On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 20:01:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/26/2019 6:21 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 12:36:29 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 12/24/2019 6:01 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:

The third idea is the one actually consistent with most American and
European laws, and is taught in every cycling class curriculum I've
encountered. That's to use one's legal right to the road by claiming the
lane whenever a lane is too narrow to be safely shared with a motor
vehicle. This is also the technique whose devotees say has changed their
riding experience tremendously for the better. They say it has almost
eliminated dangerously close passes and has added to their safety and
riding pleasure.

So you advocate simply riding out in front of traffic that is
traveling 75 kph faster than you?

No, John, I've never said anyone should "simply ride out in front of
traffic that is traveling 75 kph faster." As in much of your post above,
you are constructing straw man arguments.

No. What you said was that one "use one's legal right to the road by
claiming the lane whenever a lane is too narrow to be safely shared
with a motor vehicle."

So, what does one do Frank? Riding along with a stream of vehicles
thundering past at 100 kph and the lane becomes too narrow to be
safely shared with a motor vehicle?

What does one do? Well, I've explained this before, but I'm willing to
explain it again. Please take notes so I can minimize further repetition.

First, I think that roads with truly _continuous_ streams of 100kph
traffic and lanes too narrow to safely share are best avoided for
bicycling. I avoid them. Or rather, I would avoid them if I ever saw
them. I don't know of any around here, other than freeways, and
bicycling is illegal on our local freeways.

Yes, we have limited access highways here but they are closed to
bicycles... and motorcycles. No, I was talking about major highways,
for instance from Bangkok to Korat (the second largest city in the
Kingdom) and than turns north to the border. Essentially it is a take
it or leave it choice. You want to go to Korat then you take the road.


Second, as I've always said, if a lane is wide enough to safely share, I
share that lane. We can add more detail, but I want to make that clear
because in the past, those arguing against me have conjured a related
straw man argument. Let's not waste time with that again, OK?

So what if a lane is too narrow to safely share, and it has 100 kph traffic?

I do _not_ "simply ride out in front of traffic." To me, "ride out"
implies changing position quickly, with no caution, no judgment, no
negotiation. ("Ride out" is actually a name given to a common car-bike
crash for kids, where they zoom out of a driveway directly into a car's
path.)

Frank, over the years you have used the term "take the lane" and
"seize the lane" which rather implies that you seize, or "grab" in
common usage, control of the lane.

Normally I do as we did several times on today's ride. I wait to enter
the road until there is sufficient clear space to enter safely. When I
have a suitable opening, I enter and take my place at lane center. Car
traffic most often travels in platoons, usually generated by traffic
lights, so the wait is usually less than 30 seconds.

Once I'm out there, I'm visible to the first driver of the next platoon.
And since I'm typically right in the lane's center, it's obvious to that
driver that they'll have to use the next lane to pass me. It's obvious
even when they're far back.

On today's ride, some of this happened on a four lane. In my mirror I
could see motorists merging to the passing lane way, way back. None were
delayed for more than a couple seconds. Why? Again, because my lane
position made the necessity obvious from way, way back.

On today's ride, some of this happened on two-lane ex-farm roads used as
cut-throughs. (Some of this was at five o'clock, rush hour and sunset.)
As usual, motorists waited until it was safe to use the oncoming lane
for passing. There were no horn honks, no tailgating, no punishment
passes. When it was clear, they just went around. (One guy gave a 1/10
second warning toot.)

Now, a more difficult situation: What if I'm riding a busy road with a
lane wide enough to share, but the lane narrows?

What I normally do is negotiate my way to lane center in time to move
left before the constriction. That negotiation involves looking back
until I catch a motorist's eye (I use my mirror to help make my choice)
as I signal my desire to move left. It almost always works well. I'll
admit, though, that in my riding environment that usually happens on a
road with a 40 MPH speed limit, not 100 kph. But I've done the same
thing on those faster roads. The key is to make the move early enough,
and to work with the gaps between platoons.

Having said all that, there have been a few times (in almost 50 years)
I've had to pull off the road and wait for a gap in traffic. It's been
rare, but it's happened.

Was all that understandable?

Yup. and (at least from your description) you are riding on roads with
far less traffic density than I do and equating your experiences to
other's. Then you have mentioned your "legal rights" apparently to
ride in the middle of the lane but from what I read that is in Ohio,
and not the rest of the world. For instance, here, in Malaysia,
Singapore and Indonesia, to my knowledge a bicycle is required by law
to ride "on the side of the road". Which, before you start your
"gutter bunny" sarcasm simply means, and I did check this with my Cop
neighbor, that you will not impede faster traffic... like trucks
busses and automobiles. Motorcycles are also required to ride on the
side of the road :-)

Above all, I'm NOT going to ride on the very edge of pavement, or ride
unpaved surfaces, because the traffic is heavy and the lane is too
narrow to share. I've seen avid cyclists do that, and I've seen them
nearly crash as a result.

Interesting. It appears more and more that you are discussing riding
on 2nd, 3rd, class roads rather than on the major highways that I ride
on. You continued avoidance of discussing how you ride in traffic that
is traveling as much as four times your speed is also informative. It
is becoming more and more obvious that you are applying your
experiences riding on what appear to be secondary roads and attempting
to equate that to conditions in the rest of the world.

I'd say science and logic are better than tradition. Which makes your
argument entirely backwards.

Because for over 100 years of American (at least) bicycle use, the
common teaching and common tradition was that bicyclists have no right
to the road, and are safest when they ride facing traffic, and/or on
sidewalks, and/or in the gutter.

But, as with astronomy, people eventually applied observation, logic and
science (and also took the time to understand applicable laws) and found
that was wrong. It was determined that bicyclist do better when they
operate as legal vehicle operators.

You seem to be either stuck in an old myth, or arguing against science
and learning.

Nice try. You advance the theory that observation and logic apply and
I simply pointed that for nearly 2,000 years the Holy Roman Church
fiercely defended their creed that the sun went around the earth.

And thus the question whether your teaching, today, may not be
correct. After all in Victorian Times in England Medical journals
were very concerned about how railway travel could cause "mania".

And did the trains cause mania? No! And do we believe that today? No!
Observation and science caused learning. But your bike thinking is stuck
in Victorian times!

No Frank, it was simply an example of how things that are believed to
be true, and in the instance of the sun and earth, almost literally,
The Word of God, are later to be found to be completely wrong, and
posing the question of whether your courses are right or wrong.


Now the question is, are you doing this based on thorough knowledge of
what is actually being taught in these books and courses? IOW, have you
taken such a course or thoroughly read such a book? Or are you arguing
based on your own assumptions?

So you claim that bicycle courses are all perfect?

Nowhere did I say that! But it's clear that I know much, much more about
the content of those courses and the relevant books than you do.

Just exactly, and with the same blindness to any other view point, as
the Roman Church when they convicted Galileo of Heresy. In modern
USian terms, "My Way or the wrong way".

Frank you are a bigot.

bigot ~ noun
1. a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing
from his own

In other words, John, you're arguing from a position of ignorance, just
for the fun of arguing. You're putting yourself in a bad position.
--
cheers,

John B.