary. Just would prefer not to if it isn't necessary.

There do seem to be some who are darn well determined to piss off as many as possible even when, and especially when, it isn't necessary. There are also seem to be some who won't stand up for their own safety and will cower in the far right edge of a very narrow 7' wide lane inviting multiple close passes where their odds are about 1 in 10 of at least the mirror of passing cars hitting them. Both are equally stupid and ridiculous.

Buzzman that was beautifully stated and really hits home. +1000 for the reality check.

I am Mr. Green cyclist, I agree with Turbo. I will completely take the lane over. I find the red position leads to close passes. I also move left in sketchy situations without a shred of remorse for Jane Q. Cager's need to brake until it's safe. I am amazed at the total clueless riders riding a foot off of a row of vehicles that could open a door at any time, that many are wearing helmets is a hoot.
Let me say that if I needed to ride on an arterial road at rush hour I do not fret about it. I will not ride in fear, I have only bikes I've never had a driver's license and look on most posters here as drivers first and cyclists second and this informs their mindset to aquiesce their right to the road and further reinforce in the minds of the drivers they encounter that bikes "don't belong in middle of the road".

Just thought I should make it clear that I'm not an "always ride in the lane" kind of cyclist. I shoulder edge ride as much or more then VC ride in the main traffic lane(s). I just use a "Get IN or get OUT !!!" philosophy and if I'm going to get IN then I'm going to be IN all the way, no half-@$$ sh*t.

----- When the speed limit on the road I'm riding on is 25-mph or less then its unusual for me to not be riding VC in the main traffic lane(s)
----- When both the speed limit and traffic speed on the road I'm riding on is more then that if there is a shoulder edge on the road of significant width and surface condition to allow me to safely, effectively, and efficiently shoulder edge ride outside of the main traffic lane(s) then I do so except for left turns and such.

"Get IN or Get OUT" and on low speed roads usually ride "IN" and on high speed roads ride "OUT" if practical. That's my philosophy that I've come to based on my real world experience as to what works best and exposes me to the least danger while allowing me to effectively travel by bike. I'm not a militant VCer that always take the lane no matter what, and I'm not a mamby-pamby, cowardly edge rider either. I have just learned that there is a seesaw like balance between the the two main dangers of overtaking traffic from behind (getting hit from behind, unsafe passing, right hook, etc . . .) and crossing traffic from the front and sides (Left-T-Cross, Cross traffic failure to yield, Right Entry Nose Out or Mow Down, etc . . .) and when roadways speeds are low the safest course of action is to take the lane and ride VC style and when roadway speeds are high edge riding is the better choice if the road infrastructure provides a safe, efficient, and effective place to ride that way. Sometimes it does not and in those cases it is necessary to take the lane and I consider those situations a failure of infrastructure planners to be sure to accommodate all types of traffic rather then being strictly automobile-centered.

Also, I was a cyclist first, then I was an automobile driver, and then I went back to using cycles as much as possible and saving the automobile for stuff where it really does make sense to use it rather then a cycle. So you have the background there on me that colors my view point.

I do not adhere to the radical VC mind set and ride similarly and I was commenting on my higher speed riding situations, your "all in or all out". I have no problem using the shoulder if wide enough and clear of debris. I ride on highways with traffic moving at or above 50 mph on the shoulder. I do not ride VC when I am faster than traffic which happens in a tourist city all summer long. I am not into bike lanes as most are in the door zone but I will use no parking or buffered bike lanes gladly. It all depends on relative speed if you are faster than traffic then you can't pass them if you ride VC. With the new sharrows I sometimes ride in slow traffic just to educate drivers and cyclists by example when it's bumper to bumper or I want to relax and cruise. In short we are close in manner of riding on the road.

I pass slower moving automobiles sometimes when riding VC, it's just that I make the pass vehicular style, as in left side full lane change. That is usually in-town traffic in the left (fast) lane on roads with both low speed backed up traffic and more then one lane in the direction of travel.

A few times I've had the pleasure of making a full vehicular pass in the oncoming traffic lane when stuck behind a really slow automobile when there was a clear gap in oncoming traffic in the oncoming lane. That is so worth it, even if they speed up and then pass me afterwards. Just the look on their face in my mirror with their eyes just about popping out of their head when they realize that a guy on a pedal bicycle just passed them on the left side in the oncoming lane when there is a clear gap in oncoming traffic is so worth it. Apparently its some kind of earth shattering realization for them that like blows their mind. Doesn't happen very often, but I love doing it when an opportunity presents itself (usually happens on some of the more scenic back country roads that are narrow two lane paved that wind through the mountain valleys with a rubber necking group of tourists inside going slow).

One gal even drove part way off the edge of the road after I passed her because apparently it blew her mind so much that she like froze up or something. I admit it probably isn't the smartest or safest thing to do on the road with a bicycle but its a really good way to "get your kicks".

I think part of the differences between how we ride are due to the different environments we ride in.

For me in MT riding VC in-town in stop and go square grid traffic (sometimes bumper to bumper) is a series of hard sprints between red lights where I have to go as fast as I can and pedal as hard as I can to hold my place in traffic and waiting at red lights or slowing and stopping for stop signs is a welcome quick breather break before the next sprint. I understand that in other areas namely in the big cities traffic can slow down and back up so that its only moving at about 10-15 mph but in the smaller towns up here in my state in-town traffic moves at about 20-30 mph in-between the lights and I try to consistently break through the 20-mph speed barrier going that fast or slightly more in-between the lights. There is usually no shoulder edge for in-town roads and if there is a bike lane its a door zone lane that I ain't using and usually the lanes are narrow. So in-town riding for me in my area is usually VC riding as a series of sprints with little breather breaks at the lights and stop signs.

In contrast up her in MT raveling in-between towns is almost all on high speed highways with automobile traffic usually moving at 65-mph or more so I very much prefer to use either roads with a ride-able shoulder edge where I can ride OUT of the main traffic lanes or alternately a road with very little automobile traffic preferably a narrow two lane without any shoulder edge. The worst possibility is a narrow two lane with little or no ride-able shoulder edge and lots of high speed traffic. On those high speed roadways in-between towns riding OUT on the shoulder edge of a road with a lot of high speed automobile traffic works great and trying to take the lane when you don't need to looks like a really dumb idea. On the flip side a road with very little automobile traffic that is a narrow two lane with no shoulder edge works nearly as well because automobile traffic can almost always pass you right away with oncoming traffic rarely interfering and without any shoulder edge and narrow lanes its obvious that the only place to safely ride is in the main lane "taking the lane" so one rarely gets harassed by motorists for doing so. The worst is a two lane with a lot of high speed automobile traffic and medium width lanes that are wider then some other lanes but still not wide enough to safely share with automobiles side-by-side and a narrow foot wide shoulder edge. On those roads motorists can't easily pass and they see lanes that to their mind are wide enough to just barely share side-by-side and if you would just get over a little more they think they could just squeeze by and in their minds there is a shoulder edge that although its way too narrow and/or torn up they think you should be riding on instead of being in the main lane.

Where you are in RI it sounds to me like your in-town riding is automobiles backed up and crammed up such that riding VC in the lane slows you down rather then being a series of sprints between the welcome little breather breaks of red-lights and stop signs. It also sounds like some of your higher speed roads aren't as bad for riding in the main traffic lanes as what we have up in my area. So obviously with different riding conditions are styles are going to be different.

I'm glad though that I'm not the only one on this forum who realizes that neither the militant hard line VCers or the militant hard line anti-VCers have it right and that both riding styles are appropriate or in-appropriate in different situations and which should be used depends on the conditions.

I think one-size-fits all answers to cycling safety are often harmful, ultimately; it encourages a lack of critical thinking and defensive riding.

Moderators, please close this thread as being yet another hair-splitting argument from one of a few persistent posters. You shouldn't continually recycle a thread over and over expecting stuff.

I find it to be trolling.

I thought threads were only closed if they got nasty, not because someone keeps saying something you don't like?

I certainly don't agree with everything the OP of this thread posts but unless it gets nasty no need to close the thread, unless your trying to silence an apposing view point.

Just stop reading the threads he starts if it gets under your skin that much.

To a motorist who might hassle or road rage a cyclist, there is no difference between the red and the green cyclist. If their speed is impacted at all, they will go off.

For the most part I would agree. One should consider however that such a motorist is more likely to try to do a dangerous "squeeze pass" on the red cyclist crossing only partly over the yellow middle line and forcing oncoming traffic over to the right in the oncoming lane. But, as another poster already pointed out such a motorist might also try passing the green cyclist on the right side within the lane which could be just as dangerous.

Yes I have to say that riding in the city of Newport is great for the most part with the whole city 25mph limit and even in the off season I hold my own keeping up with traffic. It is a colonial city laid out in a grid with many short one way streets and numerous stop signs and lights. I am always amazed that bike "advocates" wring their hands and say how dangerous it is. I ride one way streets VC and alll stops at intersections the same it's the only sure way to avoid a hook. I love my country two lanes out in western Rhode Island and Connecticut, like you said traffic is lighter and people just pass without much fanfare. I still get a jerk once in a while but all in all I live in a pretty sweet place to be carfree. There is a hill with a right turn at the bottom where I frequently get in the left lane and pass a few cars and blow a few minds that and passing seventy vehicles in bumper to bumper traffic puts me in a good mood.

25MPH speed limits all over the city... sounds like bike heaven.

Try dealing with motorists on 55MPH 6 lane arterial roads and see how well you do.

^ Yup, you just hit the nail on the head, Genec, as to how when both the speed and density of heavy vehicle traffic is high the whole VC thing starts to fall apart.

VC "take the lane" riding style works great at slow traffic speeds where the speed differential between automobile vehicles and bicycle vehicles is minimal and it still works reasonably well even when automobile vehicles are moving a higher speeds and there is a larger speed differential if the traffic density is light enough to allow the faster vehicles to easily and safely pass either without or with minimal delay.

But once both the speed and density of automobile traffic gets high enough VC doesn't work and edge riding techniques and infrastructure that has some kind of decent shoulder edge or bike lanes on the road edge and reasonable accommodations for directional choice for cyclists without major hassle at intersections needs to be used instead.

GeneC I have been on my share of higher speed 2 travel one turn lane highways. I will go anywhere I absolutely have to go but that doesn't mean I go out of my way to. The great thing about 375 year old towns is they were made for walking and horse drawn vehicles, the streets are narrow for the most part and lend themselves to taking the lane, of course everybody speeds and thinks they are the most important person in the world it is an american thing. I live in the city where the League Of American Wheelmen was founded. Newport has the highest percentage of bicycle commuters in the state according to the latest census.

Oh, absolutely. suggesting to always control a lane is horrendous advice. Generally, i ride right down the center of my best judgement.

Bob must not ride "big" in the lane. Bob- Throw your elbows out.

:roflmao2:

Welcome back!:thumb:

Cool. You're back. Almost makes me want to come out of hiding myself. Hasn't been the same without you.

the op's diagram was clearly not intended for 50+ mph freeways/rural highways. it was intended for someone riding on a lower speed road in an urban or semi-urban area. it's a bit tiresome to see the "interstate with semi-trucks inches from you" canard come up again and again and again.

Huh? "Interstate with semi-trucks inches from you"?? Are you supposedly quoting me there? Or are you extrapolating a meaning from what I wrote and applying it?

I don't know what you weigh but a Honda Fit outweighs me by several thousand pounds and can accelerate to a much higher speed in very little time so when I say powerful vehicles I mean pretty much any motor vehicle.

And semi trailer trucks, at least in Boston, New York and San Diego, where I am currently riding, are not absent from urban and suburban streets. In fact, in Boston, two of the more recent cyclist fatalities involved collisions with semi trailer trucks.

So, basically, I don't understand your argument.

But what else is new?

and that honda fit is far less likely to collide with someone or injure someone at lower speeds. i simply don't buy your argument that taking the lane is risky most of the time. (in my experience, only a minority of cyclists habitually ride in high speed environments.)

I live in a pretty typical suburban area and the speed limits on most of the residential streets are 25 - 30 mph. But connecting the residential areas are arterial streets with higher speeds and these are used routinely by bicyclists both for utility trips (these streets are where most shopping and businesses are located) and recreation (these streets are the way to get between neighborhoods and towns). The road layout is such that the streets with lower speeds are rarely suitable for going any substantial distance. E.g. the main arterial that I use for shopping, other errands, and to get to the start of many club rides (as well as being part of those club rides) has a speed limit of 45 mph, but traffic pretty routinely flows at 50 - 55 mph with individual cars and trucks going even faster.

#1 ) Please tell me where I state that "taking the lane is risky most of the time(itals. mine)"?

#2 ) There are so many variables at play in your statement: "that honda fit is far less likely to collide with someone or injure someone at lower speeds" as to make it basically inarguable. Ie. are cyclists involved in collisions at a greater rate with motor vehicles at higher speeds than at lower speeds? Higher and lower than what? 35 mph as opposed to 65 mph? 25 mph as opposed to 35 mph? Please provide your evidence that collisions between bicyclists and motor vehicles occur at greater frequency when the motor vehicle is traveling at higher speeds. I have no idea what you are basing that statement on other than a pile of blanket assumptions.

#3 ) I agree to a degree with your statement that the majority of cyclists ride in environments where traffic is traveling at slower speeds. Though I am less inclined to see it as a total given. I am currently riding in Southern California and a great deal of my riding in the San Diego area has been on roads that approach freeway speeds and with relatively high traffic volume.

The OP gives no indication that his diagram for the best place to ride is intended only for low speed traffic environments. The OP does not indicate that there may be any scenario where this diagram is not the best way to ride a bike.

i did not quote you. and i should note that you have repeatedly complained that i am misquoting you. the use of rhetoric and even a touch of exaggeration is an established debating tactic. if you don't want to debate then don't respond.

here is what you wrote:

despite the preceding vague reference to "wisdom" this is an absolute statement: "involves a rise in a certain level of other risks because of an increased exposure".

i am objecting to these statements and the general tone of your commentary on this thread because i believe it exaggerates the risks of cycling. i also believe that discouraging vehicular cycling is harmful to cycling in the USA.



i guess you accept at least part of my statement since i also mentioned injury.

Let me quote a presentation from the NHTSA:



sounds like fun but I would not want to commute on these roads every day.

Actually, you did quote me. When you hit "reply with quote" what I have written appears as a "quote" in your post. I have no problem with that. My issue is that you then, in your response, put something else in quotes that has no relation to what I wrote and is a complete mischaracterization of any statement I made. You attribute the statement you put in quotes to no one in particular so it is easily assumed it is something I said.

Instead your added quote is something you have conjured in an imaginary "debate" with someone other than me. You call this an "established debate tactic". I might call it an "established da bait tactic". In other words it's a way of baiting someone into a ridiculous dialogue far from the actual topic. Pretty much what is happening now, within 3 posts of your original response.

You say, "then don't respond". Well, if you take one of my posts and hit "reply with quote" I am very likely to continue to respond so I kindly ask that should you do so restrain yourself from creating an imaginary quote based on your interpretation of what you think I said and either ask for clarification or actually make your points of disagreement. Or don't hit "reply with quote" and feel free to have your imaginary debate with your phantom opponent.

Since you did more or less move to responding to what I did write in your most recent post I will respond:

There is a tendency on the part of the general public to exaggerate the risks of cycling. We agree on that point. I think it's a large part of why more people don't cycle in this country. But you seem to feel my comments regarding proximity to motor vehicles and risk exposure feeds that misconception. This you attribute to my "general tone". Well, tone is tough to read in an on line forum. But let me say that when I post in here my assumption is that most of the posters in bike forums ride bikes regularly and are not the general public and so my comments are meant for a dialogue between fellow riders. In which case, I assume, perhaps mistakenly in your case, that most of us accept whatever risks we individually feel we may face in riding our bikes. I also assume, perhaps wrongly again in your case, that our discourse in BF and in A&S in particular, is about making it even safer than it already is-either through riding technique, legislation, education, law enforcement etc...

With all that said let me speak to you bike rider to bike rider for a moment. You pointed out that you wouldn't want to be riding along with cars traveling at freeway speeds on a daily basis as I am currently finding myself doing here in the San Diego area. Well, I don't find it too pleasant and I look forward to getting out on some quiet New England country roads before the summer is finished. Pretty much every road I commute on right now is a minimum of three lanes in each direction with added fourth and fifth lanes at intersections. The volume of traffic is extremely high and the speed is often approaching 50 or above. Fortunately, most of the ones I ride on are bike laned but crossing to make a left turn requires skill and fair bit of courage. It also requires a level of trust that the approaching drivers see you, are not texting or otherwise distracted or drunk.

I also ride recreationally. And my road rides in the area tend to involve riding long loops on similar roads or going north up the 101 with an endless stream of cars to my left, frequent intersections with long traffic lights or stop signs and beach going drivers pulling in and out of parking spaces along the side of the road.

Last night I had my most pleasant and what I would deem safest ride. On the way home from work (I worked until 10 pm) I found a roughly 1 mile loop on the USCD campus where I could time trial for an hour with absolutely not one car and with not one stop in a full hour of ridng. The road was smooth and well lit by both street lamps and my bike light and it was the best ride I've had since I got to San Diego---- why? NO CARS!!!!

So, if as a fellow bike rider you don't know what I mean when I say we are at higher risk when we are more exposed to automobiles I don't know what else I can say or do to convince you but it's just how I feel. And since statistically most cyclist fatalities and serious injuries involve collisions with automobiles I'd say theres plenty of evidence I'm correct.

The problem is how do we solve this dilemma when a good portion of the country lives in areas like Southern California or othr areas where current infrastructure means constant cyclists' exposure to motor vehicular traffic on a regular basis.

1. my added comment was plain text – no quote tags were used.
2. it's common practice on bike forums to simply use the "quote function" to continue a conversation.


since this bothers you I will make an effort to quote you more selectively:


I don't know whether taking the lane on a 25 mph arterial tends to be on average less risky than riding on the right. Cycling is a safe mode of transport and there is little actual evidence one way or another suggesting that any particular cycling style is less risky than another. IMO, we spend far too much time discussing the supposed risks of cycling (or cycling styles) and not enough time discussing how to combat the stereotype of the cyclist as daredevil (or crazy other).


And I don't believe that taking the full lane instead of the right side tire track makes one less exposed to motorvehicles. Both positions are equally exposed to same direction traffic.


And many of those collisions occur at intersections where being more exposed may reduce risk.