Why Won't Cyclists Take the Lane?

[Ayesha]

I've shared her observations on CTC rides - considering they are meant to be full of experienced cyclists the number that cower towards the gutter all the time, thus inviting dangerous overtaking, seems extraordinarily high. Perhaps it's because club runs attract some people who don't have much confidence when cycling alone, perhaps it's because the club runners often don't commute and so aren't that used to traffic, who knows? My philosophy is just to take notice of the relevant conditions around me and ride in an appropriate manner - sometimes this means 'claiming my space' in primary, other times it might mean moving further left to let someone past (having first made sure that they are going to pass safely).

Agreed. The Sunday club runners who don't commute tend to be the ones nearer the curb.

And think Julie, NOWHERE is "safe"... just less likely to get hit.... Cars can 'rear-end' bright red Royal Mail vans, ( as if they are smaller than a cyclist. ) Therefore, out in the middle is as dangerous as at the left hand edge...

[Ayesha]

In the motorcycle world, Franklin's 'Primary' was called 'the Dominant' position years before Franklin thought of writing a book about cycling.
Franklin's 'secondary' was called 'the Normal' position.

I have never come across that in any of my motorcycle training.

For us it was the much more simplistic idea of ride roughly where the driver of a car would be.
Using the secondary or as you call the "normal" position was very strongly discouraged for motorcyclists.

Personally I dont see why that doesnt hold on my cycle if my speed is near that of a (legally ridden) motorcycle.

The theory was...

If something appears from the left, you hit it at the speed you are travelling.
If a car swerves from the other side of the road, you are probably dead.

[HebdenBiker]

Why won't cyclists take the lane?

Because too many drivers still think cyclists belong near the kerb, so cycling in the middle of the lane causes drivers to behave aggressively.


edit: I think the old Cycling Proficiency is to blame for some of this. In the 1980s, kids were taught to stay on the left near the kerb. Those kids are now drivers, and still think that bikes belong in the gutter. Cycling Proficiency was a way of communicating a few very simple safety messages to kids, but too many people still refer to it as gospel, and the "proper" way to ride a bike. It is not.

[stork]

Why won't cyclists take the lane?

I think the old Cycling Proficiency is to blame for some of this. In the 1980s, kids were taught to stay on the left near the kerb. Those kids are now drivers, and still think that bikes belong in the gutter. Cycling Proficiency was a way of communicating a few very simple safety messages to kids, but too many people still refer to it as gospel, and the "proper" way to ride a bike. It is not.

I agree. Sadly, the old Cycling Proficiency still appears to be alive and well in the county of Norfolk, taught by non-cyclists who insist that you must not ride more than 60cm from the kerb. And the only reason to leave a good clearance when you overtake parked cars is so that you don't scratch the car!!!

[PRL]

I often see the complete opposite of the kerb hugger on major routes trying to ride inthe middle of the road, even when the road is wide enough for cars to pass safely with everyone staying in lane.

As highway code suggests as much space (not clearance) is required for overtaking a bicycle as for overtaking a car I would estimate that 5m is needed. How many traffic lanes are that wide ?

[TwoPlusTen]

Haven't been on here for a long time so I have some catching up to do, but this one did catch my interest.

My experience is that (in towns at least) most riders tend to actually avoid the roads completely and prefer the pavement. We all know that's even more dangerous.

As to the original article, I find it selective at best, and downright dangerous at worst. Some examples:

Bikeability/National Standard cycle training encourages riders to take up 'primary position' wherever possible -

IIRC it's actually more along the lines of where necessary, not where possible. There's a BIG difference. I could ride in the middle of my lane all the way to work - but that would land me in huge trouble with vast numbers of justifiably irritated motorists.

Stupid, irresponsible article.

[anothereye]

Why won't cyclists take the lane?

Because too many drivers still think cyclists belong near the kerb, so cycling in the middle of the lane causes drivers to behave aggressively.

This is not my experience in fact I think I get more respect for riding assertively. Of course there are a few motorists that will be aggressive whatever position we take so it's important to have enough space on the left for emergency escapes.

[horizon]

I could ride in the middle of my lane all the way to work - but that would land me in huge trouble with vast numbers of justifiably irritated motorists.

TwoPlusTen: my general impression of rush hour cycling is that cycling in the middle of the lane would have no adverse effect whatsoever on motorists. In fact you yourself are more likely to be "justifiably irritated" by slow moving vehicles in front of you taking up the whole road space, with just one occupant, emitting noxious fumes and blocking the road.

(I accept that you yourself may work in a less urban area or outside rush hours and experience faster moving traffic.)

[kwackers]

I've had 3 (minor) collisions with cars over the years.

The first I got knocked off on a roundabout, the main reason why was because I wasn't in the middle of the lane but rather cycling apologetically and trying to keep out of the way, a following car tried a rapid overtake and dash for his turn which was misjudged and he ended up clipping me with the rear of his car.

The second was simply because some dozy old git overtook and pulled into the kerb directly in front leaving me no time to stop and nowhere to go. I was over against the kerb, I think if I'd been further out he'd probably have taken more notice of me.

The third was because I was in the middle of the road. The driver even said to me "you were in the middle of the road, what could I do?"
In this case I was rolling to a stop in primary coming up to a queue of traffic when a car tried to overtake and squeeze into the rapidly narrowing gap, realising she couldn't she simply moved back left and this despite me being there, travelling at a similar speed and level with her bonnet!

Better road positioning would have probably prevented the first two, the last - well there's no cure for idiocy.

[incidentman]

I was just driving home now. Three-lane urban road. I saw cyclist in the left lane, over near the edge of the lane on the left. Right lane empty. One car in the middle lane. I went behind the car in the middle lane. Mini Cooper comes up in the left lane, makes to pull up alongside the cyclist (who has left a lot of room), but thinks better of it. I'm thinking to myself 'TAKE THE LANE'. Was quite tempted to tell him, but wasn't really close enough.

I see the cyclist getting ready - he must have noticed the lights change from the other direction. Lights change, and the Mini Cooper roars past the cyclist, who has put himself in a position where he's accorded no respect at all. This overtake puts the cyclist off and he wobbles instead of getting going, and a second car passes him.

Of course there's another traffic light just ahead so the overtake didn't save the car any time anyway.

Slightly regretted not shouting at the cyclist to take the lane after witnessing what was obvious before it happened.

[anothereye]

.... Slightly regretted not shouting at the cyclist to take the lane after witnessing what was obvious before it happened.

Idea: A leaflet or small card inviting cyclists to visit a page of advice; such as this (still in draft form, suggestions welcome):
http://www.roadusers.net/motoristsandcyclists.html

[TwoPlusTen]

TwoPlusTen: my general impression of rush hour cycling is that cycling in the middle of the lane would have no adverse effect whatsoever on motorists. In fact you yourself are more likely to be "justifiably irritated" by slow moving vehicles in front of you taking up the whole road space, with just one occupant, emitting noxious fumes and blocking the road.

(I accept that you yourself may work in a less urban area or outside rush hours and experience faster moving traffic.)

You are of course, correct, my good Sir. My working hours mean that I leave slightly after the morning rush hour and return somewhat after the evening one. As the rush-hour traffic (which I have happily sailed past on the days I've biked it in earlier) is gone, I probably would be holding people up.

Don't worry. I'm no shrinking violet on the road.

[anothereye]

I probably would be holding people up.

My practice: never hold people up for the sheer hell of it & never worry about holding people up when my safety is the primary concern. When motorists are 'stuck' behind me I will pull over and signal them past whenever the conditions permit.

[TwoPlusTen]

My practice: never hold people up for the sheer hell of it & never worry about holding people up when my safety is the primary concern. When motorists are 'stuck' behind me I will pull over and signal them past whenever the conditions permit.

I don't hold people up deliberately. Anytime I'm in primary (which is quite a lot) it's because I consider there's a greater risk to my safety if I'm in secondary or (unintentionally) gutter-hugging.

I also don't signal to drivers that they should pass. If I did signal to them, and their passing manoeuvre ended up with them hitting someone/something, I could be held at least partially liable. I do usually tuck back into secondary fairly sharp-ish when I'm done in primary though, which makes it fairly obvious.

[Pugwash]

I chose to take the lane yesterday on a busy road, got a lovely wave / flap from a passing taxi driver who decided to overtake when it clearly was unsafe to do so, I have just called the cab company to advise we are cancelling the company account and we won't be using their services in future.