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

[Jaded]

Every time a cyclists behaves subserviently and alters their riding prematurely to let a car through there is a reinforcement that cyclists should give way.

So thank you Charlotte and others for standing up for cyclists' rights on the road.

[Wowbagger]

As TG mentioned, in NW Scotland some of the A roads are single lane with passing places. Drivers tend to be much more courteous towards cyclists. I've just ridden a couple of hundred miles up there and vehicles coming in the opposite direction, more often than not, waited for me at passing places. Similarly, I'd allow overtaking by moving into passing places. In one case I recall, I had a heavy lorry behind me and the next passing place was on my right. I signalled to him that I was moving into it so that he could overtake on my left. That allowed him to do so without steering round me or slowing down quite so much as he would have had to do had I waited on the left and made him use the passing place. He showed suitable appreciation.

But fundamentally, I find that the biggest risk to me as a cyclist comes from drivers who misjudge and take risks with overtaking. I ride under the possible misapprehension that no-one is a homicidal maniac and that, even if they are, my riding style won't stop them from killing me if they are determined to do so. Taking the lane at the right time is a vital piece of the armoury of safe riding. Last Wednesday, at around 8.30 a.m., I had just turned right into the Grays Inn Road from Holborn. There were parked vehicles both sides and to have kept one metre from the kerb would have boxed me in. I took the lane. The taxi driver behind hooted and shouted that I was in the middle of the road. After passing a parked vehicle, I moved in and allowed him to overtake. When I caught up at the next lights I couldn't resist leaning into his open window and commenting "You don't know a lot about driving, do you, mate?" which elicited the expected response. The point is, though, he wasn't a homicidal maniac but he was an inconsiderate arsehole. Taking the lane at the right time prevented overtaking, which for him wasn't about speeding up his journey, but about status.

[Rhys W]

The danger of being hit from behind while taking the lane comes from a driver underestimating the speed difference, overestimating their braking or assuming that you will jump to the verge at the last second. It is a danger that exists ...

Scaremongering bollox. Do you have any evidence?

I can remember a few instances in the last couple of years when I've been within a few inches of being run over after taking the lane for some reason and it's been quite clear from the attitude of the drivers that they think bikes shouldn't be on the road. Some of them have even stopped to get out and tell me this. I've been left-hooked at a roundabout by someone who saw me deliberately take the middle lane (because I was going straight across) - he moved to the right hand lane and took the first exit. I witnessed a friend knocked down by a white van because the driver was annoyed that he couldn't pass. The last two clubruns have seen drivers squeeze past us in front of a traffic island, so close that some were banging the sides of the vehicle.

It happens all the time.

[mattc]

I've been left-hooked at a roundabout by someone who saw me deliberately take the middle lane (because I was going straight across) - he moved to the right hand lane and took the first exit.

I don't see what this proves. He would have hit you if you were in the LH-lane, surely?

Perhaps he underestimated your speed? That is the cause of 90% of left-hooks.

The last two clubruns have seen drivers squeeze past us in front of a traffic island, so close that some were banging the sides of the vehicle.

This just demonstrates the point that I've been making. They thought there was room to overtake, so they did, DESPITE IT BEING DANGEROUS.

It happens all the time.

I remain to be convinced.

[Biggsy]

You guys are talking at cross purposes.

I can remember a few instances in the last couple of years when I've been within a few inches of being run over after taking the lane for some reason and it's been quite clear from the attitude of the drivers that they think bikes shouldn't be on the road. Some of them have even stopped to get out and tell me this. I've been left-hooked at a roundabout by someone who saw me deliberately take the middle lane (because I was going straight across) - he moved to the right hand lane and took the first exit. I witnessed a friend knocked down by a white van because the driver was annoyed that he couldn't pass. The last two clubruns have seen drivers squeeze past us in front of a traffic island, so close that some were banging the sides of the vehicle.

It happens all the time.

That's not what Cudzo and Matt are discussing - accidental hits from misjudging speed or direction when the cyclist is in the middle of the lane.

[Biggsy]

I can remember a few instances in the last couple of years when I've been within a few inches of being run over after taking the lane for some reason and it's been quite clear from the attitude of the drivers that they think bikes shouldn't be on the road. Some of them have even stopped to get out and tell me this. I've been left-hooked at a roundabout by someone who saw me deliberately take the middle lane (because I was going straight across) - he moved to the right hand lane and took the first exit. I witnessed a friend knocked down by a white van because the driver was annoyed that he couldn't pass. The last two clubruns have seen drivers squeeze past us in front of a traffic island, so close that some were banging the sides of the vehicle.

I've always had a warning before any bad dangerous behaviour in the form of a beep or shout, when in the middle of the lane.  Then you can judge what to do.

[mattc]

Actually I think we're talking about 2 things at the same time. 

IN THEORY one might get hit from behind if:
- a driver misjudges your position/speed, or a SMIDSY because he can only see motor-vehicles slap bang in the middle of his/her line of sight, not cyclists. Or:
- a driver is so enraged by the assertive road position that he/she mows you down deliberately.
[of course it would be hard to know for sure which had put you in ICU]

For different reasons, I view both scenarios as so unlikely as to not worry about, unless there is something very unusual about the road conditions that contributes (and I cannot think of an example right now). I cannot know that they never occur - but see earlier posts about stray dogs, lightning strikes, inoperable cancer, urine icicles ...

[AndyK]

Perhaps he underestimated your speed? That is the cause of 90% of left-hooks.

No. Left-hooks are caused by drivers too impatient to wait a couple more seconds to get to their turning.

[mattc]

Perhaps he underestimated your speed? That is the cause of 90% of left-hooks.

No. Left-hooks are caused by drivers too impatient to wait a couple more seconds to get to their turning.

Oh good; so it wasn't caused by the rider Taking The Lane. 

[Wendy]

Mattc, left hooks happen even when you don't take the lane.  More often, in fact.

[Rhys W]

I've been left-hooked at a roundabout by someone who saw me deliberately take the middle lane (because I was going straight across) - he moved to the right hand lane and took the first exit.

I don't see what this proves. He would have hit you if you were in the LH-lane, surely?

A few seconds before I entered the roundabout, I checked back and saw a car a fair distance behind. I was going straight across, so to make it clear that I wasn't turning left and discourage a dangerous overtake, I took the lane. Driver ignored this, as I was going across he appeared at my right and turned immediately left - I suffered a glancing blow but it would have been a lot worse if I hadn't instinctively turned left to try and stay on his inside. Despite me moving out from the left of the lane to the middle, he had decided I was turning left and it would be safe for him to turn left as well. This guy was just plain stupid, but I've experienced other situations when I've taken the primary position (to avoid hazards, parked cars, because I need to switch to the RH lane soon etc) and been almost knocked off because the driver thinks he can scare me into the gutter.

What it proves is that taking the middle of the lane works fine most of the time, but every now and again I find a driver behind puts me in more danger than if I'd stayed far left.

[andygates]

Stats say that being hit up the arse is rare: something like 5% of hits.  You will not get shunted for the same reason drivers don't crash into bollards and each other and deer and kittens: because when there is something in front of a moving car, the driver slows, stops or avoids. 

The selection pressure against drivers just plowing into things is immense.  There's even some sort of test they have to do.

Being plowed into from behind is a common fear, but not a common source of pain.  Up there with spiders, heights, and commitment.

[spindrift]

Stats say that being hit up the arse is rare: something like 5% of hits.  You will not get shunted for the same reason drivers don't crash into bollards and each other and deer and kittens: because when there is something in front of a moving car, the driver slows, stops or avoids. 

The selection pressure against drivers just plowing into things is immense.  There's even some sort of test they have to do.

Being plowed into from behind is a common fear, but not a common source of pain.  Up there with spiders, heights, and commitment.

I'm not sure if that 5% figure is right, there have been a few rear-collisions that have killed cyclists, the coach that killed two brothers, last weekend's Clapham tragedy, Zak Carr. In collisions between a cyclist and a vehicle travelling in the same direction it's usually a rear-end collision.


ETA-some sources have rear-end collisions making up 30% of accidents.

[andygates]

Clearly we need some figures.

Statto!

[RJ]

<anecdata> The only time I've been struck by a car while cycling was from behind.  That's 100%  </anecdata>

Meta-analysis is called for:  Statto, send for R ...

(My shunt was at a junction - driver was watching car approaching from right and not the vehicle {in this case = bike} in front.  Low speed, no harm done except to nerves ...)

[pdm]

http://www.borealisoutdoor.com/content/can-bike/crash3.htm has some figures with a reasonably decent breakdown... (but no direct link to his source which is rather dated (1993) (sigh))

In a nutshell:

"Turning and crossing" maneuvers account for 85% of all motorist/cyclist mishaps.
Motorist rear end/overtaking cause of "accident" = 0.3% of all cycling mishaps.
Motorist rear end/overtaking cause of "accident" = 10% of all motorist/cyclist mishaps. (30% rural, 7% urban)

[swinger76]

the Rule of it is yes a cyclist has the right of 1 lane when i am in the local cycle club we do take a lane as it is the UK law

[Freya]

The data, which was analysed by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), showed that more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike. This rose to more than one-third in rural areas and to 40% in collisions that took place away from junctions.

from The Guardian 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

[mattc]

...

Motorist rear end/overtaking cause of "accident" = 10% of all motorist/cyclist mishaps. (30% rural, 7% urban)

OK, good, that supports my ethos - I don't worry much about being hit, so 10% of not worrying much = feck all. 

2ndly, this is no evidence of how many drivers have hit cyclists deliberately. What we have been saying is that the main risk is careless overtakes, NOT deliberate ramming. This 10% figure could be entirely made up of negligent mistakes.

And some of those could have been prevented by more assertive positioning. I rest my case, M'lud!

[Cudzoziemiec]

The data, which was analysed by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), showed that more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike. This rose to more than one-third in rural areas and to 40% in collisions that took place away from junctions.

from The Guardian 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

A quarter of deaths does not mean a quarter of motorist-cyclist crashes. It could be that rear-ending is more likely to kill you than being hit from the side or left-hooked, because it happens at higher speed (full motoring speed). Or maybe not, we don't know.

Moreover for this thread, we don't know where on the road those collisions happened - how many rear-ended cyclists were in the middle of the lane (and why were they there - turning right, etc?), how many in the gutter, how many in the left wheel track, etc.

As matt points out, we don't know and probably never will how many of those rear-endings were deliberate (if any).

Finally, we don't even know what counts as being hit from behind. If a motorist going the same direction as a cyclist hits a pannier or handlebar, perhaps with a door mirror or other projection, does that count as being hit from behind seeing as the vehicles were actually alongside each other at the time?

[hellymedic]

It is my totally unverified view that dopey/dozey/phone-using motons are likely to SMIDSY ram a centrally-placed cyclist from behind at high speed with fatal consequences.

This might not be a common crash scenario but the severity is significant.

[mattc]

It is my totally unverified view that dopey/dozey/phone-using motons are likely to SMIDSY ram a centrally-placed cyclist from behind at high speed with fatal consequences.

This might not be a common crash scenario but the severity is significant.

OK.

But:
- dozey drivers drift about, so have quite a good chance of hitting a gutter-hugger too.
- The more visible you are, the less likely a SMIDSY is (can anyone dispute this?!?). So assertive positioning will help you out.

Although neither of us can quantfy these two effects, your unverified view doesn't make me think that centre-of-lane is any more dangerous than gutter-hugging.
If other readers want to conclude it IS more dangerous, well ... I can't really stop you. Fear isn't always rational.

Why aren't we recommending our loved ones DRIVE in the gutter; it can't be very healthy being SMIDSYed even inside a cage. Can it?

[Biggsy]

It is my totally unverified view that dopey/dozey/phone-using motons are likely to SMIDSY ram a centrally-placed cyclist from behind at high speed with fatal consequences.

It's my view that they're even more likely to accidentally hit a cyclist in the secondary position from behind.  Drivers very often need to steer right a bit to overtake a cyclist in the secondary position, so they would hit them if they didn't see them.  A cyclist in the primary position is more visable, so is more likely to be noticed in the first place.

[Biggsy]

To clarify:  the secondary position is not in the gutter.  It's at least a bit right of the gutter.  This position on a lot of roads - most roads in some areas - is not left of where cars normally ocupy in the inside lane.  Its about in line with the car's left headlight.

I don't think anyone here is advocating riding literally in the gutter to minimise the chance of getting hit.  To do that it'd be better to get up on the pavement, or preferably stay at home.

No, we've got to take some risk to cycle on the roads at all.  I reckon the risk of getting hit accidentally is greater in secondary, and the risk of getting hit deliberately is greater in primary if you do it too much.  So it's a matter of balancing these risks according to each situation.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Severity vs likelihood. When 100 dopey drivers pass you:

In gutter, nothing happens. You then go over the bars when your front wheel gets swallowed in a drain.

In secondary, 50 steer round you successfully, 50 graze you with their mirrors, making you wobble and fall.

In primary, 99 slow down and wait, 1 ploughs into you at 60mph.

we're faced with this type of choice all the time, not just on the roads.