On 2/5/25 10:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/18/2025 10:40 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
"Sieze the lane" is an unbelievably-stupid way to put it. Nobody
recommends jumping out of hiding onto the lane and snatching it away
from the vehicles already using it.
"Take the lane" is tempting; one "takes" US 30 to Fort Wayne and then
"takes" I69 north. But when you "take" a lane, there is an
implication that you are taking it away from someone.
We really ought to say "use the whole lane".
That's what it says on the signs, after all.
John Franklin, author of the well respected _Cyclecraft_, refers to it
as riding in the "primary position," which he defines rather well.
We now have signs here in MA to give bicyclists 4 feet passing room.
The law originally stated pass bicyclists (and pedestrians and emergency vehicles and police, et al) by a "safe" distance. Seems some people
thought 4 millimeters was safe and I swear there are people now who
believe 4 millimeters is the metric equivalent to 4 feet.
I always heard the term "take the lane" which is indeed safer than
trying to hug the shoulder. Some knucklehead who can't swing wide to
pass you due to oncoming traffic and is loath to actually slow down,
will indeed try to squeeze by with results dependent on how good their
depth perception is.
While bicyclists have the right to the entire lane, and there is no
requirement that they ride single file, I do think taking a big chunk of
the road or riding two and three abreast in the lane is very poor
bicycling civility and contributes to some motorist's poor view of
bicyclists in general (they don't stop at lights or stop signs; they go
down one way streets the wrong direction; etc.).
SMH
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)