Subscribe
Top 5 Reasons to Claim the Lane (and why it’s safer)
by Tim Grahl
There is a lot of debate as to where a bicycle commuter should position themselves in relation to the road. New bike commuters, especially, are often intimidated by riding in the road and often choose something that isn’t necessarily the safest place. Here are the top two:
- Sidewalk – While the odds of you getting hit from behind diminish greatly, there are other dangers that come into play.
- Drivers are not looking for fast moving objects on the sidewalks so when you come to a cross street there is a good chance you’ll get hit by a turning car.
- Sidewalks are available for pedestrians and, in many states, it’s illegal for bicycles to ride on them.
- You are forced to (and should) go extremely slow. Besides dealing with turning cars and pedestrians, you are riding are surfaces that are not maintained for traffic and often have other obstacles to deal with.
- The extreme right side of the road – In my opinion this is the most dangerous place you can ride. You are risking two dangers:
- Cars will repeatedly try to squeeze by you in the same lane and will almost always come very close to you which, obviously, increases your chance of getting hit.
- The Peek-a-boo bike. Picture two cars approaching. The second car is following closely to the first. As the first car moves to miss you, it is seen by the second car as merely drifting in the lane since the car isn’t moving that much out of the way. The second car doesn’t realize you are in the road until it is to late.
Because of the above dangers and contrary to many people’s “common sense”, the best thing for a bike commuter to do is claim the lane. I ride at least a third of the way into the lane and, around curves, I roll right down the middle.
Here’s the top five reasons why I started claiming the lane (and why you should to):
- Drivers give you more room – The day I started claiming the lane is the day I stopped getting regularly buzzed to close by cars. As mentioned above, when you are all the way to the right then cars will almost always try to squeeze by. When you claim the lane, they are forced to slow down and wait for an opportunity to pass you which means they take plenty of room to do it.
- You are more visible – Drivers are used to looking for other large, metal boxes. And they’re used to looking in the middle of the lane ahead of them. When you hug the side of the road you are often outside their field of vision. By claiming the lane you are much more likely to be seen by oncoming traffic.
- You avoid dangerous debris and obstacles – the sides of roads are usually covered in debris. Stuff that can slash your tires and/or fly up and hurt you. There are also things like sewer grates and uneven shoulders to worry about. By claiming the lane you avoid all of this.
- It’s an easier, more enjoyable ride – When stuck squeezing the side of the road or riding on the sidewalk, feelings of stress abound. Constantly watching the terrain ahead of you, swerving out of the way of obstacles, slowing down for pedestrians and many other things that you are forced to pay attention to are reduced when you claim the lane.
- You are making a statement – While not as important as the previous safety related reasons, this has long term effect. On many roads bicycles are seen as an annoyance that shouldn’t be allowed in the road with other “real” vehicles. By claiming the lane you are making a statement that we belong on the road and have all the same rights as cars.
I came to these views after a lot of time spent bike commuting in my city of Lynchburg, VA. We don’t have bike lanes and I’ve come to believe that the people that built our roads had never heard of the bicycle. Not to mention most drivers are oblivious to the “share the road” mentality (and laws).
I firmly believe my place on a bike is in the road and claiming the lane and, in a large portion of our country, that is where you belong to. It’s safer and more convenient.
What do you think?
How often will you be required to use a opalescence teeth whitening gel watches?
Tim,
I think you are completely right about this; I have been doing this in heavy traffic while pulling a trailer (we deliver Meals on Wheels )
and have had a much better and safer experience!
Thanks for the insight. I’ll try it on my next commute. Wish me luck.
(I’m the one usually hugging the curb, trying to avoid the sewer grates and broken glass).
Cheers!
One point when commuting in cities is that when people are opening their car doors you’ll hit them if you don’t claim the lane and have enough distance from parked cars…
You people are nuts. DO NOT RIDE IN THE ROAD. ROAD=CARS. I have had so many near-accidents because some biker mistakenly thinks he’s a automobile. I know biking is good for health/environment/whatever (I bike too!), but stay out of the road! This is not 1885, and cars go fast and are much larger than bikes. Common sense people!
@Jimbo: Yes! I completely agree. I communte to work & also drive. I don’t want to be bumper food. I always keep to the side. I used to get a lot of flats from riding over to the side with all the broken glass, staples, nails &ct. but I put on Kevlar belted tires (Bontrager hard case in my case but I am sure other brands are fine) replaced the rim tape & havn’t had a flat in over a month. (I usd to get them at least 2-3 times a week).
This kind of flak from rude drivers is to be expected. How have these cyclists caused these near accidents you speak of? Perhaps you weren’t paying attention? It isn’t as if bicycles are moving too fast for you…
I might suspect that the presence of a cyclist so distracts Jimbo that in order to avoid, he drifts off into the next lane without paying attention to other motorist traffic *in* that lane. It pays to keep in mind that many motorists do not want to share the road (not even with other motorists).
The flip side of the coin is, if you can’t do traffic speed, you need to think twice about taking the lane (rather than the shoulder, or an alternate route) — especially if there is not a reasonable alternate lane for faster-moving traffic.
To tmana: Bicycles are legal vehicles..and have their place on the roadway. No vehicle has to maintain the speed limit. Its perfectly legal to go under the speed limit. No one has an obligation to go the speed limit. Its the sole responsibility of motorists to look out for bicycles and other slow moving vehicles, and other motorists. The last person that hit me lost their license for 1 year and had to pay for my injuries cause they felt that I didn’t need to be on the road. This kind of thinking will get people hurt or killed. Its not worth the trouble. Take a breath and give cyclists their space..it only takes a few seconds and your past them and on your way. Deal with it, and ride/drive safe!
Chris: just as motorists need to look out for cyclists and pedestrians as well as other motorists, we need to look out for motorists, as well as other cyclists and pedestrians. All well and good for someone having to be without license and pay for your medical bills — but so much better not to have had the accident in the first place! You are worth more than the cost of medical bills, lost time at work, limited mobility, limited ability to provide for your family, limited ability to interact with friends and family…
Taking the lane — or the route itself — is as much an exercise in judgment of the overall traffic of that lane or that route as it is in awareness of other users of that route. Just as a motorist going well below the “going speed” of traffic can be cited for unsafe (or hazardous) driving, so can a cyclist taking the lane in those traffic conditions, or a cyclist whose actions cause motorists to drift off into the next lane to avoid becoming party to a car-bicycle accident, only to become part of a near-miss car-car accident.
Put differently: share the road means just that. Just as at times we need to cede the road (or sections of a particular road) to pedestrians, to emergency vehicles, or to parades and other civic functions, so too there are times we need to cede the road to the prevailing motor traffic and seek an alternate route.
“or a cyclist whose actions cause motorists to drift off into the next lane to avoid becoming party to a car-bicycle accident, only to become part of a near-miss car-car accident.”
How would a bicyclist “taking the lane” do this ( assuming they don’t dart out into the lane at the last minute)? Seriously, if a driver can’t wait until it is safe to pass or pass in a safe manner, should they really be driving?
To tmana: I have at least 3 alternate routes in which i can take to avoid traffic. They are not maintained for bicycles(potholes, parked cars, etc..). Main arterials are safer for me, and allow me to get to my destination quickly and efficiently. Its upto the motorists to look out for me and every other vehicle on the road. I am much smaller than a car and cannot do nearly the damage a 4,000 vehicle can. Bottom line= cars bikes slower vehicles all have equal rights to the road. Case closed.
Pete: in most cases without on-street parking, cyclists “taking the lane” are riding in the curb-most third of that lane, keeping a safe distance from the next lane of traffic and — traffic conditions permitting — allowing a faster vehicle to pass. The motorist tries to maintain speed, but does not see the cyclist with enough time to slow, or has enough vehicular traffic behind him that it is (arguably) safer for him to hit-and-run against the cyclist (or scare him off the road) than it is to cause a multicar collision. What the motorist will generally do is move towards the traffic-side of the lane to try to pass the cyclist. Sometimes this causes said motorist to drift a foot or two into that next lane, posing a potential hazard to at-speed traffic in that lane.
This sort of behavior tends to be most common on those “main arterials”, particularly during rush hours and on weekends. It is not limited to those roads and time slots, as I have experienced it on the less-traveled/slower-speed parallel roads I prefer — just that there is less overall traffic, less motorist speed, and therefore less overall hazard. I am also more likely to encounter sympathetic motorists on these roads — motorists who slow to allow me to change to the left lane to turn, or at the crossroads, yield their right-of-way to go straight for me to make that left safely.
FWIW, I’d rather steer around potholes (or through, if I must) and deal with the occasional jerk driving 15 mph faster than me (or trying to) than deal with dozens of angry commuters driving 35 mph faster than me (or trying to). Your mileage, obviously, varies.
Why would a motorist not be able to see a cyclist riding 1/3rd of the way out from the curb in enough time to slow down or to make a safe pass?
I can easily see a bicycle more than a block ahead of me when I’m driving on multi-lane streets ( assuming there are no tight curbs or I’m not cresting a hill. In those cases, I of course slow down. One of the first things I learned driving was never to overdrive your “sight line”. Same for night driving – never drive faster than you can stop if something enters your beams).
My vision isn’t particularly good. Again, if a driver can’t handle something as simple as this, should they really be driving? I would hope not, although I know there are some impaired or otherwise unsafe drivers out there. I have a couple of elderly relatives who were driving LONG after they should have stopped.
But I have almost never had a problem with this. Maybe my experience is difference than yours.
If you think these impaired drivers are common, then the proper approach is to figure how to get these people off the road. Driving a multi-ton piece of equipment should not be done by someone who can’t see or pay attention to what they are doing.
You also seem to be implying that cars are following each other WAY too close so that if a car slows down a bit, they are all going to rear end each other. If I’m going 40 mph, see a bike a block ahead and start slowing to 15mph over a block, I really don’t expect to get rear ended. If I’m wrong, we have some major problems in how we drive. In reality, you are suppose to keep enough distance from the car in front of you that you can safely stop even if he slams on the brakes, a much more extreme situation that a gradual slowing for a bike.
At night, I’m assuming the bicycle has a decent rear reflector or light and so should be at least as visible.
It is common in many urban metro areas in the United States to completely forego that “safe stopping distance” rule… in many places, on US-Route or Interstate-grade roads, there are spots where if you leave a single car length between you and the car in front of you, another car will wedge itself in there. At 85mph. On 55mph-marked roads. And the cops can’t/won’t do a thing about it (or risk a thirty- or forty-car pileup with serious injuries and no way to medevac the injured).
Obviously (at least I hope it’s obvious!),
I’m not cycling on the Interstate — but US-Route roads are open to all vehicular traffic (cyclists and farm vehicles included), there is not always a paved (or usable) shoulder, and there are areas and sections of these routes where the main commuting (to work, or to shopping) corridors. In those areas, when the volume and urgency of traffic pushes motorists well beyond the posted speed limits, it is unsafe to drive any slower-moving vehicle, (even on the shoulders! — more pedestrians get killed walking the unpaved shoulders of some of these stretches of road…)
Cyclists are more vurnable road users. Yeah I understand. We are not surrounded by metal and dont have any protection. Cyclists have every right and entitlment to use any public roadway and we can use interstates as well. Bicyclists are not banned from using any roadway unless prohibited by law. I ride on roads with 55mph speed limits. Most people pass me with good clearance, and sometimes I get passed closely but its to be expected since automobiles have blind spots..and its easy to misjudge distance between a car and a bike. Believe me I know I drove for 10 years around cyclists I know what its like sometimes. As I mentioned before cars bikes have equal rights to the road. Last comment.
Hey, your posts have inspired me! – I love the way you directly get to the point, and then work outwards. I’ve been trying to do figure out what I want to say about ,that would allow me to do exactly the same thing.
Screw the law, safety first. On most long stretches of road along a highway 99.5% of the time there is no pedestrians on the sidewalk. I rather ride there (a SAFE distance from vehicles) let’s face it, it’s 2010 and drivers are more distracted than ever and in general people don’t care they’re especially in our metropolitan cities. My suggestion to cyclist, ride slower and take the sidewalk… if one isn’t available take side streets and the path less traveled by vehicular traffic. It boils down to common sense, unless you live in the country stay out of the roads! It’s dangerous enough when you’re buckled in surrounded with a ton of medal.
i shouldn’t post drunk… cheers!
wat up ppls
We have had 2 hit and run accidents in my town, 1 killed, 1 in a wheelchair, both cyclist where riding in a well traveled road, 1 was in daylight the other at night. I am also a Truck driver with 2 million accident free miles and I bike to work for fitness.I dont agree or disagree with the author. defensive driving, whether your on a bike or a truck is always number one. Know where everything and everyone is and be READY to take action, ride a sidewalk if you feel safer, ride in the road if you feel you can trust the person behind you to do the right thing. Every day driving truck, I will encounter 5-10 idiots who do not need to be behind a wheel or a bicyclist .
This is why I am embarrassed to tell people I’m a cyclist. Cyclists are such arrogant assholes! We do NOT ride street-legal vehicles! If we did, they’d have license plates. Get over yourself and move over!
The problem with moving over is that it would greatly increases the chance that we get killed!
And if we get killed, we wont get to cycle on all those roads our taxes (yes, sales tax and gas tax) helped pay for.
I can’t tell if Brad is being sarcastic or not.
Bicycles, of course, ARE street legal vehicles in pretty much every state of the union. Most states do require that the bike have a front headlight and a rear reflector to be legal for night riding, and some states require a bell. Most states require brakes that can stop the bike in a certain distance and that the bike be in good mechanical repair and some even require that it have a seat/saddle ( I kid you not on that last one!).
But,in general, bicycles are street legal right out of their box.
The reason cars have license plates is that it is felt in every state of the union that the operation of a high-power, multi-1000 pound vehicle is enough of a danger to others that its use needs to be restricted and regulated. The plate shows the dangerous vehicle is registered and helps track it if it does something illegal.
Also, cars occupy enough space on the roads and do enough damage to their surfaces that they are directly taxed for some road types – mostly state highways and interstates. Local roads are generally paid for out of the general funds and do not receive any automobile tax revenue.
Bicycles are generally felt to not poise enough danger to the public to go through a licensing process. Although various communities DO try this from time to time.
Bicyclists generally do NOT pay special road-use taxes as they mostly use the local roads ( which are paid for out of general funds) and also occupy much less real estate on the roads than automobiles and do no damage to the road surface. It would not be worth the effort to collect the minute amount they would owe for the limited bicycle state highway use.
That’s a ridiculous argument. The primary purpose of roads is for licensed drivers to operate motorized vehicles. That’s what are taxes pay for. The fact that you can pedal your bike around on them is a bonus. Keep “claiming the lane” and we’ll all end up paying in the form of registration fees, insurance premiums and other insane licensing requirements. All because of arrogant fellows like yourself who can’t just do the sensible thing and move over! You are an accident waiting to happen, but of course, YOU won’t get hurt. It will be the innocent kid on the sidewalk hit by the car that had to swerve to miss you.
A lot of “street legal” depends on the jurisdiction. According to New Jersey law, a bicycle (definition specifies lowest-height of seat at 25″ or higher, so recumbents and kids’ bikes don’t count) is required to have a white headlamp and red rear lamp each visible from a distance of 500 feet. (Note this is the same distance from which automobile lights are required to be visible.) Near as I can tell, this would require a 4-lumen headlamp, costing about $600 (and being blindingly-bright if turned on when just rolling one’s vehicle out to the street); I have yet to see a bicycle rear lamp (regardless of mounting point) that is nearly as bright as the law requires.
That said, cycling laws in my jurisdiction are generally not enforced.
Lights – The NJ state law is 500 feet away on a dark road.
I’ve checked the relatively inexpensive lights on my bike. I parked it by the side of the road on a long straight section of road with a lot of ambient street lighting and other visual clutter to see how far away I was visible. I could very easily see it from 1000 feet away, even against other car lights, etc. Probably further, that was the length of the straight piece of road. And frankly, why would you need to be seen from further away – it doesn’t matter if the driver sees you a mile away, what matters is they see you right as they approach you – maybe 1 block of good visibility .
I have a red led “superflash” on the rear of my bike. The company says it is visible from a mile away. I paid $18 for it.
The inexpensive “vista lite” tail lights and their even cheaper knockoffs advertise that they are visible from 1/4 mile and can run all winter on just a couple of AAA batteries.
And most states only require a reflector visible from 500 feet.
I have a 1 watt LED headlamp ( a rechargeable planet bikelamp with built in NMh batteries) that I paid $40 – it was on sale. When I have it on blink mode I can see reflective signs blinking that are four or more blocks away.
The headlight is overkill if I only wanted to meet the law. I use it as a primary headlight on dark roads so I can see well and not go over potholes.
There are numberous inexpensive bicycle headlamps in the $20 range or less that are easily visible 500 feet away. The vistalite “toad” headlight, which runs on batteries and is currently selling for about $8 would do the trick.
Boy, you can tell Pete is at home!
I understand about the dark roads: I upgraded from a CatEye EL series to a NiteRider MiniUSB 1-lumen so I could see where I am going. I don’t know about the visibility of the CatEye, but I can see the beam from the MiniUSB straight-on from 100 ft, and when aimed at the road (so I can see potholes, etc.), the corona of the beam probably extends about 40-50 ft. I know I am projecting far enough into the intersection that a car heading down the cross street should be able to see my approach in time to (surprise) stop at the stop sign.
I’m not convinced my PlanetBike tail light can be seen from more than 50-100 feet.
I think the 500-foot law is because someone decided “bicycles are cars”, or something like that… but then again, consider the driver going down the main road at 50mph may need that amount of warning to maneuver to “share the road” appropriately.
@ Brad- In the end your argument about how car driver’s have sole rights to the road is pathetic as well as stupid. Bicycles have always had more rights to use the roadways. Bicycles came out well before cars were invented. Roadways are not and will never been designed for automobiles, which is the number one reason why roads are the way they are now. If you cant grasp the fact that bicycles are just as more vehicles than cars..then maybe you should put up the cars and perhaps ride a bike!
@Chris: Dead right!
Surely, Brad, you are not that ignorant to think that the taxes bicyclists pay do not go towards roads. Please do some homework before trying to imply bicyclists do not pay for the roads they ride on before trying to argue your false claim. The whole reason for a bicyclist to claim the lane is that it is SAFER not that they have the legal right to……which they do. The reason a vehicle would swerve around a bicyclist is precisely the reason for them to claim the lane. Thank you for supporting this point. The reason bicyclists claim the lane is so vehicles will see them and make a conscious effort to pass safely, nothing more. If bicyclists are arrogant because they want to stay alive then so be it; Just don’t pretend to worry about who pays for the roads we travel or sidewalks “you” drive.
Chris: i see where you are coming from, but you are stretching things just a little aren’t ya? roads were originally designed for horse and buggy, which existed long before bicycles did. when bikes came along the roads could accommodate them equally simply because they traveled about as fast as horse and buggy.
i agree that bicycles have always had equal rights to use the road, and in most areas of north america are considered a vehicle. but to say that roads “are not and will never been designed for automobiles” is ludicrous. today, roadways are primarily designed to carry motor vehicle traffic….everything about them is, from planning to engineering, to construction, to use and law enforcement.
brad: i can see your point, and i too detect a lot of elitism in cycling. i hardly ever claim the lane simply because the routes i ride are more that safe enough to ride the shoulder(also, i never see other cyclists claiming the lane around here either). that said, in some situations it might be the sensible thing to do. if i was cycling in a dense metropolitan core, i could see it. and you are wrong about one thing, bikes are in fact street legal vehicles in most places…….despite what some drivers might tell you.
Amish horse and buddies on the state highways and farm roads in my area are still a common sight.
The point is – roads are for ALL users to get from point A to B. Even if changes have been made to accommodate higher speed traffic since they were first built.
Special facilities are often in place for pedestrians – sidewalks, etc. and a few roads HAVE been designed only for high-speed motorized traffic – mostly the interstates and even there bicycles are usually allowed when there is no other route.
Late to the party again — oh, well
“That’s what are taxes pay for. The fact that you can pedal your bike around on them is a bonus.”
Hm. I suspect most bike commuters pay taxes, too, and since we add less wear-and-tear on the roads, we’re basically subsidizing drivers.
Not to say this gives us the right to be jerks — but most of us, as far as I’ve seen, try not to.
Not all riders who ‘claim the lane’ are arrogant jerks. I make a point of getting out of the way if I’m sharing the only lane going in a given direction with cars — after all, if I want them to ‘play nice,’ I have to, as well.
However, you had better believe that if there are two or three empty lanes to the left, I don’t feel obligated in the least.
Without getting bogged down in the debate, I would add that while occupying the lane is often the safest choice don’t subordinate your common sense to that notion and refuse to make exceptions when warranted! The bare reality is that locations do exist where it will cause trouble. Where I live, because of local mores, blocking the lane on the main arteries would result in virtually uninterrupted conflict with cars–honking, shouting, close passing, etc. Even a confident cyclist would get rattled, making him or her unsafe. It’s not that all those drivers are cretins, it’s that these are high-volume roads connecting suburbs where drivers travel longer distances and customarily maintain speeds of 40-50mph. Most of them will have never seen a cyclist using the lane and will take your presence as completely alien, having no clue how to react appropriately.
Moreover, the law doesn’t always support occupying the lane. In Arizona, the applicable statute requires cyclists to ride as far to the right of the lane as possible. There is some room for interpretation so I consider a door zone or unsuitable lane conditions as exceptions and take the lane. The point, however, is be aware of local laws before blindly following any advice. It may be bad law, but it won’t support you if you run into trouble whilst violating it.
To be clear, I’m not advocating riding on sidewalks or in gutters! I’m saying make smart choices about your route to avoid those high risk roads in the first place. Google (or Bing) maps is your friend! By contrast to the main artery scenario above, I ride an almost parallel network of smaller streets where I have plenty of access to a suitable portion of the lane without impeding traffic and risking driver misunderstanding and frustration. I coexist with cars and rarely get even a dirty look.
I commute to work by bike. I would rather be alive and injury free than right. I’ve had too many friends injured “claiming” their right to the road. Plus bikers shouldn’t have the same rights to the rode as autos they don’t need to be licensed or pay registration and many roads do have minimum speeds. Common sense has to prevail. I live where there are hilly winding rodes even the safest driver can be caught off guard coming around a blind corner and seeing a bike. Claim the rode when safe, if in doubt be safe even if it means walking your bike. Live to ride another day.
Late to the party as well. But I agree that I’d rather be safe and alive than justified in my actions and dead or injured.
I do take the road on occasion but only for a very short period and only if absolutely required for safety purposes. I do so when the lane narrows to the point where if I didn’t take the lane it might cause a driver to think they can squeeze past and in so doing would cause them to hit me or another driver in oncoming traffic.
Once the lane opens back up I immediately get back over.
I try to never ride on sidewalks. Drivers just don’t pay attention to high speed traffic coming from the sidewalk side when pulling out. However, if it becomes unsafe on the road I have occasionally jumped on the sidewalk for a short bit. I treat it like taking the lane though and try to find the first and best opportunity to get back to my little corner of the road.
We each have our own methods. Whatever it is, be safe for yourself and for the other drivers and bikers.
I would never argue with someone who says biking in a certain way makes they more comfortable. But BikinBob says many incorrectthings.
BikinBob:
“I’ve had too many friends injured “claiming” their right to the road.”
I think you misunderstand the reason for “taking the lane”. It’s not to “claim” a right to the road, it’s to prevent getting clipped by a car trying to pass in a too narrow lane. It’s to protect the bicyclist. I doubt you’ve had “too many friends” getting injuried in this fashion, assuming they merge into the lane in a safe manner.
BikingBob: “Plus bikers shouldn’t have the same rights to the rode as autos they don’t need to be licensed or pay registration and many roads do have minimum speeds. Common sense has to prevail.”
Bicycles don’t need licensing as they are not perceived to be as dangerous as a multi-ton vehicle capable of going 100 mph. Licensing is about showing you know how to operate a dangerous vehicle.
Obviously, bicycles are generally not allowed on minimum speed roads such as interstates. As to registration fees, I’ll let someone else explain why that would be relatively pointless.
BikingBob: “I live where there are hilly winding rodes even the safest driver can be caught off guard coming around a blind corner and seeing a bike.”
Even “the safest driver” is overdriving their sight lines? I really doubt it. A safe driver keeps their speed down to the point that they could stop if an obstruction appears around a curve. Just like they don’t overdrive their headlights at night. You never know if there might be a tree branch or stopped car in the lane. You have to be an idiot to drive this way.
Now I’m not saying that there aren’t a few unsafe drivers out there. But I think you are projecting the way you drive on other drivers.
As to getting hit by a driver overdriving their sight line on a winding road – if the lane is too narrow for a car to safely pass you on your bike when you are riding near the edge AND it is too dangerous to take the lane because drivers are driving around the curb without being able to see you to stop in time, then I would avoid that road if at all possible.
Anyway, a whole lot of fuzzy thinking in your statements.