Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?

[Wendy]

Article from the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/01/cyclist-take-the-lane

[Andrij]

How about "Is it a vehicle operator's right to take the lane?"  Of course it is, makes no difference as to the vehicle in question.  Shame that point wasn't driven home in the article.
 

[Charlotte]

An interesting USAnian perspective:



http://www.baufl.org/

[spindrift]

Sometimes I get the feeling the grainiad bike blog is running out of stuff to carry, the last one I noticed was about dangerous dogs- never been a major safety danger to me..

[Jurek]

Astonished that the question is being asked.

Oh, it's August.

No news season.

[Cudzoziemiec]

An interesting USAnian perspective:



http://www.baufl.org/

Of course cars, vans, buses and lorries use the full lane all the time. But they never take the lane or adopt primary, they use that width as a consequence of their own. We don't. Therein I think lies the problem. Compounded by speed differentials, it is too easily read as selfishness by many drivers, who are mostly not antagonistic towards cyclists but simply ignorant.

Personally I'm in favour of give and take, cooperation on the roads, whatever mode of transport I'm using. I'll ride in primary when passing parked cars on a narrow road then move over as far as I can to let following cars overtake me. When walking I'll wander down the middle of the quiet dead-ends we have round us but hop on the pavement if a car does come along and there's no room for it. Mostly drivers return the consideration.

[Wendy]

Like this, you mean?

http://youtu.be/S9bqDtdINoI

[Peter]

Like this, you mean?

http://youtu.be/S9bqDtdINoI

There's a difficulty of interpretation in the use of hazard lights to acknowledge someone: you hope they are saying, "thanks", but they may be being chippy and trying to tell me I'm a hazard.

[Wendy]

to answer the OP no it isn't;

No it isn't?  Hmm, I don't think so.

[Regulator]

to answer the OP no it isn't;

No it isn't?  Hmm, I don't think so.

Cyclist's right to take the lane?

Yep - it is.  Court said as much in R. v Cadden and a number of other cases.

[Phil]

I'd say it's a right.  Doesn't mean I have to enforce it at all times, nor that it can't be infringed by bastard motorists.

[mattc]

to answer the OP no it isn't;

We all have the right to be safe on the roads. Very often, taking the lane is the best way to achieve this. My safety (when I am a vulnerable road user) trumps any small delays I may suffer when driving lethal machinery.

it's the driver's responsibility (but not requirement) to pass the cyclist giving as much room as if passing any motorised vehicle;

All road users are required to overtake safely. Or not overtake at all.

Do you think motorists are sometimes exempt from this?

[Gandalf]

I won't compromise my safety for a genuine delay of a few seconds, if such a delay actually existed. 

We all know that in an urban environment it is illusory, the product of the Brontosauraus sized brain of your average motorist.

[Ian H]

I think that riding down the middle of the lane can look unnecessarily obstructive, whereas riding slightly to the left (left wheel-track, roughly) looks more accommodating but actually mostly serves the same purpose. Riding purposefully, especially in traffic, also seems to help.

[Biggsy]

I think that riding down the middle of the lane can look unnecessarily obstructive, whereas riding slightly to the left (left wheel-track, roughly) looks more accommodating but actually mostly serves the same purpose.

That's often not enough to prevent overtaking, though, and not a bold and clear enough signal that you don't want to be overtaken.  Anything less is virtually encouraging overtaking.

I only ride in the middle of the lane when it's not safe to be overtaken on that lane, and pull in every now and then if I'm holding someone up for a long time.

[Wendy]

I think that riding down the middle of the lane can look unnecessarily obstructive, whereas riding slightly to the left (left wheel-track, roughly) looks more accommodating but actually mostly serves the same purpose.

That's often not enough to prevent overtaking, though, and not a bold and clear enough signal that you don't want to be overtaken.  Anything less is virtually encouraging overtaking.

I only ride in the middle of the lane when it's not safe to be overtaken on that lane, and pull in every now and then if I'm holding someone up for a long time.

+1 to Biggsy.  Give an inch, and some drivers will take 3 feet.

[Wendy]

Here's a good example of riding a little to the left.  The real problem is the driver pushing through, but this rider didn't take the lane properly and rode through the door zone.  It's not the rider's fault of course, but taking the lane properly would have prevented the driver, I think.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/WwJntJWtCm8&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/WwJntJWtCm8&rel=1</a>

[Ian H]

Here's a good example of riding a little to the left...

Though not an example I would emulate. I think I did say "mostly", by which I meant, applied with intelligence.

[Biggsy]

I don't agree that riding roughly in the left wheel-track mostly serves the same purpose as riding in the middle of the lane.  Riding in the middle prevents a lot more overtakes, IME.

(I'll repeat again that I don't ride in that position all the time because I'd hate for anyone to think I was a permanent lane hogger).

[Martin]

to answer the OP no it isn't;

No it isn't?  Hmm, I don't think so.

Cyclist's right to take the lane?

Yep - it is.  Court said as much in R. v Cadden and a number of other cases.

yeah whatever; as I said, I'd rather be alive than in the right; perhaps you'd like to come down to my Manor and see what I mean. And I'm not even  going to bother answering the other post...

[Biggsy]

yeah whatever; as I said, I'd rather be alive than in the right.

But taking the lane at times will keep you alive when allowing just enough room for a motor to squeeze by may kill you.  It's just a question of saving it for the right times and places.  Keep a decent speed up and the motorists won't be too wound up.  When you can't go fast, just pull over every so often to let them pass before they boil over.

[Martin]

yeah whatever; as I said, I'd rather be alive than in the right.

But taking the lane at times will keep you alive when allowing just enough room for a motor to squeeze by may kill you.  It's just a question of saving it for the right times and places.  Keep a decent speed up and the motorists won't be too wound up.  When you can't go fast, just pull over every so often to let them pass before they boil over.

as I said; come down to my Manor and give me a lesson on any of the local B roads as I obviously know nothing (having not read Franklin)

[Biggsy]

I've cycled on the B roads near East Grinstead and it's no different in terms of this subject than cycling on the B roads anywhere else in the south east of England.  Taking the lane at times will help you to stay alive.  It doesn't have to be much of the time.  Just where most needed.

[Martin]

I've cycled on the B roads near East Grinstead and it's no different in terms of this subject than cycling on the B roads anywhere else in the south east of England.  Taking the lane at times will help you to stay alive.  It doesn't have to be much of the time.  Just where most needed.

as I said I know nothing

[andygates]

Handbags!

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!).