http://www.bicycling.com/culture/advocacy/2014-top-50-bike-f...
Cyclists need at least a metre of space on the nearside at all times. It's your escape route if cars pass too closely. It's your protective buffer against being doored or against pedestrians stepping out into your path. Hugging the kerb gives you nowhere to go in an emergency.
Be brave and take the lane. If you delay other road users, let them honk and shout - that metre of space is literally a matter of life and death.
In a country that already respects cyclists this may work. In a country that does not it will likely get you to wake up in the infirmary (assuming you wake up at all) after being hit by someone in a hurry that assumed you were going to give their 2 ton vehicle the room it needs to pass you.
Taking a militant stance as a cyclist by using your fragile body as an obstacle for large steel objects moving at two to three times your speed is not a winning strategy.
If all they did is 'honk and shout' you'd be fine but some percentage will try to pass you anyway.
There's not space for a car and a bicycle in the same lane. A car will always have to at least partially change lanes to overtake safely. You're better off being 2/3 of a lane over, so your head is in the same position as every other driver, and car drivers change lanes completely to pass as they would for any other vehicle.
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.
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.
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).
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.
I know which I prefer.
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'.
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.
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.
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowledge/skills/article/i...
https://fietsmaar.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/schoorlam-n504...
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.
Same situation in a more urban setting:
http://www.fietsfilevrij.nl/wp-content/uploads/P1030380.jpg
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.
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.
Standard less-planned suburban area: http://i.gettysburgdaily.com/imgs/LongLane060809/LongLane060... (It even has a shiny sidewalk! I bet it abruptly ends up ahead where the road curves)
Slightly denser suburban area (the parked cars): https://www.arlnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ik-009_825...
Suburban artery that has had its shoulder painted with a picture of a bike - http://rrcoplanning.ppaponline.org/NeighborhoodImages/RiverR...
What most US drivers perceive: http://www.vaterrarc.com/Content/Images/Products/landing/bg_...
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.
> 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?
What happens then when you do "need" it?
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 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.
Taking the lane doesn't mean acting as an immovable roadblock, it means using the full width of the lane to your advantage. You take the primary position in the centre of the lane by default. When you need to make space, you retreat to a secondary position closer to the kerb. As soon as it is safe to do so, you return to the primary position.
Unless you create the space you need, your safety is in the lap of the gods. A pothole, a piece of debris, a stray dog, an inattentive driver - if you're wedged in between the kerb and passing traffic, all you can do is slam on the brakes and pray. If you've created your own space, you have options.
The obvious example is fatal accidents involving large goods vehicles and cyclists in London. Women are vastly disproportionately likely to be involved in this class of accident, despite being under-represented in overall accident statistics. The leading theory is that women ride less assertively, putting them in dangerous situations at junctions. They're more likely to undertake and less likely to take the lane, jump red lights or bang on a window to make their presence known. They vanish into the large blind spots that surround large goods vehicles. In all likelihood, these cyclists are dying of politeness.
All you should have to do to survive in traffic is to obey the traffic rules and the onus is on the rest of the traffic to give you the space you require in order to be safe. Anything less simply won't do.
Is this article the source of your claim?
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/women-cycling-in-londo...
If so I'd expect something a little bit more substantial to be presented as 'the leading theory', it's just a news paper article repeating a claim by a sports cyclist.
Lorries should be equipped with mirrors overseeing the area to the immediate side of the vehicle. And contrary to the statement in the article the safest place to be is not in front of a lorry but behind it, as a cyclist you should never ever go beside a lorry unless it is stopped and unlikely to move in the next minute.
After all, in order to get out in front of the truck you're going to have to be beside it anyway for a while (and how long will depend greatly on how fast you are moving, something a professional racing cyclist might over-estimate for the general population of cyclists.
Cyclists are perfectly safe on their own, it's up to the rest of the traffic to keep them safe and treat them as if they're made of glass.
People who cycle on roads expecting cars to take full responsibility for their safety are unlikely to last very long. A cyclist needs to operate within their own safety tolerances, rather than expect others to provide safety to them.
If everybody would be traveling at their 'individual threshold for safe braking' there wouldn't be any cyclists at all.
> People who cycle on roads expecting cars to take full responsibility for their safety are unlikely to last very long. > A cyclist needs to operate within their own safety tolerances, rather than expect others to provide safety to them.
And that attitude is the heart of the problem right there. Cyclists can expect other traffic, especially armored guided projectiles to take their fragility into account.
I sincerely hope you're not a driver. And if you are that you stay away from my country, it took a few decades to get rid of that attitude here and the number of accidents dropped in spite of more people in traffic, including kids and the elderly.
Cyclists absent other traffic have a very good safety record, as soon as you mix traffic at different speeds the situation gets dangerous especially if the stronger of the two parties expects cyclists to provide their own safety, by nature of being unprotected humans they need cooperation from other traffic.
I do drive, and when I do so I rely on the experience of cycling 2500km last year on public roads. You seem to be relying on experience of arguing pointlessly for the sake of noise on the internet.
All cyclists should travelling at a speed where they are capable of breaking before potential hazards. If this includes unexpected cardoors then they should be travelling slowly enough to respond to the danger.
Why do you think they travel above a speed where they have adequate breaking time? Why do you think they should deserve this special treatment that is not afforded to other vehicles?
Cyclists stick to the right of the road exactly so cars can pass them safely.
Anyway, I'm out of this discussion, I find it very interesting that commenters from countries where cycling is decidedly unsafe are going to lecture those from countries where the predominant mode of transportation is the bicycle on safe cycling practices. If the US would adopt half the measures of what we consider normal here when it comes to roads and other facilities for cyclists and cyclists there would adopt half the practices of what we here consider safe cycling then you might have a chance at making cycling a viable means of transportation.
In the meantime, good luck with 'assertive cycling', occupy that lane, it's yours after all and make sure you wear that helmet, you'll need it.
This is exactly the point though. The guidelines that apply in the Netherlands are different to the guidelines in, say, the UK, precisely because the two countries have very different attitudes towards cycling. In the Netherlands you have an environment where cycling is extremely common, motorists are very used to sharing the roads and in fact most motorists are also cyclists themselves. This dramatically reduces the sort of us vs them conflicts between cyclists and motorists that seem so common in other countries. Different types of road user are seen more or less equally and show each other a level of respect that is just about unheard of elsewhere. In such an environment, hogging the lane seems unnecessarily aggressive because you simply don't need to do it.
In the UK, USA and just about everywhere else motorists are simply not used to driving close to cyclists. They don't know how much space to leave, they don't know how to pass them safely, it's actually socially acceptable to be aggressive towards cyclists but most of all, motorists are not on the lookout for cyclists, they are not expecting them. In this kind of environment the cyclist's number one priority is to make themselves seen and that's why being assertive is so important.
If you're in the middle of the lane by default the car behind you might be annoyed but at least they are likely to see you, and when you've been seen you can then move closer to the kerb to allow them to pass you safely. This puts the cyclist in control in a situation where they'd normally be at the mercy of motorists.
We are lecturing you on the optimal way to cycle in /our country/, not yours. Sure, your country might have a thing or five to teach us about infrastructure, laws, and cultural norms regarding bike traffic, but when it comes to what an /individual bicyclist/ should do given the situation here, we absolutely have a better idea than you do. It's like comparing driving in a easygoing city and driving in an aggressive city--sure, the driving in the former is on the whole safer than in the latter, but driving in an easygoing manner in an aggressive city is much more likely to get you into trouble than driving aggressively will.
"This is the story of a man who fell from a 50-story building. The man, as he fell he kept repeating to reassure himself: 'So far so good, so far so good, so far so good.' But the important part is not the fall... it's the landing."