On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 18:32:37 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. Slocomb considered Tue, 16 Dec 2014
18:18:38 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:52 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Joy Beeson considered Sun, 14 Dec 2014
20:25:44 -0400 the perfect time to write:


There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
the silliest term of art ever?"

I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.

Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
riding.

If there is any clearer way to communicate "I'm using this lane, if
you want to go past or around me you'll have to use the next one over"
than to occupy the centre of the lane, please do tell.

The problem seems to be the theory that "if he sees me he'll slow
down". But what if he either doesn't want to slow down or cannot for
some reason. The downside risk seems far greater than any possible
benefit that might be gained by getting one's name in the obituary
column. Even the Times :-)

You are worrying about something that happens so rarely that it barely
even has any place in the statistics.
The risk of getting wiped out by someone trying to squeeze past in an
inadequate space is certainly many times greater.
Which is why it is recommended practice in every reputable cycle
training course I know of.

No, that isn't really true. Both John Forester and Kenneth Cross
discussed it in their writings and strangely they draw different
conclusions with one arguing that the overtaking risk is negligible,
and on the other hand an analysis that characterizes the overtaking
collision as the most deadly of all car-bike crashes.


--
Cheers,

John B.