I said "other", because if the street is quiet (one car at a time either oncoming or overtaking) I ride in the right wheel track, but if it is busy in two directions I take the centre.
Blogger Rantwick said...I said "other", because... Ahhh, the John Franklin approach. Oh, wait. They drive on the left over there! ;-)
Thoughts on the subject...http://velociped.kempiweb.net/ntvc/2009/07/swss/
Mmmm, not really thoughts on this subject.On the roads highlighted in this poll, a cyclist (in most every jurisdiction) is required to ride as far to the right as practicable. Such being the case, the proper alignment in which to ride is approximately one meter from the curb face. Call it a modified John Franklin track. As long as there are no vehicles parked on the road, there is plenty of room for cyclists and motorist to "share" the lane.I am intrigued by the beliefs of the nine cyclists (so far) advocating for rigid center and rigid left third alignments. Not only is this position, strictly speaking, illegal, it illustrates that these individuals have neither a firm grasp of competent vehicular technique nor Keri's civility principles.No, the thoughts I conveyed on the SWCC topic pertain to standard, multi-lane routes - the type on which the vast majority of crashes occur. Under those circumstances, a competent vehicular cyclist exhibits best practice by taking the lane and being most conspicuous.
To help Herman understand, I comply with the SMV law in light of 551.101
I have found a significant difference in overtaking behavior on un-striped roads. I even had occasion to observe it on several recent repaves where the road was left alone for several weeks.Unless there is oncoming traffic, overtaking motorists will give a cyclist riding anywhere in the lane (even on the edge) plenty of space. I usually ride in the right third. If there is oncoming traffic, I may move left a bit, if necessary, to discourage a mindless bonehead from trying to squeeze through (we have a lot of boneheads here).The default position I choose on a road is the one where I have to spend the least amount of effort adjusting position. On a 2-lane road, my bias is toward facilitating overtaking with a position that makes me visible, encourages good passing clearance, and, of course leaves me an appropriate amount of pavement to my right. (I didn't vote.)
Ahhh... but there are frequently parked cars on a naked road like that, and the outermost 8 feet are essentially a parking lane.
velociped said: "On the roads highlighted in this poll, a cyclist (in most every jurisdiction) is required to ride as far to the right as practicable. Such being the case, the proper alignment in which to ride is approximately one meter from the curb face."How do you get from "practicable" to "one meter"?I like unlaned roads like this, precisely because no precision is required when choosing a lane position.
"As far right as practicable" must be defined by the bicyclist. Therefore, any place right of center can be defined as far right as practicable! A bicyclist at, say, 6 feet from the right curb can say, "That is as far right as practicable to provide buffer from motorists pulling out of driveways and side streets and to induce caution in overtaking motorists. It reduces the chance of a 3-abreast meeting." Wayne
Adapt to conditions. If there are no cars, it's usable space. If there is a smattering of cars, I'd use the "virtual lane" and treat it as unusable space.I can't tell how wide that lane is from the photos. Around here roads like that are not wide enough for 4 cars across, so parked cars become chicanes.
I'm one of the "other" voters too. I stay pretty much in the right 1/4 of the entire road (center lane) but move over if a car is coming and nobody parked on the right side.
I haven't figured out HOW to vote yet. It was steenkin 103 out today. Chances are, I'm going the opposite way to PM, my illustrious eastern compatriot, meaning that I'm safely and legally riding - but IN the shade! I didn't see that option and "other" didn't cover things. AND, the photo shows no cars parked in the shade as far as the eye can see!Even in Celsius, 40, it doesn't sound cold. Took me a full extra half hour to get home due to shade routes taking priority over quick.Maybe a cold shower will restore perspective. Expect a discourse on hot weather riding over at dfwptp afterwards.
@PM Summer"there are frequently parked cars on a naked road like that."Perhaps, but there are no cars parked anywhere in sight on that road - which you described as being "a typical two-lane road". On that road, under the conditions described and represented by the image, I still maintain the proper alignment is to the right third of the right half of the lane. That would be approximately two meters from the curb face. (Yes, that is a revision; read on.)If you wanted to convey a more complicated scenario, you probably ought to have waited until cars were parked on the road.@Michael Graff"How do you get from 'practicable' to 'one meter'?"On the road illustrated, with no parked cars, a distance of one meter from the curb face will allow two cars to pass - one in each direction - and still afford an ample overtaking buffer. Having said that, I have amended my original comment to two meters, see below, but would readily reduce it to one meter if I sensed cars approaching from both directions.@Wayne"A bicyclist at, say, 6 feet from the right curb can say, 'That is as far right as practicable to provide buffer from motorists pulling out of driveways and side streets and to induce caution in overtaking motorists.'"I will admit to not paying close enough attention to the image, as I did not note the on-street driveways. For precisely the reason cited by Wayne, a two-meter offset would provide better visibility.If there were cars parked on the street, as PM suggests to be the norm, then three meters would even be appropriate. However, this image does not portray that hazard and, since it was described as being typical, the two meter revision to my earlier comment is appropriate."'It reduces the chance of a 3-abreast meeting.'"Okay, that situation is not a problem for me. I encounter it quite often and feel no jeopardy or anxiety when it happens. With no cars parked on the street and god sight lines like those portrayed in the image, one meter from the curb to allow a "3-abreast meeting" is not much of an issue.As an example. I travel a road almost daily (Lovers Ln), which has dimensions similar to those portrayed in the accompanying image, but heavily populated with cars traveling in both directions at around 30mph. The three-abreast scenario presents itself often. I have yet to be run off of the road, not have I felt in jeopardy thereof.@Keri"Adapt to conditions. If there are no cars, it's usable space."The most appropriate response, yet.PM offered the portrayed scenario as being typical. He then revised his definition of typical to include cars parked on the street. Yet, there are none. In the end, the image must not really be typical.My comments were directed at the image provided as fitting the definition of typical. Yes, I am splitting hairs ...to make a point.In truth, there is no typical; there is no normal. All roads are different. As such, we have to have the knowledge and experience to adapt to the situation at hand. So, for the image portrayed my answer, drawn from my experience, remains the same (with the revision noted due to Wayne's observation), an alignment roughly in the right third of the lane, up to two meters or so from the curb face.Soliciting a response for a specific scenario is proper. Suggesting any situation is typical is not.Michael makes another good point, though. Defining my answer as "proper" was dictatorial. As such, I withdraw it and state simply, "my alignment would be between one and two meters from the curb face."
Although "typical" here refers to cross-section and marking, "typical" residential streets have cars parked on them. Except in Detroit.
I took the wheel to this street today. It is 26' back-of-curb to back-of-curb (confirmed by a glance at the super-double-secret street inventory book). It has an effective width of 24', and is therefore made up of two un-striped 12' lanes... one in each direction.I was surprised, because it has always seemed wider (I would have guessed it to be a DeLuxe Residential street at 30'back-to-back, with 14' effective lane widths). Does that make a difference in how you voted?
Post a Comment