4 ms·

Taking the lane is precisely what allows you to make room for motorists. If a motorist makes a close pass when you've taken the lane, you just steer away from t

Taking the lane is precisely what allows you to make room for motorists. If a motorist makes a close pass when you've taken the lane, you just steer away from them and create some space. If a motorist makes a close pass when you're already hugging the kerb, you have nowhere to go. The best case scenario is that you'll crash into something without too many sharp edges. 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.

jacquesm 10y ago
There are more cyclists than young agile males. And your advice only applies to those. I'm trying to imagine a 60 year old lady on a bike applying this advice and fail to see any happy endings. And where I live old ladies on bikes are extremely common. Cycling advice should apply to all cyclists, not just to those giving the advice.
- jdietrich 10y ago
  It's not about youth or agility, it's about skills and confidence. Young men innately have the confidence to ride assertively, but all cyclists should feel empowered to protect themselves. 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.
  - grogenaut 10y ago
    dying of politeness has to be the most British of ways to go.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Essentially all those cases are cases where the other traffic is clearly at fault for not being situationally aware. It's akin to victim blaming to suggest that one would need to ride 'assertively' in order to survive in traffic. 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-london-must-be-more-assertive-to-protect-themselves-from-killer-lorries-a2488111.html 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.
- 314 10y ago
  Why are only agile young males capable of steering to the left and right while cycling? Surely other categories of cyclist are capable of doing this. If any cyclist, regardless of age or gender, is unable to plot a safe path and follow it avoiding obstacles then they are endangering themselves through their choice to cycle on a road.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Because 'slamming on the brakes' is not an option for older cyclists, slamming on the brakes (especially on a wet road) is a small step away from falling for an older cyclist. They can however coast to a stop while braking. They can't swerve either and they can be forgetful (forget to indicate, forget to look around them). And still they are perfectly valid cyclists and should not have to worry about arriving in one piece (or at all) because they are a little bit older. 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.
    - 314 10y ago
      Nobody should be travelling at a speed that is beyond their own ability to stop. Cycling at a speed beyond any individual's threshold for safely braking is putting themselves in danger. This applies equally across all levels of training, ability, age and gender. 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.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        That's total nonsense. If someone throws a door in your way you're going to get hurt, no matter what, which was what started this whole discussion in the first place. See, 'safe braking' makes some assumptions about what other people will do and when they don't all bets are off. That's why we call them accidents to begin with. Cars turning without signaling, doors, swerving into the space occupied by a cyclist and so on. There is absolutely no way to protect against any or all of that. 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.
- lmm 10y ago
  What do you mean? A 60 year old lady would be safer in the main traffic lanes than in the gutter, for exactly the same reasons as anyone else - more visible from behind, more control over when cars pass them, no risk of hitting a car door etc.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Well, where I live a few million of those elderly lady cyclists (including my mom, 73, makes 100 Km trips on her bike) have reached that age simply because they know not to mix themselves with traffic faster than theirs. Living in a country where traffic has been educated to give cyclists room most definitely helps but I'd hate to see our older generation decimated because they decided to seek 'the middle of the road' all of a sudden. 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.
    - lmm 10y ago
      Whatever dude. You (evidently) know nothing about me or my country. Maybe your country has great numbers for safety of cyclists; good for you if so, but that doesn't mean everything you're doing is right, much less that it's so obviously right as to not even bear discussion.
    - phpnode 10y ago
      > 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 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.
- usrusr 10y ago
  Some of the most assertive cycling lane-takers I have witnessed were elderly ladies. Might be because they are old enough to have first hand experience with traffic not yet completely dominated by cars. Even after nominal mass motorization (median household has a car), it took a few decades to displace other modes of road usage to the point were drivers routinely assume that there can be no other vehicles on a regular road, effectively declaring public roads to limited access motorways by negligent threat.

jacquesm 10y ago

There are more cyclists than young agile males. And your advice only applies to those. I'm trying to imagine a 60 year old lady on a bike applying this advice and fail to see any happy endings. And where I live old ladies on bikes are extremely common. Cycling advice should apply to all cyclists, not just to those giving the advice.

jdietrich 10y ago
It's not about youth or agility, it's about skills and confidence. Young men innately have the confidence to ride assertively, but all cyclists should feel empowered to protect themselves. 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.
- grogenaut 10y ago
  dying of politeness has to be the most British of ways to go.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Essentially all those cases are cases where the other traffic is clearly at fault for not being situationally aware. It's akin to victim blaming to suggest that one would need to ride 'assertively' in order to survive in traffic. 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-london-must-be-more-assertive-to-protect-themselves-from-killer-lorries-a2488111.html 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.
314 10y ago
Why are only agile young males capable of steering to the left and right while cycling? Surely other categories of cyclist are capable of doing this. If any cyclist, regardless of age or gender, is unable to plot a safe path and follow it avoiding obstacles then they are endangering themselves through their choice to cycle on a road.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Because 'slamming on the brakes' is not an option for older cyclists, slamming on the brakes (especially on a wet road) is a small step away from falling for an older cyclist. They can however coast to a stop while braking. They can't swerve either and they can be forgetful (forget to indicate, forget to look around them). And still they are perfectly valid cyclists and should not have to worry about arriving in one piece (or at all) because they are a little bit older. 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.
  - 314 10y ago
    Nobody should be travelling at a speed that is beyond their own ability to stop. Cycling at a speed beyond any individual's threshold for safely braking is putting themselves in danger. This applies equally across all levels of training, ability, age and gender. 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.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      That's total nonsense. If someone throws a door in your way you're going to get hurt, no matter what, which was what started this whole discussion in the first place. See, 'safe braking' makes some assumptions about what other people will do and when they don't all bets are off. That's why we call them accidents to begin with. Cars turning without signaling, doors, swerving into the space occupied by a cyclist and so on. There is absolutely no way to protect against any or all of that. 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.
lmm 10y ago
What do you mean? A 60 year old lady would be safer in the main traffic lanes than in the gutter, for exactly the same reasons as anyone else - more visible from behind, more control over when cars pass them, no risk of hitting a car door etc.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Well, where I live a few million of those elderly lady cyclists (including my mom, 73, makes 100 Km trips on her bike) have reached that age simply because they know not to mix themselves with traffic faster than theirs. Living in a country where traffic has been educated to give cyclists room most definitely helps but I'd hate to see our older generation decimated because they decided to seek 'the middle of the road' all of a sudden. 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.
  - lmm 10y ago
    Whatever dude. You (evidently) know nothing about me or my country. Maybe your country has great numbers for safety of cyclists; good for you if so, but that doesn't mean everything you're doing is right, much less that it's so obviously right as to not even bear discussion.
  - phpnode 10y ago
    > 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 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.
usrusr 10y ago
Some of the most assertive cycling lane-takers I have witnessed were elderly ladies. Might be because they are old enough to have first hand experience with traffic not yet completely dominated by cars. Even after nominal mass motorization (median household has a car), it took a few decades to displace other modes of road usage to the point were drivers routinely assume that there can be no other vehicles on a regular road, effectively declaring public roads to limited access motorways by negligent threat.