Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?

[BentMikey]

Article from the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/01/cyclist-take-the-lane

 

[Fiona N]

Absolutely - if their safety requires it.

 

[beanzontoast]

I'd say yes. [Edit - Obviously you can't go around deliberately obstructing traffic, but otoh there are times when for your own safety you have to assert your position. I think most drivers would appreciate that - after all, it could be their husband / wife / offspring on the bike at some point.]

Seems to be more debate springing up around road positioning. I wonder if this is because cyclists are becoming more vocal about such things?

 

[gaz]

They make some good points about the lingo we use, only really known if you are in this circle.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

[QUOTE 1489053"]
The Highway Code instructs drivers to give cycles as much room as they would a car when overtaking. As such, the lane is there for the cyclist to use as he or she feels appropriate.
[/quote]
The trouble is that this advice is ambiguous and, without looking at the picture, many drivers would interpred that to mean 6" gap if that's the distance at which they would pass a car. Of course, the DfT disagrees.

 

[marinyork]

Article from the Guardian:

http://www.guardian....t-take-the-lane

A lane is there to be used however you choose if you're on it. It doesn't matter whether you are 2 inches from the left, in the middle in primary or 2 inches from the dividing line (a point lost by peope on many debates on here). There are many reasons why you would want to ride primary, some ultra primary, some secondary.

 

[marinyork]

The trouble is that this advice is ambiguous and, without looking at the picture, many drivers would interpred that to mean 6" gap if that's the distance at which they would pass a car. Of course, the DfT disagrees.

Nope. It's not ambiguous at all see

213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

and case law that applies to it. Basically your wobble implies more than six inches. It's very easy to understand, it's just that people cannot be bothered to read the highway code and misquote it.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Nope. It's not ambiguous at all see

213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

and case law that applies to it. Basically your wobble implies more than six inches. It's very easy to understand, it's just that people cannot be bothered to read the highway code and misquote it.

I think Mr Paul was referring to the advice in rule 163, and I certainly was: "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car". Rule 213 explains the reasons, but does not give specific advice on appropriate distances in the way that rule 163 tries to do (but fails, IMHO).

I agree that it is probably irrelevant anyway as most drivers never read the HC.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

[QUOTE 1489058"]
Yes it is. That's a good article with some good input from those representing their various organisations.

I'll happily take the lane at any point where my judgement calls for it giving a thanks when I've over to secondary. As the sig mentions there are only good users and bad users. The good user will sit behind me patiently waiting for me to move over and acknowledging this as a fellow good user I'll happily say thank you.

Bad road users I educate.
[/quote]
+1

I do often find myself not taking primary where I perhaps should when there is a cycle lane. This is often the case at junctions. Need to think about this bad habit, though it can be difficult given the effect of cycle lanes on driver attitudes.

 

[jonny jeez]

Taking Primary is essential.....
From the "Essential guide for new commuters" available at the following link...
http://dl.dropbox.co...ped%20draft.pdf



PRIMARY is a position set further out from the curb and more towardsthe centre of the lane. Taking primary generally has two objectives. First isto overtake a slower vehicle (but this is generally referred to as overtaking position and is not held forany extended length of time). The other and more important, is when you adoptthis position to “HOLD” back or deliberately cause traffic approaching frombehind to move wider of you than they would usually.

“WHY use primary, surely it upsets other road users to hold them up?”…….

This may be true (and should be accepted and acknowledged with a wave of thanks) but holding primary isimperative at times to ensure your own safety.

Try holding primary when…

-You pass through pinch gates or width restrictions (to stopvehicles accompanying youthrough a pinch point)

-A central traffic island causes a severe decrease in the widthof the road

-Passing a line of parked vehicles (to ensure cars only pass youwhen it is safe, and to avoid entering the "door zone"

-Entering or passing an obstruction such as traffic works orcontra-flows, where only one vehicle safely can fit (consider yourself THAT vehicle)

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Taking Primary is essential.....
From the "Essential guide for new commuters" available at the following link...
http://dl.dropbox.co...ped%20draft.pdf

PRIMARY is a position set further out from the curb and more towardsthe centre of the lane. Taking primary generally has two objectives. First isto overtake a slower vehicle (but this is generally referred to as overtaking position and is not held forany extended length of time). The other and more important, is when you adoptthis position to “HOLD” back or deliberately cause traffic approaching frombehind to move wider of you than they would usually.

I think there is a flaw in the advice on primary position in this (excellent) publication. "Cyclecraft" carefully defines primary and secondary positions to be relative to the traffic flow, not relative to the kerb or any other fixed part of the road.

This is important to understand, for example, when passing parked cars. In this case, if you are riding 1.5 metres away from the parked cars, you are in secondary position, as you are probably riding on or to the left of the nearside wheel track of the cars. If it is unsafe for cars to overtake you in this position, then you should try to get into primary position, which is the centre of the traffic flow that is also overtaking the parked cars. This makes primary position 2.5 to 3 metres away from the parked cars, and half way between the wheel tracks of the traffic flow.

I did a blog article with videos illustrating the importance of this here.

 

[Melonfish]

Good article that! we do need to get the idea of primary road use by cyclists out to other road users, through their awareness comes our safety.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Good article that! we do need to get the idea of primary road use by cyclists out to other road users, through their awareness comes our safety.

I agree, but how can that be done? After all, how many non-cyclists read the Guardian Bike Blog?

 

[Mad at urage]

[QUOTE 1489053"]
The Highway Code instructs drivers to give cycles as much room as they would a car when overtaking. As such, the lane is there for the cyclist to use as he or she feels appropriate.
[/quote]
That is how I always interpreted it, long before the picture was added. This often caused disagreements, particularly with police officers (once got "I don't care what the Highway Code says, just keep out of my way" - if only I'd had a camera in those days!).

The trouble is that this advice is ambiguous and, without looking at the picture, many drivers would interpred that to mean 6" gap if that's the distance at which they would pass a car. Of course, the DfT disagrees.

My favourite line at the moment is "There is even a pretty picture for those drivers who are unable to read the rules themselves".
[QUOTE 1489058"]
Yes it is. That's a good article with some good input from those representing their various organisations.

I'll happily take the lane at any point where my judgement calls for it giving a thanks when I've over to secondary. As the sig mentions there are only good users and bad users. The good user will sit behind me patiently waiting for me to move over and acknowledging this as a fellow good user I'll happily say thank you.

Bad road users I educate.
[/quote]
It is a good article, and at least it is on a mainstream media site.

I think there is a flaw in the advice on primary position in this (excellent) publication. "Cyclecraft" carefully defines primary and secondary positions to be relative to the traffic flow, not relative to the kerb or any other fixed part of the road.

This is important to understand, for example, when passing parked cars. In this case, if you are riding 1.5 metres away from the parked cars, you are in secondary position, as you are probably riding on or to the left of the nearside wheel track of the cars. If it is unsafe for cars to overtake you in this position, then you should try to get into primary position, which is the centre of the traffic flow that is also overtaking the parked cars. This makes primary position 2.5 to 3 metres away from the parked cars, and half way between the wheel tracks of the traffic flow.

I did a blog article with videos illustrating the importance of this here.

Very important points here! + lots.

 

[marinyork]

I think Mr Paul was referring to the advice in rule 163, and I certainly was: "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car". Rule 213 explains the reasons, but does not give specific advice on appropriate distances in the way that rule 163 tries to do (but fails, IMHO).

I agree that it is probably irrelevant anyway as most drivers never read the HC.

Yes, and 163 refers you to the later rules. With respect, I disagree, it is simple logic that 213 gives you specific advice on appropriate distances. If you allow for a wobble (at all times), this clearly implies that when overtaking you should take this into account, so it is very clearly inappropriate to leave 6". As I said there has been case law on this. If you also take the definition of what a lane is (and the absence of a lane with other rules) it is pretty clear what you're supposed to be doing.

It's a bit like motorists saying oh those positive signs are a load of nonsense, it doesn't tell me that I shouldn't go into a bus lane. A sign with positive instruction that says x[sub]1[/sub],x[sub]2[/sub] and x[sub]3[/sub] can go into a certain area implies that nothing else can't.