Sure, that's the theory. But in practice some drivers will see it as an aggressive move to take 'their' lane. They are wrong, no doubt, but it doesn't pay off to go head-to-head with a bunch of bricks when you're an egg. Better to play it safe. Keep in mind that you're entirely unprotected.
The best way to stay safe in traffic with vehicles is to assume that (1) you're invisible (2) made of eggshells and (3) everybody behind you is out to get you.
If you're a young burly male you might get away with this but keep in mind that advocating this strategy for all cyclists (little old ladies, kids, etc) would definitely not work.
In a car centric society the last thing you want to do is to occupy a full lane sized for vehicles but going 1/3rd their speed. It is an open invitation for aggression against your person, plenty of people see you riding a bike already as such an invitation it certainly isn't going to get better by occupying 'their' lane.
> Sure, that's the theory. But in practice some drivers will see it as an aggressive move to take 'their' lane.
Having commuted by bicycle for almost a decade, this is the theory.
In practice, if you take the lane, virtually every driver will simply move over one lane to pass. Some consideration needs to be taken, of course — if doing this is causing traffic behind you, you should move over and let cars pass (or bike faster, or find an alternate route).
But doing this causes an immediate and unmistakable difference in the behavior of drivers. If you're driving in the gutter, you will get buzzed multiple times in a day as drivers attempt to squeeze by you in the lane. If you're claiming the lane, you might get buzzed once a month. No joke.
You are likely young and able to keep up with traffic. But not everybody is young and able to keep up with traffic. Older people will cycle slower (and are far more vulnerable if they should fall or get into an accident), and kids are going to get clobbered if they should occupy whole lanes.
Keep in mind that any advice that you give for a class of traffic should apply equally to all members of that class, not just to you.
And once a situation develops (such as causing traffic behind you) it is a little late to 'bike faster' (which may simply not be possible depending on age / wind / other conditions) or 'find an alternate route'.
Your comments suggest someone who doesn't do a lot of cycling in traffic. Correct me if I'm wrong. You say that young or old cyclists will get 'clobbered' - what do you mean by this? That a car approaching from the rear will see them riding assertively and simply plow in to them? If not that then what? That the cars will pass them closely as they are forced to move further in to the other lane? If that's your assertion then as others have stated, an assertive lane position is exactly what will save you in this situation - as you have the room on the inside to avoid the passing car.
> Your comments suggest someone who doesn't do a lot of cycling in traffic.
If that's what you got out of it then you're entirely wrong. I cycle a few thousand Km / year.
> Correct me if I'm wrong. You say that young or old cyclists will get 'clobbered' - what do you mean by this?
That the only way in which you can keep cyclists - of all ages - safe is by separating the various traffic streams. By forcible mixing them you are simply asking for trouble.
I'm trying hard to imagine Amsterdam cycling traffic without the separation of low speed and high speed traffic into different lanes and with people cycling like suggested above. The carnage would be terrible.
> That a car approaching from the rear will see them riding assertively and simply plow in to them?
Accidents are called accidents for a reason. That car approaching them from behind may not see them at all due to some momentary distraction. You can attempt to make yourself 'large' and 'visible' but you may still be missed and given the relative difference in strength and weight the outcome is predictable. The best way to stay safe as a cyclist is to stay out of the way of faster and heavy traffic.
> That the cars will pass them closely as they are forced to move further in to the other lane?
There may not even be another lane. And a fairly large number of motorists will not see that as a huge obstacle in trying to pass a cyclist that occupies a whole lane.
> If that's your assertion then as others have stated, an assertive lane position is exactly what will save you in this situation - as you have the room on the inside to avoid the passing car.
Well, in that case you didn't need to take up more room than you needed in the first place...
It's kind of weird how all this seems to center around having a 'safe' place to go to in case the assertive driving ('brave' was the word, why is it considered 'brave' if all it is is safe?) policy fails.
Better to recognize your fragility and play it safe from the get go.
The point is that the non-assertive position isn't 'playing it safe'. You're no more out of the flow of traffic unless the lane is extra wide, you're signalling to following cars that they are welcome to overtake, and you have robbed yourself of any margin for error when a car misjudges their pass and squeezes you in to a parked car or railing.
You're right that the assertive approach is no substitute for segregated infrastructure, but in an imperfect world of mixed-use roads, it's the best way to stay safe, and is the method taught and recommended by many bodies here in the UK.
Interesting. Here in NL we're taught to stay to the right hand side of the lane with about .5 meters of margin to the right relative to where the road surface ends. That way cars can overtake without possibly hitting a cyclist going the other way. Also it is strongly discouraged to cycle side-by side (but kids on the way to and from school routinely ignore that as do couples of all ages).
Is a nice example of what the map of a road with mixed cycle/car traffic would look like, absent any markings you'd still try to re-create that situation.
Cars can - and do - occupy the bike lane if they're moving, will slow down behind a bicyclist if there is oncoming traffic and will move around them when the road is clear from oncoming motorized traffic.
Everybody takes the amount of space they need, but no more than they need. To occupy a whole lane and to ignore the 'honking and shouting' (mentioned upthread) would be considered extremely rude and could easily get you in trouble because you're hindering faster traffic.
> Interesting. Here in NL we're taught to stay to the right hand side of the lane with about .5 meters of margin to the right relative to where the road surface ends.
Here in the US, we're taught to claim the lane. As I said earlier in the thread, I have tried both. The difference between the two is utterly unmistakable.
That said, you're right (again earlier in the thread) that I'm young and healthy and able to more or less keep up with city traffic. However, I did caveat my statement with the assertion that if you are causing a backup (due to traffic, no extra lane, or whatever), you should exercise courtesy and allow traffic to pass.
I'm not arguing at all that a cyclist going a leisurely 10mph on a two-lane, 45mph road should claim the lane and sit there oblivious to their surroundings. But even if they do, this cyclist is going to be (in my experience) far safer than if they were on the side of the road getting buzzed with a 35+mph difference between then and car traffic.
Your road design, markings, and customs are completely different.
In the US, a "bike lane" is a completely separate lane that cars are not supposed to drive in. Unfortunately they're usually retrofitted onto a road, making all the other lanes narrower. This exacerbates the standard situation:
Most roads have a double yellow line down the middle, and drivers are taught to never cross this. The general width of the standard lane is around enough for a larger vehicle and a bike to stand side-by-side, but not enough for comfortable passing. The lowest US traffic speed (outside of neighborhoods) is usually 35 mph (56kph), with the basic non-highway speed being around 40-45 mph (64-72 kph).
Most drivers, especially outside cities, expect that they will always be able to pass a bike regardless of any oncoming traffic. Drivers usually pass bikes by moving over a little and continuing at speed - the "good" ones will put their left tires a foot or two over the double yellow line, or possibly slow down to 70% of their speed if oncoming traffic. If the cyclist is in a bike lane or shoulder, the expectation is that a car does not have to account for them at all, since it's the bike's responsibility to continue out of the car's lane.
In the US context, I agree with the "take the lane" advice wholeheartedly. It makes cars have to account for you, and leaves your clear-lane buffer to your right where you can rely on it (as opposed to thinking its on your left, and suddenly swerving left due to damage, debris, or door). A driver yelling at you because they had to slow down and plan to deliberately pass you is much better than that same driver passing a foot away at full speed. And if a driver does plow into you from behind, they would have done the same thing had you been a few feet more to the right (unless you are actually riding on the shoulder, which is the general approach in rural areas where speeds are even higher and longer distances mean people space out more).
It was actually difficult finding a representative picture, since there are so many distinct types of area in the US. As you go into more planned areas, the neighborhoods become nicer (meant for mixed use), but the arteries become even worse and using them is necessary to go anywhere.
> > If that's your assertion then as others have stated, an assertive lane position is exactly what will save you in this situation - as you have the room on the inside to avoid the passing car.
> Well, in that case you didn't need to take up more room than you needed in the first place...
Are you seriously suggesting that rather than have a few-foot safety margin to their right, a cyclist should simply ride entirely in that space because they don't "need" it most of the time?
> But in practice some drivers will see it as an aggressive move to take 'their' lane. [...] In a car centric society the last thing you want to do is to occupy a full lane sized for vehicles but going 1/3rd their speed.
I think this overestimates the antagonism car drivers feel towards cyclists and underestimates the danger of simply not being noticed. When I cycled, I usually found that cars would give me as much space when overtaking as the space I left to the kerb. Cycling a meter from the kerb felt much safer than cycling a foot from the kerb. It forced drivers to make a positive decision to pass me.
I've had (full) beercans thrown at me in traffic in the USA just for cycling, I'd rather avoid playing dodgem with SUVs and pick-up trucks driven by people that feel that roads are not for sharing with vehicles other than cars. To boldly occupy a whole lane is something that might work in a few cities that have considerable bike traffic but I don't think that is a universal rule to live by as a cyclist.
I would still encourage everyone to stop, note the license plate number of the vehicle, and call police dispatch if anyone throws beer can at you. This is wrong at multiple levels and those people don't belong behind the wheel.
I am not fond of enforcement. I'd rather everyone just do the right thing because it is the right thing to do but some people clearly don't get it. Please report incidents like this.
Even in the parts of the US that have said in their laws that cyclists should occupy the whole lane when it's unsafe for them to do otherwise you'll find police giving them tickets because those police don't understand the law and don't understand the safety of it.
I commuted by bike for 10 years following these rules and never had an accident involving moving cars. I feel I always had good situational awareness and control of the situation even in complicated intersections. But I've been doored 3 times in that period, the last time being a very close call where a passenger in a car standing at a red light decided to get out, and so I decided to give up the bike. It feels ironic that out of all the cycling scenarios I could be in, I feel I have the least control/awareness with doors opening.
In retrospect I should have applied your 3 rules to car doors as well, and move at a leisurely walking speed when in door range.
The problem with the doors is that unlike all the other traffic scenarios you could be involved in they contain some surprise elements. For one it is stopped traffic (something that is normally safe) that suddenly becomes dangerous, also it can happen very suddenly. One moment a car is an immobile object, the next it throws a 3' obstacle directly into your path, and if you're close enough there simply isn't time to react. It's next to impossible to safely avoid a door if you are less than your stopping distance away from the door when it is thrown.
After all, taking into account that hitting a door is bad it is arguably less bad than trying to avoid it by swerving around it and getting clipped by a car behind you that doesn't respond in time (assuming it even has room and time enough to respond). Ironically, electric vehicles are more dangerous in this sense than combustion powered ones because they are extremely quiet.
Every time someone in my car is about to open any doors I automatically say 'careful for bikes and pedestrians'. Some people are annoyed by this but I still do it and it has already saved the situation more than once.
I'm currently recovering from a one-sided cycling accident so you can take that as proof that cycling is a dangerous activity, no matter what (right leg broken in 6 places, 2 chunks of steel and 13 screws later and I can re-learn how to walk, the accident happened Aug 7th, I'm already back on the bike and driving but it was a tough battle to get to this point this quick).
The best way to stay safe in traffic with vehicles is to assume that (1) you're invisible (2) made of eggshells and (3) everybody behind you is out to get you.
If you're a young burly male you might get away with this but keep in mind that advocating this strategy for all cyclists (little old ladies, kids, etc) would definitely not work.
In a car centric society the last thing you want to do is to occupy a full lane sized for vehicles but going 1/3rd their speed. It is an open invitation for aggression against your person, plenty of people see you riding a bike already as such an invitation it certainly isn't going to get better by occupying 'their' lane.