Are you still really hammering on the fact that cyclist have the right to take the lane?

Pretty much everyone here has acknowledged that.

The question is whether or not that is always the safest thing to do. In the situation I described, the SAFEST thing to do would have been to ride in the shoulder at a speed that would be safe for that surface and space. Taking the lane AT THAT TIME AND PLACE in the manner that the cyclist did WAS NOT THE SAFEST OPTION.

We know he has the right. Is he willing to die for that right? Increasingly it seems that that is the case.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Don't be confused. I cling to the rights argument because I don't want to see bicyclists hit and killed. Bicyclists are usually killed because they're not noticed. So I practice and advocate bicycling in a conspicuous manner that reduces the the possibility of being overlooked to practically zero.

---

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPJwz6PB0YM

Explain?

I've ridden over 40,000 miles since I learned lane control. One of the people I learned it from is two time RAAM winner Pete Penseyres, whose lifetime mileage is over 600,000 miles. John Forester is 85 years old and still alive. He's been riding in the middle of the lane since at least the 1940's, maybe earlier. We must be beating the odds.

I do notice that the people who insist that lane control can't possibly work are almost always people who've never taken a class or read a book on the subject and always people who've never actually tried it for a few thousand miles worth of riding.

So you just happened to sign up on ST yesterday and only post in this thread by coincidence?

Oh, ok.

Welcome to slowtwitch, tri-dork.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I'm lost. Again, it would seem.

You posted that video in response to the CalTrans blurb that popped up in my FB post.

First, the blurb counsels moving out from a bike lane (much less a road shoulder) on fast downhills where the cyclist can expect to approach the rate of speed of cars. The video shows a slow, flat road.
Second, the driver simply rams the cyclist from behind after tailgating him. I'm not sure why I or anyone else should be tasked with explaining this.
Third, everyone is driving and riding on the wrong side of the road so I don't know WTF is going on there.

---

Amateur recreational hobbyist cyclist
https://www.strava.com/athletes/337152
https://vimeo.com/user11846099

On the edge of a travel lane most likely. I know people who rode with him on many occasions and he was known to take the lane only sparingly and generally not under the circumstances on the road in the place where he was hit, which was a rural road with no real shoulder. I only rode with him once but that was during a Cycling Savvy class in Santa Ana. Some LCI's are more assertive about lane control than others.

To repeat prattzc's implied question: What tenets of lane control was this cyclist not following? Please tell us what he could have done better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPJwz6PB0YM

It seems:
-He was visible
-He was in the center of the lane
-And yet, he was hit by the car at no fault of his own

---

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

I brought up the rights argument in reply to a point about respect.

It is clear that it is your opinion that he would have been safer at a slower speed on the shoulder. I don't agree. But that is irrelevant.

Even if riding on the shoulder was safer, if he wanted to ride on the roadway he was doing nothing that justified any kind of unsolicited advice from you or anyone else.

Say you were driving 55. Driving 45 would have been safer. Driving 35 would have been even safer. But people don't pull up next to you and honk to tell you that. You know why? Because they respect your right to drive unnecessarily dangerously fast, even if it risks the lives of others as well as your own. That's the point here that you keep missing. The fact that you slowed down, honked, and felt compelled to tell him what he was doing was unsafe demonstrated that you did not respect his right to do what he was doing. That's what you don't seem to get.

---

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

Sorry, not a response to THAT EXACT post, so not in regards to the FB post. Just more of a question about a guy controlling his lane and getting wiped out.

I honestly understand what you are getting at, but it does NOT apply to all areas in the US or in the world. Nor does it apply to all circumstances. So to imply that cyclist should control the lane at all costs is not wise.

Holy crap man, NOONE IS ARGUING THE LEGAL RIGHT TO BE ON A ROAD!!!!!! <------- Read it, over and over and over....and one more time. So stop bringing it up.

We are for the 1000th time saying that it is not always SAFE or the SMART thing to do given a set of circumstances and alternate options! Our opinions are based on the desire to return home to our loved ones at night, not on something covered in some cycling safety class or the road manuals. That desire can't be measured. You can't argue that with your certificates and online courses.

Read the graphs and the links. Almost half of the causes are from rear-end collisions. It is logical to assume it is least safe to be in front of the cars.

Reft isn't the one spouting lane control. billsd and ninety5rpms are the geniuses who have read all the books and taken all the classes and ridden 1 million miles each all while "controlling the lane". Those are the guys who should answer for the youtube video.

I think what you are discounting is the road rage and pent up anger that the drivers might have built up and take it out on the next cyclist that pisses them off.

Especially when it doesn't seem that there is too much of a penalty for hitting a cyclist. Or radio personalities advising others to hit cyclists. Hell, even wildlife seems to want to screw with us.

I completely agree with this statement. To state the obvious, there seem to be differences of opinion as to when it is appropriate to do so.

---

Amateur recreational hobbyist cyclist
https://www.strava.com/athletes/337152
https://vimeo.com/user11846099

It's just common sense that the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. The problem is that it's wrong.

Your intuition and emotion are not actually logic. If you're not willing to take a class or read a book then you aren't really in a position to judge whether it works or not.

Congratulations for find the ONE exception on the entire Internet that proves the rule, and you had to resort to a video from Australia to scrape that up.

Nobody has claimed anywhere that full lane use is a full-proof panacea. Safe practices are about mitigating risk; not eliminating risk.

That said, to answer your question, what he could have done better was to have a mirror to see he was being tail-gated and to know to look back and get that Audi to back off.

---

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

Actually thats not true. People have a right, and some would say an obligation, to either safely get the attention of the dangerous motorist or report it to the authorities.

"I'm gonna force the driver to pay attention to me and not hit me" "People respect your right to drive dangerously so they don't say anything to you and thats good"


^^paraphrasing, not exact quotes"

The phrasing and absurdities are really piling up in this thread.

So why is it that in most of the collisions I read about where a bicyclist is hit from behind, the bicyclist is described as riding in a bike lane or on a shoulder or at least far right. In the rest, lane position is not indicated or the bicyclist is described as swerving out in front of the motorist.

You think you're not depending upon them to follow the rules. You are in fact depending upon them to not move into the bike lane or shoulder, which I see them do all too often.

You depend upon their good behavior far more than I do.

Ah crap, sorry, I mistook you for Whareagle. I think he is the one that started the "I've been cycling for 1000 years and studied ancient cycling therefore I am gospel".

Then again, I'm wearing a Hawaiian shirt, so no one should take me too seriously today.

Sorry for the mix up.

I've been riding like this for over 10 years. I know how my behavior affects others around me, and I pay attention to that. It reduces the incidence of all kinds of undesirable situations (road rage, middle fingers, close calls, close passes, etc.) from a few a few week to less than a handful per year. A get friendly nods, waves and thumb's up regularly from motorists. Almost never do I get expressions of anger or annoyance.

How about you?

---

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

Of course he is. His manner of riding has significant negative repercussions for all other cyclists and very dubious advantage for himself. Personally, if there is an unobstructed should, I never take the lane, unless I can ride within 10 MPH of car traffic.

I stand by the cyclist's taking of the lane and have nothing to say about his flipping you off--but if you are going to act like an idiot and honk at him aggressively and then try to "educate" him later, I'd say that getting flipped off is the LEAST you deserved. Your relationship with the cyclist only became negative AFTER your juvenile behavior. Prior to your behavior, the cyclist was within his right and should have been left alone.

"You may not want ride in the "gutter" (look at the picture I posted) but riding in the road there at that time is dumb. You just can't escape that reality. "

Your reality is not always the same as somebody else's, so I will defer any commentary for fear it may be above your ability to comprehend.

"I asked this earlier and I'll ask it again, are you willing to die for your right to take the lane?"

If people like you who behave like idiots when their opinion isn't adopted by someone else would be a bit more courteous, the risk of dying for my right to take the lane wouldn't exist.

Except driving 55 in a 55 (or even in a 45) is generally not considered particularly dangerous (even though it is a factor in killing thousands per year in the US).

For some reason lawfully riding a bicycle in the slow traffic lane, at least on PCH, is considered particularly dangerous; enough to warrant saying something. It's disrespectful.

---

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

Because I think its math. I haven't done a study, but I would venture to guess that the majority of people that ride a bike, do not hang out in the middle of the road. So, as a matter of statistics, yep, most accidents happen to people on the white line since most people ride on the white line.

Try your "proven" theory here in Westchester County for a month. Riding everyday. In the middle of the lane. You get video proof of riding in the middle lane during busy times in Westchester County NY for 1 hour per day, 30 days, I will concede that you are correct.

Doesn't need to be you, can be a friend or family member of yours that lives in NY or the area.

Which is not what he was doing. I don't take the lane to "have fun". I take the lane to be safe. High speed downhills are a lot safer taking the lane. How is he holding up traffic at 30-43mph in the slow lane in a 45mph zone?

Someone driving a bus or a garbage truck or a loaded 18 wheeler or a cement truck or an RV 30mph in a 45mph zone for safety or power reasons would not be accused of holding up traffic. A little further down this road there's some parallel parking. People stop and back into parking spaces there, with cars trying to get by. You have to stop periodically for red lights. You have to deal with people slowing to turn. There's lots of slow traffic on the road and most of it isn't bicycles.

Bicyclists are the only road users that have to defend their right to drive defensively.