Author Topic: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?  (Read 23717 times)

Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #25 on: 02 August, 2011, 11:01:47 pm »
my safety
your safety
my convenience
your convenience


Nice and clear. Now how do we tell everyone else on the road?

Martin

Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #26 on: 02 August, 2011, 11:03:10 pm »
very good in theory Andy;

I'll stick to mine;

most drivers are arseholes
a lot of them are in a hurry
a lot of them are talking on their phones
their vehicles are a lot faster (and heavier) than me

been using that premise for 30 years without someone having to write a book telling me how to interact with them and I'm still here  :)

Biggsy

  • A bodge too far
  • Twit @iceblinker
    • My stuff on eBay
Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #27 on: 02 August, 2011, 11:12:47 pm »
Most drivers are just ordinary people.  Ordinary people and arseholes need to be disuaded from overtaking at times.

I didn't learn it from a book.  I learnt from nearly getting killed.  Too many people do get killed by allowing overtakes at dangerous places, particularly at junctions.

Good luck with still being here next year.
●●●  My eBay items  ●●●  Twitter  ●●●

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #28 on: 02 August, 2011, 11:19:08 pm »
I don't like to be subservient in life so I'm unlikely to be that on the road either.

I'll not be creeping along in the gutter because of some imagined Mr Toad threat.

It is simpler than it looks.

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #29 on: 02 August, 2011, 11:23:12 pm »
I'll stick to mine;

most drivers are arseholes
a lot of them are in a hurry
a lot of them are talking on their phones
their vehicles are a lot faster (and heavier) than me
I don't disagree with the above. HOWEVER ...

hardly anyone - including arseholes - will deliberately drive into you from behind. But if they think they can squeeze past, they will - and if there isn't really room, they might kill you without meaning you any harm whatsoever.

Please think about this - the logical conclusion is to take an assertive position much of the time.
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Regulator

  • That's Councillor Regulator to you...
Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #30 on: 02 August, 2011, 11:33:05 pm »
I don't like to be subservient in life so I'm unlikely to be that on the road either.
...


Except when you're paying for it, eh....   ;) ;D
Quote from: clarion
I completely agree with Reg.

Green Party Councillor

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #31 on: 02 August, 2011, 11:52:55 pm »
You promised you'd never tell!
It is simpler than it looks.

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #32 on: 02 August, 2011, 11:59:46 pm »
I am getting the impression (no statistics, unfortunately) that there is an increasing number of cyclists hit from behind, with serious or fatal consequences. Whilst I doubt many are deliberate, my work with CDF suggests justice is not done in a significant number of cases. Taking the lane might not be all it's cracked to be.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #33 on: 03 August, 2011, 12:17:34 am »
Sort the symptom or the cause.

Chase cyclists into the gutter or punish drivers properly.

You choose.
It is simpler than it looks.

Biggsy

  • A bodge too far
  • Twit @iceblinker
    • My stuff on eBay
Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #34 on: 03 August, 2011, 12:31:22 am »
I am getting the impression (no statistics, unfortunately) that there is an increasing number of cyclists hit from behind, with serious or fatal consequences. Whilst I doubt many are deliberate, my work with CDF suggests justice is not done in a significant number of cases. Taking the lane might not be all it's cracked to be.

But most cyclists hit from behind could have been riding near the left side of the road, for all we know without stats.  That's what I would expect.

What I'm most concerned about is cyclists not disuading overtaking at tricky junctions where they could easily get cut up.  While I am not blaming the victims (cyclists have the right to ride how they like as long as it's legal), I feel quite sure that some of those killed by left-turning lorries, for instance, would still be alive if they had ridden in the middle of the lane at the danger spots.
●●●  My eBay items  ●●●  Twitter  ●●●

Martin

Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #35 on: 03 August, 2011, 07:30:29 am »
I feel quite sure that some of those killed by left-turning lorries, for instance, would still be alive if they had ridden in the middle of the lane at the danger spots.

they also might be alive if they rode defensively and heeded those warning signs on the back of HGV's

I find your suggestion that my alternative attitude to "taking the lane" (which as you've never even met me or seen me ride a bike) is likely to affect my survival over the next year downright crass

Regulator

  • That's Councillor Regulator to you...
Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #36 on: 03 August, 2011, 07:33:38 am »
I feel quite sure that some of those killed by left-turning lorries, for instance, would still be alive if they had ridden in the middle of the lane at the danger spots.

they also might be alive if they rode defensively and heeded those warning signs on the back of HGV's

I find your suggestion that my alternative attitude to "taking the lane" (which as you've never even met me or seen me ride a bike) is likely to affect my survival over the next year downright crass

Oh get off your high horse.  Biggsy wasn't taking a dig you or anyone in particular.  He was making a valid point, even if its one I don;t personally agree with in its entirety.
Quote from: clarion
I completely agree with Reg.

Green Party Councillor

Martin

Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #37 on: 03 August, 2011, 07:37:55 am »
it's not a high horse; it's a fundamental beleif that riding in the middle of the road (call it what you will) is at times highly dangerous and generally just pisses off the very motons we should not piss off any more than we have to

nicknack

  • Hornblower
Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #38 on: 03 August, 2011, 08:09:25 am »
it's not a high horse; it's a fundamental beleif that riding in the middle of the road (call it what you will) is at times highly dangerous and generally just pisses off the very motons we should not piss off any more than we have to

I don't think anyone's disagreeing with that.
There's no vibrations, but wait.

Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #39 on: 03 August, 2011, 08:35:06 am »
I don't think anyone's having a dig at you Martin. Perhaps Biggsy meant something like the video of the cyclist undertaking the lorry at Vauxhall?
http://youtu.be/12fMTAQyXTI

From what little I remember of your riding, Martin, I thought was really rather good, and perhaps not that far from Cyclecraft.  Every one of us rides whilst making the occasional mistake, and most of the time we manage to compensate for those mistakes  well with experience.
Your Royal Charles are belong to us.

Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #40 on: 03 August, 2011, 09:06:51 am »
Hmm.  Been watching this thread develop.  I think it's a fine line between taking the lane (which as "vehicles" we are undoubtedly permitted to do) and causing an obstruction.

However much we might decry motorists squeezing past in unsuitable circumstances, and would like to stop them doing so, I don't believe we have any right to deliberately obstruct them to prevent that happening.  It is not our role to enforce the law or good practice.

But having said that there are often ways of justifying the line (keeping out of the door zone being a good one).

Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #41 on: 03 August, 2011, 09:15:38 am »
Handbags! ;D

There's a tree 'o' responsibility that my driving instructor taught me ages back.  In order, as a road user, I should care about:

my safety
your safety
my convenience
your convenience

Taking the lane to prevent dangerous overtaking hits the top mark while only vexing the lowest.  It's a no brainer.  And moving in to allow people to pass when safe doesn't compromise my safety or convenience, and enhances yours.  And to wrap it up, sitting in the gutter would sacrifice both my safety and convenience for yours, so screw you (no doormats please!).

I can't help feeling we've been here before.

My version of this (FWIW) is : -

my safety
your safety
the law
the Highway Code
my convenience
your convenience

Depending on how I'm feeling, I might swap the bottom two.

And before anyone leaps in, following the HC does not always = 'my safety'.
Rust never sleeps

Biggsy

  • A bodge too far
  • Twit @iceblinker
    • My stuff on eBay
Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #42 on: 03 August, 2011, 09:19:48 am »
I would defend anyone's right to cycle how ever they like, as long as it's legal and reasonable for others.  I'm just genuinely worried that too many cyclists are allowing themselves to be overtaken when it's not safe.

Part of riding defensively, in my opinion, is to sometimes take the lane.  Part of a football defender's job is to prevent the progress of a striker.  There's another crass statemet.  :)

And I hope EVERYONE here is still here next year.  Good moaning morning.  :)
●●●  My eBay items  ●●●  Twitter  ●●●

tonycollinet

  • No Longer a western province of Númenor
Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #43 on: 03 August, 2011, 09:51:13 am »
.......... I don't believe we have any right to deliberately obstruct them to prevent that happening. 

Absolutely we do if it makes us safer. Example - there are a couple of bends on my commute where drivers regularly overtake blind - sometimes resulting in much locking of wheels and honking of horns when they meet someone coming the other way. I've found that "taking the lane" on the approach to these bends discourages (but does not eliminate) much of the overtaking - dramatically improving my safety. I reserve that right!!!

nicknack

  • Hornblower
Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #44 on: 03 August, 2011, 09:52:21 am »
I don't believe we have any right to deliberately obstruct them to prevent that happening.

So if a motorist is doing 25mph in a 30 zone and a queue of cars builds up behind him, do you expect him to pull over and let them pass? (Has this ever happened in the history of motoring?) If not, why would you expect a cyclist to do so? Anyway, it's not a deliberate obstruction, we're just trying to make our way in the safest possible way.
There's no vibrations, but wait.

Biggsy

  • A bodge too far
  • Twit @iceblinker
    • My stuff on eBay
Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #45 on: 03 August, 2011, 10:15:46 am »
However much we might decry motorists squeezing past in unsuitable circumstances, and would like to stop them doing so, I don't believe we have any right to deliberately obstruct them to prevent that happening.  It is not our role to enforce the law or good practice.

It's my role to keep myself safe.  I'm not playing policeman.  I'm "obstructing" the lane for my benefit for a while - usually only a short while.  It's give and take.  I "give" a lot to motorists by keeping out of their way as much as I reckon is reasonable.  Then I "take" a bit at other times.  Cyclists are sharing the road with motorists - sometimes bike and car side-by-side, sometimes one in front of the other.

The irony for me is that I probably use the primary position less often than a lot of other YACFers, but I'm going on about it because I think it's immensely valuable to use for some of the time.
●●●  My eBay items  ●●●  Twitter  ●●●

Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #46 on: 03 August, 2011, 10:24:14 am »
I'm probably similar to Biggsy in that I rarely use primary.

I use it in situation where I need it, such when I know that I'm about to change lane - and if I don't end up taking primary, I'll end up with with cars on both sides, and unable to swap lanes when needed.
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Gandalf

  • Each snowflake in an avalanche pleads not guilty
Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #47 on: 03 August, 2011, 10:26:15 am »
Hmm.  Been watching this thread develop.  I think it's a fine line between taking the lane (which as "vehicles" we are undoubtedly permitted to do) and causing an obstruction.

However much we might decry motorists squeezing past in unsuitable circumstances, and would like to stop them doing so, I don't believe we have any right to deliberately obstruct them to prevent that happening.  It is not our role to enforce the law or good practice.

But having said that there are often ways of justifying the line (keeping out of the door zone being a good one).


I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more.  It is wholly the responsibility of the person carrying out the (often pointless) overtake to do so safely.  It is not incumbent on vulnerable road users to facilitate the manoeuvre, particularly if so doing compromises their safety.  'Stuck' behind a cyclist?  Just bloody well wait a few seconds.  I drive a van all day and it hasn't caused me a coronary yet.

Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #48 on: 03 August, 2011, 10:32:42 am »
We're not doing any obstructing when we take as much lane as we need for ourselves, and give over to let people past as soon as reasonably possible.
Your Royal Charles are belong to us.

Re: Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
« Reply #49 on: 03 August, 2011, 12:00:07 pm »
Hmm.  Been watching this thread develop.  I think it's a fine line between taking the lane (which as "vehicles" we are undoubtedly permitted to do) and causing an obstruction.

However much we might decry motorists squeezing past in unsuitable circumstances, and would like to stop them doing so, I don't believe we have any right to deliberately obstruct them to prevent that happening.  It is not our role to enforce the law or good practice.

But having said that there are often ways of justifying the line (keeping out of the door zone being a good one).


I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more.  It is wholly the responsibility of the person carrying out the (often pointless) overtake to do so safely.  It is not incumbent on vulnerable road users to facilitate the manoeuvre, particularly if so doing compromises their safety.  'Stuck' behind a cyclist?  Just bloody well wait a few seconds.  I drive a van all day and it hasn't caused me a coronary yet.

I'd agree with Phil in that there's no need to cause unnecessary obstructions - if you've got adequate road skills you should be confident about letting heavy traffic past with narrow tolerances.  Eg I've often seen cyclists take "the whole lane" when moving out in 2- or 3-lane roads, when they need to be on the white line and let traffic pass in the same lane.

I always try to move out on the approach to roundabouts, but drivers usually hate it.  Recently I did this and 'forced' a car onto the wrong side of the road before it popped back in front of me.  I was able to follow it to its home destination and waited, on my bent, for the driver to get out, which took rather a long time.  It turned out to be a gorgeous teenage girl - I told her she was a bl00dy lousy driver and she was most apologetic, explaining she'd only just passed her test and lacked experience!