Welcome to the thread, you have some catching up to do. You can read my reply to you by finding the several times in this thread where I addressed everything you said.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I assume, when I get to it, an admission you didn't know what you were talking about and a confession to being a dick. Right?

Sorry for my first post. At that time I had only read the first page.

Okay, so we all agree that it was a shoulder not a bike lane, and that legally the cyclist was allowed to use the full lane. No one seems to be doubting that he was riding over 40 mph at least at some point. There is some debate about whether he should have been going that fast, or whether he should have been going slow enough for the shoulder riding to be safe. I'm not sure the speed has that much to do with it. Even for bike lanes the design speed is about 15 mph. I wouldn't ride on that shoulder any faster than 15 mph; surely we're not suggesting he slow down to 15? I suppose some may argue the shoulder would be safe at 20 or 25. Perhaps. It's a judgement call. Whose call is it?

Duffy, you keep saying that what the cyclist was doing was stupid (above) and unsafe (earlier). But if you've explained exactly what was stupid or unsafe about it, I've missed it. I've studied bike-car crashes for over a decade now, and cyclists using the full lane causing crashes is practically unheard of. People, including many in law enforcement, certainly believe that to be the case, and they seem to take it for granted that it's obvious (a running theme throughout this thread), but the evidence is just not there. So, why do you say it was stupid and unsafe?

We all recognize thinking someone driving an expensive car must be an asshole drug dealer because he's black is bigotry, and refer to bigots who think like that as assholes.
We also recognize thinking someone who succeeded in business did so by sleeping their way to the top because they are female is bigotry, and refer to chauvinists like that as assholes too.

So how should we refer to a bigot who thinks someone driving in the traffic lane must be an asshole because he's on a bike? Seriously. Why is it okay to judge the choice and decision a cyclist makes about where to ride on the road, especially when it is legal for good safety reasons? Why is that acceptable? Especially among fellow cyclists?

If only feeling safe equated to being safe.

I agree, we ARE second-guessing what was going on in the rider's head. That's what this whole thread is about. And if it were me, riding on a busy 4-lane highway at a busy time, down a hill, into the sun, I would brake periodically and stay in what is a pretty clear shoulder. And yes, I understand you don't want to keep moving in and out of a shoulder, but it seems there wasn't even a need to do that.

The thing is Whareagle is advocating for riding defensively.

Bicycle driving and vehicular cycling are defensive driving for bicycles. What so many of you are simply not understanding is that taking the lane is the defensive thing to do.

Defensive driving is all about setting yourself up to not have a collision regardless of fault. This means maximizing visibility and predictability and setting up large clearances so that you can safely deal with the unexpected.

Using the full lane does exactly that. You're far more visually conspicuous to overtaking traffic when you're out in the middle of the lane. Drivers notice you from very far away. You're away from most of the debris that could cause flat tires or falls. You have more room to avoid cars pulling into the road from driveways and side streets and you can see them better. You're out of the door zone from parked cars. You make a right hook very unlikely because your position makes it awkward for an overtaking driver to do.

Rear end collisions are not caused by slow traffic moving at a consistent slow speed in the slow lane. Most are caused by a combination of following too close and and abrupt stop/slowing by the one in front. Buses and garbage trucks and loaded 18 wheelers don't get rear ended all that much. Riding on the edge actually makes you more likely to be hit from behind due to both drift from inattentive drivers and misjudgment of passing distance.

You guys don't want to accept that bicyclists have a right to take the lane on PCH and you're trying to use misinformed arguments about safety to do it.

Because I think Duffy is posting about THAT rider at THAT time and at THAT location. Not generalizing as your example does, but about a very specific incident.

I think this is the main problem: You'd have to take active action to not kill aarondb4.

In a world of dumb, distracted, tired drivers, I don't trust every single one of them to hit the brakes or make the lane change in time. If I'm on the shoulder, the only thing that can kill me is an exceptionally bad driver (who'd probably kill me in the lane too) or debris (which I can see coming and avoid or brake for). A driver could be playing angry birds on his cellphone and as long as he manages to keep it in his lane, I'm fine.

I also wonder if the disconnect between the new roadies posting here and the general triathlete population of ST is that roadies tend to ride in groups where taking the lane makes more sense (in a group, it's harder to dodge laterally) while triathletes usually ride alone where dodging debris laterally or slamming on the brakes is an option.

---

STAC Zero Trainer - Zero noise, zero tire contact, zero moving parts. Suffer in Silence starting fall 2016

Indeed.

What makes you think riding on the shoulder is a safer alternative?

Bicyclists riding on shoulders (and in bike lanes) are overlooked, drifted into, and killed, all too often.

Bicyclists using the full lane might elicit irrational responses expressed as annoyance and even anger, perhaps out of genuine but misplaced concern for the cyclist, but they're almost never hit, because they are noticed.

I'll take a honk over a fatal hit any day. How about you?

The main reason to use the full lane in this and most situations is safety. Just because one hasn't read the books or taken the courses that are necessary for many to understand why it's safer to use the full lane does not justify declaring that it's safer to be on the shoulder.

---

SAVE YOUR LIFE: Know the bike-car crash types and how to avoid them

Real quick (and all of this has been stated before)...

Heavy traffic flowing at ~ 55mph, low morning sun in our face, cyclist goes from shoulder to lane at beginning of decent. Hard to see, going half the speed of traffic, in traffic. I pass and fully expected the vehicle behind me to hit him.

I am telling with as much confidence and honestly I can muster that the vast majority of reasonable people would clearly see that riding in the very wide and very clean shoulder would have been much safer.

For the record, the cyclist was not going 42mph when I passed him. If he was I wouldn't have passed. I would have blocked for him.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

If the road is open to bicycles, there is absolutely no obligation under California law to ride on the shoulder.

"As far to the right as practical." The VC also defines what that means and includes as an example a situiation where because of a substandard width lane, it is not safe for two vehicles to ride side by side. PCH lanes are narrow. Add to that that there is no obligation to ride on a shojlder, a bicycle has every right to be in the lane, and under the VC, doesn't have to ride to the right of that lane when it is unsafe for two vehicles to ride side by side in the lane. Coupled with the fact that this was a four lane highway, where vehicles can simply change lanes to pass, it's hard for me to believe that cars were backed up behind the cyclist.

Who cares what books or courses anyone has taken? A bike vs a vehicle = bye bye bicycle no matter what. Thats common sense, not printed on a course certificate.

Secondly, he was not riding just under the speed limit. Speed limit posted was 55mph and even if it was lower, most vehicles cruise well over the limit especially downhill. He was riding 15-20mph SLOWER than 2 ton vehicles during rush hour. Roads have speed minimums for SAFETY. You're advocating for someone who, in the eyes of the law, posed a safety hazard regardless of his right to take the lane.

You're last bolded quote is spot on and i agree, except this situation was not the safest one to take the lane.

If said cyclist was afraid of potential shoulder debris the the SAFEST thing for the cyclist and everyone around in THIS situation on THIS road at THIS time was for him to ride the breaks and slow his ass down on the shoulder. NOT ride 15+mph slower on a major roadway.

He and many others need to re-evaluate their cycling egos bc the apparent fall from your pedestals is almost as dangerous as taking the lane in this thread.

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.

And I don't have any beef with PCH, I'm on the East coast. Northeast, we don't have shoulders and we have frost heaves and pot holes and lots of other road hazards. Where I ride, you bike really early and you hug the white line.

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.

I get that. Still waiting to hear what was stupid or dangerous about THAT rider at THAT time and at THAT location.

---

SAVE YOUR LIFE: Know the bike-car crash types and how to avoid them

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

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

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.

Actually, one of the things about riding in the middle of the lane is that it makes you easier to see from further back and much much harder to ignore. Once they see you, they will be paying attention to you. When you're on the shoulder, they will continue to ignore you and drive distracted.Most roadies do a lot of miles solo. Group rides are usually on weekends though some clubs have some early morning or evening weekday rides.

The thing is, you're getting a few people here who are not just experienced riders. We're safety instructors certified by organizations like the League of American Bicyclists or Cycling Savvy. We've put actual real work into studying bicycle safety and we've learned it from people who put even more work into it. We've practiced it for years and learned a lot. If you haven't studied the subject in earnest and done a lot of riding according to what's taught, then you can't fully understand the issues properly.

Before I studied bike safety, I tried to ride safe but I didn't know how and I had a lot of close calls. These days, I never have accidental close calls because I know how to set myself up so that I don't have them.

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.

I'm pretty sure he has stated that, numerous times. In his opinion.

Mind you, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with what Duffy saw, I wasn't there.

Listen, I wish I could go out and ride my bike however and wherever I want. But that isn't realistic. I wish I could run wherever I want and not have to look over my shoulder for the teenager texting behind me in a Ford F-150. But that isn't realistic.

We can push for utopia, but we need to understand that utopia doesn't exist right now.

Okay, if the issue was about the move from the shoulder to the lane, done without signaling and without making sure the lane was available, then you'd have a good point. But the point would not have been that he should have stayed on the shoulder. The point would have been that his lateral move from the shoulder to the lane was unsafe; that he should have signaled and waited until it was safe to move. But that's not what this thread has been about. That's not how you framed it.

I don't doubt that the vast majority of reasonable people would believe the shoulder would have been safer. Unfortunately, the vast majority, including the majority of most cyclists, is largely ignorant about cyclist traffic safety, and especially the role that full lane use plays in cycling traffic safety. The vast majority has not studied the crash types, their causes, much less how to avoid them. The vast majority believe bicycling in door zones is safer too. What they believe is irrelevant.

I understand that he was not going 42 the whole time, and accept that he was not going 42 at the time you passed. I don't see how that matters. Assuming he moved legally safely from the shoulder to the lane, it would have been legal and safe for him to be there, and not anyone's place to judge his choice.

---

SAVE YOUR LIFE: Know the bike-car crash types and how to avoid them

Had the cyclist been in the lane from the beginning, THEN what would you have done?

The sun in your eyes impedes YOUR ability to drive. You should have pulled over in to the shoulder, and waited until conditions FOR YOU were safer.

BLOCKING is REALLY less safe. Had you seen the cyclist, in the lane from the beginning, I bet you would have moved over earlier, as would all the drivers behind you.

You REALLY need to take a CyclingSavvy class to see the video of this in action. The difference in visibility is something like 800 feet, or more than 30 seconds.

---

Richard Wharton, USAC L1 since 1997.
Technology, Application, Attention, Success
http://www.onlinebikecoach.com, http://www.cyclingcenterdallas.com
#whareagle, #leavewithnothingleft, #knowyournumbers, #numbersdontlie

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.

Cycling is safer than walking, seriously - statistically speaking.

We measure incidents per 100,000 hours of driving, per individual, and it's along the lines of 1.4 or 1.7 events.

So it's the anecdote that bleeds, leads, and reads (in the headlines).

How many of you ride your bikes, without incident, and blog or brag about it? Do it once, and it's a stunt. Do it for a week, and it's an adventure. Do it for a month, and it becomes.... Mundane.

Utopia exists on our roads right now because it IS so simple.

• Take the lane
• Signal Your Intentions
• Follow the Rules of the Road
• Be Visible

Watch what doesn't happen.

If you're that concerned, go get a CompuTrainer, and hire me. You'll just get faster, like Potts, but you'll lose a bit of your soul in the process.

---

Richard Wharton, USAC L1 since 1997.
Technology, Application, Attention, Success
http://www.onlinebikecoach.com, http://www.cyclingcenterdallas.com
#whareagle, #leavewithnothingleft, #knowyournumbers, #numbersdontlie

[quote DuffyI changed lanes and passed you after having to slow from the posted 55 mph speed limit down to ~25 mph.

I honked my horn at you (after being well past you) to give a little hint. You responded with your middle finger.

A couple miles ahead at a stop light.[/quote]

So you were doing 55, slowed to less than 25 when you approached him, then changed lanes, passed him, and resumed speed. Yet he caught you a couple of miles later. Interesting. I don't think I've ever caught anyone when they are doing more than twice my speed for a couple of miles.