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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.