Taking the lane

On the route I ride most Saturday's, along highway 67, I take the lane
approaching Poway Road from the south. Cars park on the shoulder (there
is a popular hiking spot at Iron Mountain), so unless you're in the
center of the lane, you are in the door zone. This is for a short
stretch, less than a quarter mile. Last week some yahoo in a
pickup---they are invariably in pickups---passed close, straddling the
lane, then immediately swerved in front as he passed me. There are two
lanes in my direction, so the straddle was unnecessary. Also, there was
a red light in about a few hundred yards, and the outside lanes stops
just belong it. A road crew was clearing bush on the shoulder at the
light, so I just stayed in the lane, then passed him at the light,
passed a few more cars, then made sure I stayed in the lane well past
the work crew so the guy could wait a bit longer than strictly
necessary. I probably should have enquired as to whether his horn was
malfunctioning, since he conspicuously failed to use it.

Today was similar. This time there was only one vehicle on the road in
my direction approaching the light. A large pickup, with dualies. Saw
him cresting the hill a quarter mile back as I moved to take the lane.
Heard his horn immediately. He kept the horn down the entire time,
straddling the lane, passing me by less than 3 feet. He also
immediately merged back into the outside lane, then had to slow for the
light, but it turned green before I arrived. Off he went, immediately
merging back to where he should have been the whole time, since, as
mentioned, the outside lane ends shortly after the light.

On the return trip another moron in a pickup pulled off the road onto
the shoulder and stopped, about 20 yards in front of me, completely
blocking the shoulder. This is on a slight downhill. Traffic was heavy
at that moment, there is but a single lane each way at that location.
Didn't have much choice other than to pass him in the door zone, as
there wasn't time to merge into the lane. I could theoretically have
taken the lane the entire way down, but am pretty sure no one would
recommend that there, not with a very ridable paved eight foot wide
shoulder and a single traffic lane. I suppose that is one of the
drawbacks of having too wide a shoulder, it makes it possible for
drivers to use it as a parking spot.

--
Joe Riel

Joe Riel writes:

On the route I ride most Saturday's, along highway 67, I take the lane
approaching Poway Road from the south. Cars park on the shoulder (there
is a popular hiking spot at Iron Mountain), so unless you're in the
center of the lane, you are in the door zone. This is for a short
stretch, less than a quarter mile. Last week some yahoo in a
pickup---they are invariably in pickups---passed close, straddling the
lane, then immediately swerved in front as he passed me. There are two
lanes in my direction, so the straddle was unnecessary. Also, there was
a red light in about a few hundred yards, and the outside lanes stops
just belong it. A road crew was clearing bush on the shoulder at the
light, so I just stayed in the lane, then passed him at the light,
passed a few more cars, then made sure I stayed in the lane well past
the work crew so the guy could wait a bit longer than strictly
necessary. I probably should have enquired as to whether his horn was
malfunctioning, since he conspicuously failed to use it.

Today was similar. This time there was only one vehicle on the road in
my direction approaching the light. A large pickup, with dualies. Saw
him cresting the hill a quarter mile back as I moved to take the lane.
Heard his horn immediately. He kept the horn down the entire time,
straddling the lane, passing me by less than 3 feet. He also
immediately merged back into the outside lane, then had to slow for the
light, but it turned green before I arrived. Off he went, immediately
merging back to where he should have been the whole time, since, as
mentioned, the outside lane ends shortly after the light.

On the return trip another moron in a pickup pulled off the road onto
the shoulder and stopped, about 20 yards in front of me, completely
blocking the shoulder. This is on a slight downhill. Traffic was heavy
at that moment, there is but a single lane each way at that location.
Didn't have much choice other than to pass him in the door zone, as
there wasn't time to merge into the lane. I could theoretically have
taken the lane the entire way down, but am pretty sure no one would
recommend that there, not with a very ridable paved eight foot wide
shoulder and a single traffic lane. I suppose that is one of the
drawbacks of having too wide a shoulder, it makes it possible for
drivers to use it as a parking spot.


Speaking of big pickups and lane sharing:

I have avoided the 4-lane highway I mentioned before (the
one with really wide paved shoudlers) because of construction
that narrows it to one lane and no shoulder and pylons and
dirt clods and *extra* impatient cagers and all that for a
long stretch.

Yesterday I decided to take it as far as the narrow bridge
with concrete abutments (that one place that I do sort of take
the lane). As noted before, it's almost at the bottom of a long,
fast descent. This also happens to be right where the left lane
ends and everybody has to merge into the right lane and the speed
limit drops to 45 mph with double fines. I would take the exit
just across the bridge.

So I'm coming down the hill on the paved shoulder, approaching
the choke point, already in the 45 mph zone. It's morning not
quite rush hour. Traffic is going to pile up in the right lane
and there's going to be braking and more braking and then they'll
parade on into town single file.

I scope out behind and move out into the lane in a good sized gap
(the nearest approaching car - a big pickup - well behind). I'm
tucked down probably doing a good thirty-some mph. But I will not
move to the middle of the lane to "block" it on this highway, so
I am still toward the right - about as far right as I deem
practicable, with a little wiggle room from the abutment (it's
also rough right up next to that thing).

Does the big pickup slow to 35 or so and follow me across the
bridge before joining the slow parade into town? No. Instead
he stuff it in there between me and the pylons.

And no, Frank - the lesson is not "control the lane". SR is
not far wrong that that is bound to get you in the news. And
even if the bikey blogs come out in outrage defending your poor
deadness, the vast majority (sorry Jobst) the vast majority is
never going to even think twice that it was your own fault.

You either have to move from the shoulder into the lane (I think
you characterize this as "swerving" when you read the motorist
account of the bicyclist moving into their path, or veering,
or anything that amounts to changing road postion, and you need
to blame the victim somehow because of course bicycling is *not*
dangerous if done properly, and they're not here anymore give their
version, which you'd discount or dismiss anyway... ) you either have
to change postion to take the lane - which somebody will characterize
as swerving even if it wasn't - or you have to be there all along
parading down the middle of the road like Aunt Bea.

Understand - if you and Aunt Bea want to parade down the middle
of the road I think motorists should accommodate you both; but
I don't need to do that. I'd still like to reserve the right
to express my feelings about less than respectful interactions.

On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 12:25:26 -0700, Joe Riel wrote:
epic snip
I suppose that is one of the
drawbacks of having too wide a shoulder, it makes it possible for
drivers to use it as a parking spot.

They'll park where they want. Shoulder or not.

--
davethedave

Dan writes:

Speaking of big pickups and lane sharing:

I have avoided the 4-lane highway I mentioned before (the
one with really wide paved shoudlers) because of construction
that narrows it to one lane and no shoulder and pylons and
dirt clods and *extra* impatient cagers and all that for a
long stretch.

Yesterday I decided to take it as far as the narrow bridge
with concrete abutments (that one place that I do sort of take
the lane). As noted before, it's almost at the bottom of a long,
fast descent. This also happens to be right where the left lane
ends and everybody has to merge into the right lane and the speed
limit drops to 45 mph with double fines. I would take the exit
just across the bridge.

So I'm coming down the hill on the paved shoulder, approaching
the choke point, already in the 45 mph zone. It's morning not
quite rush hour. Traffic is going to pile up in the right lane
and there's going to be braking and more braking and then they'll
parade on into town single file.

I scope out behind and move out into the lane in a good sized gap
(the nearest approaching car - a big pickup - well behind). I'm
tucked down probably doing a good thirty-some mph. But I will not
move to the middle of the lane to "block" it on this highway, so
I am still toward the right - about as far right as I deem
practicable, with a little wiggle room from the abutment (it's
also rough right up next to that thing).

Does the big pickup slow to 35 or so and follow me across the
bridge before joining the slow parade into town? No. Instead
he stuff it in there between me and the pylons.

And no, Frank - the lesson is not "control the lane". SR is
not far wrong that that is bound to get you in the news.

Who is SR?

I'm not sure, though, whether the lesson, isn't in fact, control the
lane at that point. Easy to for me to type. I'm still trying to learn.
It's not as simple, nor as effective, as some suggest. Even with two
lanes I don't get any more passing distance and usually get the
unwelcome seranade. I suspect, maybe incorrectly, that it works
better in city traffic, at slower speeds. But that's not where
I ride.

even if the bikey blogs come out in outrage defending your poor
deadness, the vast majority (sorry Jobst) the vast majority is
never going to even think twice that it was your own fault.

You either have to move from the shoulder into the lane (I think
you characterize this as "swerving" when you read the motorist
account of the bicyclist moving into their path, or veering,
or anything that amounts to changing road postion, and you need
to blame the victim somehow because of course bicycling is *not*
dangerous if done properly, and they're not here anymore give their
version, which you'd discount or dismiss anyway... ) you either have
to change postion to take the lane - which somebody will characterize
as swerving even if it wasn't - or you have to be there all along
parading down the middle of the road like Aunt Bea.

Understand - if you and Aunt Bea want to parade down the middle
of the road I think motorists should accommodate you both; but
I don't need to do that. I'd still like to reserve the right
to express my feelings about less than respectful interactions.

I understand you. Same issues here. Taking the lane increases
the exposure time, since you invariably have to do it well before
it is strictly necessary (from a sharing perspective). I'm still
trying to figure the trade-offs...


--
Joe Riel

Joe Riel writes:

I'm not sure, though, whether the lesson, isn't in fact, control the
lane at that point. Easy to for me to type.

Guess it wasn't so easy to type 8-).

--
Joe Riel

Joe Riel writes:

Dan writes:

Speaking of big pickups and lane sharing:

I have avoided the 4-lane highway I mentioned before (the
one with really wide paved shoudlers) because of construction
that narrows it to one lane and no shoulder and pylons and
dirt clods and *extra* impatient cagers and all that for a
long stretch.

Yesterday I decided to take it as far as the narrow bridge
with concrete abutments (that one place that I do sort of take
the lane). As noted before, it's almost at the bottom of a long,
fast descent. This also happens to be right where the left lane
ends and everybody has to merge into the right lane and the speed
limit drops to 45 mph with double fines. I would take the exit
just across the bridge.

So I'm coming down the hill on the paved shoulder, approaching
the choke point, already in the 45 mph zone. It's morning not
quite rush hour. Traffic is going to pile up in the right lane
and there's going to be braking and more braking and then they'll
parade on into town single file.

I scope out behind and move out into the lane in a good sized gap
(the nearest approaching car - a big pickup - well behind). I'm
tucked down probably doing a good thirty-some mph. But I will not
move to the middle of the lane to "block" it on this highway, so
I am still toward the right - about as far right as I deem
practicable, with a little wiggle room from the abutment (it's
also rough right up next to that thing).

Does the big pickup slow to 35 or so and follow me across the
bridge before joining the slow parade into town? No. Instead
he stuff it in there between me and the pylons.

And no, Frank - the lesson is not "control the lane". SR is
not far wrong that that is bound to get you in the news.

Who is SR?

I'm not sure, though, whether the lesson, isn't in fact, control the
lane at that point.

Well, I am no authority on how to do things properly, and heaven
forbid I should serve as an example, but for me, the deicision
comes down to:

1) What do I have to gain by completely blocking the lane
(taking more than I need to ensure that no one else can have any)?
Answer: I won't be bothered by the lack of consideration, respect,
regard, concern, accommodation, etc. that is exhibited by people
passing me nearer than they have to. Instead, they'll just have to
wait. IOW: my annoyance; maybe some personal affront in the power
game, exchanged for theirs, because dammit, I have a right to the
road.

2) What do I have to lose? Well, first it really raises the odds
of a hostile interaction. Second (only because it's less likely),
I could get just flat creamed by somebody not paying attention.

True, the not paying attention driver might hit me anyway, but
I'm playing the odds (at the same time exhibiting a cooperative
- which is not the same thing as "inviting" - stance. Also,
there are sublte audible clues that an overtaking driver is
unaware that you're there, and I suppose I might act to get
all the odds I could (IOW, get as far out of the way as I could)
in that instance.

Easy to for me to type. I'm still trying to learn.
It's not as simple, nor as effective, as some suggest. Even with two
lanes I don't get any more passing distance and usually get the
unwelcome seranade. I suspect, maybe incorrectly, that it works
better in city traffic, at slower speeds. But that's not where
I ride.


It depends on the city and bunch of other things. In the city,
I *still* don't take turns as much as I do using my maneuverability
to go somewhere else.

even if the bikey blogs come out in outrage defending your poor
deadness, the vast majority (sorry Jobst) the vast majority is
never going to even think twice that it was your own fault.

You either have to move from the shoulder into the lane (I think
you characterize this as "swerving" when you read the motorist
account of the bicyclist moving into their path, or veering,
or anything that amounts to changing road postion, and you need
to blame the victim somehow because of course bicycling is *not*
dangerous if done properly, and they're not here anymore give their
version, which you'd discount or dismiss anyway... ) you either have
to change postion to take the lane - which somebody will characterize
as swerving even if it wasn't - or you have to be there all along
parading down the middle of the road like Aunt Bea.

Understand - if you and Aunt Bea want to parade down the middle
of the road I think motorists should accommodate you both; but
I don't need to do that. I'd still like to reserve the right
to express my feelings about less than respectful interactions.

I understand you. Same issues here. Taking the lane increases
the exposure time, since you invariably have to do it well before
it is strictly necessary (from a sharing perspective). I'm still
trying to figure the trade-offs...


Hey, don't let my "purple pants" reference to Aunt Bea dissuade
anyone taking the lane. Sometimes it *is* necessary. Heck, it
*is* in the Bicyclist Manual pretty much just as Frank states it.
I'm a weirdo. Nothing wrong with that.

But you're right. It's not at all clear cut, and the car
culture definitely rules where the rubber hits the road.

On Saturday, July 13, 2013 2:10:48 PM UTC-7, JoeRiel wrote:
Dan writes:


snip

I'm not sure, though, whether the lesson, isn't in fact, control the

lane at that point. Easy to for me to type. I'm still trying to learn.

It's not as simple, nor as effective, as some suggest. Even with two

lanes I don't get any more passing distance and usually get the

unwelcome seranade. I suspect, maybe incorrectly, that it works

better in city traffic, at slower speeds. But that's not where

I ride.

In the city, I'm riding at the speed of traffic and simply occupying space in the lane -- not "controlling" it. I control the lane when passing -- any passing -- would be dangerous. If passing safely is possible, then I ride as far right as is practicable. Sometimes, I will block traffic briefly for strategic advantage, before a twisting downhill -- which I tried today and got passed with about three inches to spare by some ass in a truck who then proceeded to creep down a great twisty (but not terribly steep)speed descent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErxuywzHyDA

I could see that he was some old dude who probably didn't know better rather than the usual in-your=face wanna be cowboy.

Nice ride today, but too many cars on the Scenic Highway -- and a whole line of smoke belching antique cars, which like to promenade in the Gorge for some reason. http://tinyurl.com/oyz4o63

-- Jay Beattie.

Dan writes:

Joe Riel writes:

Dan writes:

Speaking of big pickups and lane sharing:

I have avoided the 4-lane highway I mentioned before (the
one with really wide paved shoudlers) because of construction
that narrows it to one lane and no shoulder and pylons and
dirt clods and *extra* impatient cagers and all that for a
long stretch.

Yesterday I decided to take it as far as the narrow bridge
with concrete abutments (that one place that I do sort of take
the lane). As noted before, it's almost at the bottom of a long,
fast descent. This also happens to be right where the left lane
ends and everybody has to merge into the right lane and the speed
limit drops to 45 mph with double fines. I would take the exit
just across the bridge.

So I'm coming down the hill on the paved shoulder, approaching
the choke point, already in the 45 mph zone. It's morning not
quite rush hour. Traffic is going to pile up in the right lane
and there's going to be braking and more braking and then they'll
parade on into town single file.

I scope out behind and move out into the lane in a good sized gap
(the nearest approaching car - a big pickup - well behind). I'm
tucked down probably doing a good thirty-some mph. But I will not
move to the middle of the lane to "block" it on this highway, so
I am still toward the right - about as far right as I deem
practicable, with a little wiggle room from the abutment (it's
also rough right up next to that thing).

Does the big pickup slow to 35 or so and follow me across the
bridge before joining the slow parade into town? No. Instead
he stuff it in there between me and the pylons.

And no, Frank - the lesson is not "control the lane". SR is
not far wrong that that is bound to get you in the news.

Who is SR?

I'm not sure, though, whether the lesson, isn't in fact, control the
lane at that point.

Well, I am no authority on how to do things properly, and heaven
forbid I should serve as an example, but for me, the deicision
comes down to:

1) What do I have to gain by completely blocking the lane
(taking more than I need to ensure that no one else can have any)?
Answer: I won't be bothered by the lack of consideration, respect,
regard, concern, accommodation, etc. that is exhibited by people
passing me nearer than they have to. Instead, they'll just have to
wait. IOW: my annoyance; maybe some personal affront in the power
game, exchanged for theirs, because dammit, I have a right to the
road.

2) What do I have to lose? Well, first it really raises the odds
of a hostile interaction. Second (only because it's less likely),
I could get just flat creamed by somebody not paying attention.

True, the not paying attention driver might hit me anyway, but
I'm playing the odds (at the same time exhibiting a cooperative
- which is not the same thing as "inviting" - stance. Also,
there are sublte audible clues that an overtaking driver is
unaware that you're there, and I suppose I might act to get
all the odds I could (IOW, get as far out of the way as I could)
in that instance.

Yeah, that sums it up pretty nicely. It definitely raises the odds of
---practically guarantees---a hostile interaction. Particularly when
you consider that, in order to properly take the lane, you really have
to do so for considerably longer than required to ensure that you can do
so safely. At the place where the pickup passed me today, I hadn't
quite reached the line of parked cars. At that place there was a
rideable shoulder. But given that it becomes a door zone shortly
afterwards, taking the lane when I did is reasonable. However, given
how few cyclists take the lane at that point, and how few people are
cyclists, I don't expect many drivers, probably no drivers, to
understand. They just see a cyclist in the way and get annoyed. I
understand their annoyance. I occasionally drive---and generally hate
it. Get annoyed when morons (i.e. other drivers) block my path.

So I don't always assert my rights when I could. Still working
on when and where it is reasonable to.

--
Joe Riel

Jay Beattie writes:

On Saturday, July 13, 2013 2:10:48 PM UTC-7, JoeRiel wrote:
Dan writes:


snip

I'm not sure, though, whether the lesson, isn't in fact, control the

lane at that point. Easy to for me to type. I'm still trying to learn.

It's not as simple, nor as effective, as some suggest. Even with two

lanes I don't get any more passing distance and usually get the

unwelcome seranade. I suspect, maybe incorrectly, that it works

better in city traffic, at slower speeds. But that's not where

I ride.

In the city, I'm riding at the speed of traffic and simply occupying
space in the lane -- not "controlling" it. I control the lane when
passing -- any passing -- would be dangerous. If passing safely is
possible, then I ride as far right as is practicable. Sometimes, I
will block traffic briefly for strategic advantage, before a twisting
downhill -- which I tried today and got passed with about three inches
to spare by some ass in a truck who then proceeded to creep down a
great twisty (but not terribly steep)speed
descent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErxuywzHyDA

I recall trying, and failing, to block cars from passing at the top of a
nearby downhill. Old Pomerado Rd. Only a mile long, with an average
grade of 8%, but it had a couple of hairpins and I could easily, if
foolishly, pass most cars descending. Progress and bulldozers, alas,
have straightened its curves. Now it's a boring hill, one I rarely
descend but like to climb at the end of a ride.

--
Joe Riel

Dan writes:

Well, I am no authority on how to do things properly, and heaven
forbid I should serve as an example, but for me, the deicision
comes down to:

1) What do I have to gain by completely blocking the lane
(taking more than I need to ensure that no one else can have any)?
Answer: I won't be bothered by the lack of consideration, respect,
regard, concern, accommodation, etc. that is exhibited by people
passing me nearer than they have to. Instead, they'll just have to
wait. IOW: my annoyance; maybe some personal affront in the power
game, exchanged for theirs, because dammit, I have a right to the
road.

2) What do I have to lose? Well, first it really raises the odds
of a hostile interaction. Second (only because it's less likely),
I could get just flat creamed by somebody not paying attention.

True, the not paying attention driver might hit me anyway, but
I'm playing the odds (at the same time exhibiting a cooperative
- which is not the same thing as "inviting" - stance. Also,
there are sublte audible clues that an overtaking driver is
unaware that you're there, and I suppose I might act to get
all the odds I could (IOW, get as far out of the way as I could)
in that instance.


I found this interesting:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2013...-hate-cyclists

--
Joe Riel