Advancing beyond intermediate traffic cycling, part 3
uphillstruggle said:
I don't really understand how to ride a meter (or 3 feet) to the side of overtaking traffic would work since the distance of the over taking traffic is dependent on the overtaker not the rider due to the nature of over taking.
First, we're assuming a situation in which motorists can overtake safely within the lane, including leaving at least a safe one meter passing distance between them and the cyclist... so the lane has to be relatively wide. If you ride near the edge of the road (even a meter from the edge) in a lane that is not that wide, then you're inviting overtaking motorists to try to squeeze into that too-narrow lane with you never-the-less. The proper position in that case is to be much further away from the curb than just one meter.
Second, vehicular traffic tends to travel in a relatively straight lane in more or less the same position. The key here is that,
in a wide shared lane, the cyclist's line of travel should parallel the line of travel of adjacent overtaking traffic, which is generally not parallel to the edge of the road (the edge of the road often meanders for various reasons relative to the center of the road, and the line of vehicular travel which parallels the center of the road). If vehicular traffic is using one frame of reference to determine their line of travel (center of the road or a line parallel to it), while the cyclist is using another frame of reference that is not parallel to the one they are using (edge of the road), conflict occurrence is practically guaranteed.
So, the problem with edge-of-road orientation is that doing so can easily cause the cyclist to inadvertently travel into the path of overtaking traffic. Consider a road that narrows, with the outside lane going from wide to narrow, perhaps because the road physically narrows for some reason, or maybe because of parked cars or some other obstruction. This happens all the time; I'm sure you can identify such situations on your regular routes. At any rate, the motorists are maintaining course relative to the center of the road (and their lane stripe), while the cyclist up ahead is following a course one meter from the edge, which is moving in. Now such a cyclist is usually apt to simply keep following his course, and so is the motorist, yet the two courses are about to collide! It usually doesn't occur to the intermediate edge-following cyclist that this is his fault... after all, he's just following his line of travel one meter from the edge... But doing so means he is the one moving into the path of overtaking traffic without yielding. The proper behavior here is for the cyclist to notice that his current position, say 3' to the right of overtaking traffic, or 13' to the right of the traffic lane stripe, or whatever, is disappearing due to the narrowing roadway, and he needs to
merge left, which implies yielding and negotiating as necessary. If he's just following the edge of the road he's less likely to notice it, or will notice it much later, than if he was orienting himself relative to the overtaking traffic rather than the edge.
The critical distinction is not just semantic; a
merge is a change in course (and is subject to yielding to those already following that course), while continuing to follow one's line of travel is not a change in course that is subject to yielding to, and negotiating with, others. So if you perceive it is the latter rather than the former, you don't realize it's your responsibility to yield and negotiate prior to moving closer to the center of the road, even though your position relative to the edge remains fixed. Most intermediate cyclists are familiar with this type of conflict, but their understanding is vague. They just know they hate it when the road narrows, but they're unsure of exactly why or how best to handle it. For example, local cycling email lists worldwide are riddled with complaints about constructions zones and how they "suddenly put you right in traffic" (as if they weren't "in traffic" prior to that point).
Anyway, that's why it's important to think of your position relative to the center of the road (and lines parallel to it, like traffic lane stripes, and the line generally followed by vehicular traffic itself), rather than relative to the edge of the road. From those choices, if you select faster overtaking vehicular traffic itself as your "base", the general rule of thumb is to ride about one meter to the right (left in UK) of that. What I like about this rule is that it implies you can (and I believe you should) ride much further left (right in UK) during gaps in that faster overtaking traffic.
Does that help you understand what I mean?
uphillstruggle said:
...
However, the nature of the relationship between cyclist and motorist is one wherein the cyclist is much more vulnerable than motorist, in the same way that a car/motorbike driver is more vulnerable than a bus or lorry driver. My point is not that there is nothing a cyclist can do to make themselves safer but rather that the onus (in education but also in law) should be put on the motorist to be more aware of the rights of a cyclist and the correct way to share the road with cyclists.
Of course the cyclist is more vulnerable, but there is no more onus on the car driver to watch out for the cyclist than there is for the bus driver to watch out for the SmartCar driver. All drivers should watch out for each other, and do what they reasonably can to avoid collisions, period. Relative vulnerability should not be a factor.
In terms of actually reducing car-bike collisions, I sincerely believe there is MUCH more room for improvement in bicyclist behavior than in motorist behavior, so that's where I believe the focus needs to be. If anything, it's because they are more vulnerable that there is more onus on them. This is also why motorcyclists are often required to have training above and beyond car driving training.
Car drivers are human. They are going to be distracted and make mistakes from time to time, no matter how much training they get.
So the key for bicyclists is the same as for motorcyclists: to learn how to be safe not only when others do everything right, but also when they do things wrong.
uphillstruggle said:
Those of us who regularly ride in traffic and are interested in cycling know the correct practice when using the roads but although these 'rules' can be taught in the traditional educational sense they can only really be learnt by going out and putting them into practice, there will always be a margin of error when this is done so I think there should be efforts made to create a more cycle friendly system which will accommodate these learner riders.
Based on watching cyclists, even apparently experienced cyclists, ride everywhere I've ever been, I strongly disagree with the assertion that
those of us who regularly ride in traffic and are interested in cycling know the correct practice when using the roads. My personal guess is less than 5% know the appropriate defensive practices and ride in accordance to them. Most seem to be limited to riding at some fixed distance from the road edge and otherwise just "trying to stay out of the way of cars". For example, I never see any bicyclist properly merging across a multi-lane road (e.g., in preparation for a left - right in UK - turn), one lane at a time, negotiating as required to enter the next adjacent lane, at each lane change. Most cyclists who look at that
youtube CyclistLorax channeldo not recognize their own riding style being demonstrated there.
uphillstruggle said:
Basically it should be safe enough for children who are new to cycling to be out on the roads. I know this may seem idealistic but there are countries in Europe where this happens and the kids do not know all these techniques about dealing with traffic they just feel safe because the drivers are aware of cyclist and how to deal with them.
On certain quiet neighborhood roads, yes, it should be and is safe for children new to cycling to ride on the road. But on roads in general? No way. That makes no sense. This expectation grossly underestimates the level of knowledge, skills and understanding of the rules of the road required to be safe on the roads, which is non-trivial, but probably can be
learned well enough by most 8-10 year olds for them to travel by bicycle safely on all but the most challenging of roads.
uphillstruggle said:
By the way thanks for posting those links, I have not looked at them yet but will do soon.
I look forward to hearing what you think of the videos on the CyclistLorax channel on youtube. Let me know which ones you watched (I suggest starting with the intro).