Is it really hard for people to believe this? Riders TOP speed was 43ish. Speed limit was 55 so safe assumption cars are going faster.

Is it really hard to believe rush hour volume of cars going 55-65mph were catching up to a cyclist going 35-43mph?

Car going 65 comes up on a bike going 17-25mph slower = bad news.

No, defensive riding would be not to be riding at a fast speed at a busy time of the day on a busy road that has a "debris filled" wide "breakdown lane".

Taking the lane is not defensive. At least it is not the most defensive thing to do.

If a car comes at me, I guess I'm going into the ditch, because that would be defensive cycling. I'm defending my life.

And I really don't care about the legal rights of PCH. I care about living. Cars certainly don't care about cyclists rights on the PCH either judging by your comments, but yet you still want to "stick it to them". Good luck playing chicken.

You can't find stats of cyclists being rear-ended going 10mph in the middle of a 55mph lane because the vast majority of us are smart enough to not do it.

You seriously trust that 1,000 drivers are going to notice you and slow their speed to below half the posted limit to avoid hitting you while you take the lane? This idea becomes even more dangerous on a four lane road. Now you have someone running up on you at twice your speed and they have a choice, slam the brakes or make a quick lane change. Lets say they chose the quick lane change at the last second, you really trust the car right behind them to be able to get slowed down in time? How about the mess cars are creating by diving into the left lane to avoid you?

Seems to be you are so focused on your right to the lane that you can't see the obvious flaws in your ideas about "defensive cycling". Are there appropriate times to take the lane? Of course, and I do when appropriate. This situation based on all the evidence provided was not one of those times. Especially given the fact that the "gutter" you road warriors refer to was an entire lane.

Some motorcyclists argue that it is safer to ride near the center line as opposed to the right side of the lane as you are more visible. I never agreed with that logic either.

I am 56 years old and having been riding on two wheels for a lot of years. I ride motorcycles as well as bicycles. Some motorcyclists argue that it is safer to ride near the center line as opposed to the right side of the lane as you are more visible. I never agreed with that logic either. To me riding defensively means staying as far away from the cage drivers as possible. If I need to take evasive action (avoid someone crossing the center line or someone about to run me over from the rear) I want to be as close to the shoulder (or ditch for that matter) as I can be. I like my survival odds better hitting the ditch as opposed to a mass of steel moving at me at speed. Your logic seems more like offensive action than being defensive.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether the cyclist would be safer in the lane or on the shoulder in this particular case - but reasonable people should not disagree on who should make the call. And the rest of us should respect that choice. Only anti-cyclist bigots would not respect it (and yes cyclists can be anti-cyclist bigots).

There are countless thousands of miles of rural roadway all over the country posted at 55 mph with narrow lanes and no shoulders where cyclists have no choice but to be in the lane, and yet they are hardly ever rear-ended. Every think about that?

My impetus is not the right to the lane, but the safety of the cyclist. What you seem to be missing is that the reason the cyclist has the right to the lane, the reason those exceptions were put into CVC 21202 which give him the right to the lane, are precisely for making cycling safer.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether the cyclist would be safer in the lane or on the shoulder in this particular case - but reasonable people should not disagree on who should make the call. And the rest of us should respect that choice. Only anti-cyclist bigots would not respect it (and yes cyclists can be anti-cyclist bigots).

Somebody said the limit was 45. Another said 50. So I was forced to go look it up on Google Maps. The speed limit is 45mph.

https://goo.gl/maps/Vhkgs


People doing 65 in a 45 should be arrested.


When you see a bicyclist in the middle of the lane and your closing speed is ~20mph, no, it's not at all difficult to slow down or move over to pass. I deal with the same from other motor vehicles when I'm driving all the time.

First post of this thread which remains unedited says the posted limit was 55mph.

But for arguments sake lets say the speed limit is lower. It is definitely a safe assumption that cars normally travel the expected 5-10mph over the limit. We also know from reports of the cyclists strava file that he did not maintain 43mph but instead was "cruising" slower than that.

So lets assume 45+10= 55mph for vehicles and 43-x = cyclists speed at RUSH HOUR. Still, do the math.

As far as your outlandish comment regarding people being arrested for doing 20 over, pump the brakes big guy. Is it stupid and unsafe, yes. Noone is arguing that. In fact none is arguing whether cyclists have the right to the lane. Everyone is arguing for safety, and taking the lane much slower than vehicles during rush our is not only unsafe but it's stupid give the associated risk.

Stopping power of cars is effective yet causing motorists to quickly hit the brakes and change lanes during RUSH HOUR causes a lot of unnecessary risk to everyone. We do not live in a perfect world man. The road is not utopia. Cars speed and tailgate and are distracted all the time. This isn't a time to make a martyr over taking the lane, its time to be smart and every cyclist on the road needs to be a proponent for the cause. That requires respect for the motorists as well because this is not a perfect world.

I don't think there's any reasonable question that it was legal for the cyclist to take the lane, since it's a narrow lane and California law gives cyclists the right to ride in the road and does not require that they ride hin the shoulder, no matter how wide it may be.

Whether it's safe under the circumstances is something for the cyclist to decide. We should t be ceding our right to do something completely legal and, in our judgment, safe just because motorists are ignorant of the law.

I just want to know in what universe it is easier and safer to dodge an object coming fast from behind you, than to dodge a static one that is ahead of you...

As a Level 1 Cycling coach, a past League Cycling Instructor, and a current CyclingSavvy Instructor, this thread grieves me.

Many of you are advocating edge cycling.

Many of you are advocating shoulder-cycling.

Many of you are advocating for infrastructure, mistaking that for 'advocacy'.

And some of you are advocating for 'Taking the Lane'.

I think we have a problem in the cycling and triathlon-cycling world, and it is our preoccupation with the term 'Vulnerable User'. We tend to think that we're impediments to the flow of traffic, and that we're "going to get squished" if we don't get out of the way of other, faster, road users. The fact of the matter is that as long as a travel lane is less than 14' wide, it's determined to be "Sub-Standard", per US DOT and FHWA. Ergo, in most states, Cyclists have the right to NOT SHARE THAT SUB-STANDARD lane with other road users, and should rightly 'Take the Lane'.

Furthermore, a SHOULDER is NOT the road... it is where road users should go for breakdowns, or if they're unable to control their cars, deal with distractions, etc. So, at least in Texas, the only place to legally kill a cyclist, is if they're riding on the shoulder.

Also, take note... the legal term "Practicable" does NOT mean "PRACTICAL". So, if you're a cyclist, taking the lane, YOUR safety, as the occupant AHEAD of other traffic, is paramount.

If the lane is Sub-Standard (and 98% of all roads in the US are less than 14' wide), you have the right to ride where YOU deem the road is safest. If that's in the right wheel-well, congratulations. You're controlling your lane. If that's dead-nuts in the middle of the lane, where the oil-stains usually are at traffic signals, again - congratulations... you're controlling your lane. IF you feel that your route is safest in the LEFT wheel well (RIGHT IN THE 3 degree line of sight for 99.999999% of all motorists, since the overwhelming majority of motorists have steering wheels on the left-side of the automobile).... Once again, congratulations... You're RIGHTFULLY, LEGALLY, taking the lane.

BUT....

When people advocate for Cycling-Only traffic control devices, like BIKE LANES, SEPARATED PATHS, BIKE BOXES, etc. , well, they're adding tremendous complexity to the 2-dimensional road. Bike lanes lead to right-hooks, blind left-crosses, door-zones, and let's face it - they're magnets for debris, which leads to flats, falls, and even risky avoidance maneuvers that can put cyclists BACK in the traffic lane that the bike lane was meant to avoid. Bike Boxes, which are expensive as hell to install and maintain, put the SLOWEST ROAD USER back in front of the Queue, which increases impedance of traffic.

We may THINK that we ALL WANT OUR OWN SPACE to ride unmolested, but as forum readers on Slowtwitch, and disciples of Jack, Andy, and Tom A, we ALL understand the fragility of our expensive, aero, low- rolling resistance vehicles and equipment and apparel, and we ALL understand the expense that comes from that mote of glass, that tiny tac or staple, which can lead to at best a slow leak, at worst a quick blowout. We also understand the inevitable SQUEEZE that comes in the 3 feet that exist between a parked Suburban, the white line of the bike lane, and passing traffic.

So think hard folks. Think REALLY hard. Do you want a 9-11' wide space, that's broomed by every other road user, is usually free from debris, and puts you SQUARE IN THE LINE OF SIGHT of ALL OTHER ROAD USERS, thus giving them AMPLE OPPORTUNITY to PAUSE, SIGNAL, and PASS by CHANGING LANES (the absolute simplest of actions, thus impeding NO ONE), or do you want 'YOUR OWN SPACE', where you're AT RISK of doors, people, parked cars, debris, etc.?

Duffy, I'm really sorry, but I think the absolute best thing you could have done, would have been to simply acknowledge that the cyclist was ahead of you, and then signaled to change lanes. That would have cost you nothing. Instead, you honked, which led to an altercation, which led to you going after Helen's Cyclery, which led to this dialogue (which I'm sort of glad we're having, but sort of disgusted by it as well).

Sadly, I believe in California, if a bike lane exists, a cyclist is required to ride in it, for better or for worse, unless the cyclist deems that his or her safety is being compromised. Since motorists don't have the same viewpoint as cyclists, and EACH ROAD USER MUST WAIT HIS OR HER TURN (first come, first served, based on the law of the SEA, which is where we got the laws of traffic for the land...), then the smart, safe, mature thing is to realize that the cyclist is there for a reason, none of us have privy TO that reason, and we must find an opportunity to - again - pause, and then signal and pass when safe. More road users need to understand this. Since 99.9999999% of all people reading this also have driver's licenses, I would beg you to at least consider it.

Twitchers - we, as cyclists and triathletes MUST GROW UP. We MUST implement CYCLIST, not CYCLING, but CYCLIST Education programs. WE MUST follow the rules of the road. Signal your intentions, follow all traffic signals, and BE VISIBLE. This cyclist was doing what was most right for him or herself at the time of the interaction, nothing more, nothing less. Roads were not built to favor one type of transportation over another, unless they're private. They are built and maintained by reasonably intelligent engineers (Politicians always F it up for cyclists in some "The Help" book fashion, to make segregation seem appropriate and wanted), for the transportation of PEOPLE, and GOODS. This cyclist was out on the road, doing something, and going somewhere for some reason. Don't pass judgment. Just.... PASS. Not a punishment pass... a legal, safe, lane-changing pass. 2 seconds. No problem.

It helps to stay on multi-laned roads, because, honestly, traffic can PASS.

I'll leave with some links to some essays and graphics that may help. I won't respond to my own post. I have coaching and programs to write and do, but I URGE ALL OF YOU to go to the following sites, and register for classes. You may think you know everything, but there's always a nugget we can take home that may make a difference. It won't blow your ego, or your ride. I promise.

http://www.abea.bike
http://www.iamtraffic.org
http://www.cyclingsavvy.org
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/smart-moves/
http://commuteorlando.com/...3/mindful-bicycling/
http://commuteorlando.com/...ations/lane-control/
http://commuteorlando.com/...how-bike-lanes-work/
http://commuteorlando.com/...ations/group-riding/
http://cyclingsavvy.org/hows-my-driving/
http://charleysbicyclelab.com/.../photo-1-550x440.jpg
http://40.media.tumblr.com/...Xl1riu8b2o1_1280.jpg



Good luck and safe cycling to all of you, regardless of your intent.

Thank you for starting such an epic thread. I don't think we have had one of these since the surfing lamb one.

You're simply not understanding the fact that because motorists can see bicyclists in the middle of the lane from far away that they deal with them in a way that makes the bicyclist safe.

You can keep pretending that you know more about bicycle safety than the League of American Bicyclists or Cycling Savvy or the authors of Cyclecraft or Effective Cycling or Bicycling Street Smarts, but you don't.

^^^This^^^

The thing I want to know is whether the cyclist in question was wearing a gorilla costume, trucker cap, and cutting the course?

Sometimes its less about "being visible" and more about staying "out of the way". Especially when a large number of drivers are under the influence of stress, cell phones, pets, radios, CD players, Ipods, Ipads, VDRs and even drugs and alcohol.

The error in you judgment is that your ASSUMING drivers will all do this! The entire premise of our stance is that safety should trump your right to do something. The entire premise of your argument is an ASSUMPTION that it's all rainbows and butterflies on the highways.

aarondb4 wrote:

You are now comparing a four lane main highway in Cali during rush hour to a rural road with tractors and the occasional pickup. Oh and then you throw in "anti-cyclist bigots" as your term of the day.

Your credibility is now completely shattered. Have a nice day, I hope your defensive riding works out for you and that every driver who happens to come up behind you gets slowed down in time, and that no one ever runs you over while you are exercising your rights. I will continue to pick my battles and ride to the right when I can and take the lane when necessary which IMO is safer and will do less damage to the motorist/cyclist relationship.

This thread further reminds me of the lack of common sense and logic in California and why I wish Californians would stop moving to my state.