On a DAILY basis, I’m honked at, at least, 10 times a day, 99% of the time, cars come way to close to me especially when i’m in the bike lane. I get buses all day long that ride way to far right, and get real close to me. They believe that the bicycle lane is for their use as well, since their vehicles are wide.. I can’t tell you how many times buses come within inches of me on a daily basis, and then they get mad that i go around them (to the left) when they are stopped (yes i make sure it’s safe to pass and use directionals), and then they have to pause for an extra 3 seconds for me to pass them.

Also, I wasn’t aware that Mr. Foster advocated gratuitous obstruction of overtaking traffic. I have searched all his material and can find no place where he advocates obstructing traffic just to prove equal right to use a roadway. His lane positioning explanations all seem to be related to safety, and not to “power”. I can, and have, “handled” mirrors and boat decks and other vehicle attachments passing me mere inches away. I have also bumped plenty of elbows and handlebars in fast criteriums. Skill isn’t the issue – it is life and limb – not just road rash and collarbone fractures.

Whenever it is safe to move right and allow same-direction traffic to pass, I immediately do so. I take no pleasure from making overtaking traffic go slower (in fact I give every opportunity to pass me when practicable), but I will no longer squeeze into the debris-,pothole-, and “tank trap”-filled gutter just so some motorist can save 1.3 seconds while filling oncoming drivers with terror by shaving between us at 9 mph over the speed limit.

Comparing notes with other (OMG – those awful words again!) “vehicular cyclists”, we find that we are almost never cursed at or honked at when we ride with care, clarity and courtesy while defending our own safety. The “BEEEEEEEEEPs” have significantly decreased, and the friendly waves have significantly increased too.

Perhaps we VC’s should use the synonyms for “vehicular cyclists” so that we won’t raise red flags to those who resent our way of riding. “Competent cyclists”, and “VC-Americans” might work(?).

Sincerely,
a proud VC-American

Before 971, there was not a requirement to keep to the right side of a bike lane. A bike lane is a substandard-width lane, and there is no requirement to stay to the right in a ssw lane.

Riding as close as is practicable to the curb or edge line is required in some cases, but only when the lane is wide enough to share. Experienced cyclists know that the farther to the right a cyclist rides, the closer the passes. I have seen one study that very graphically shows that.

Also, when on the line there is only one way to go to avoid that rock; into traffic. The right side of the road is a sewer for cyclists. They should leave enough room to safely negotiate the frequent small hazards in most roadways.

Trying to accommodate motorists in narrow lanes by keeping right encourages illegal and dangerous passing. We have a lot of footage that we will be using in the Bicycle Law Enforcement Program to demonstrate that.

We also have plenty of video that shows the benefits of using legal lane positioning to encourage safe and legal overtaking and passing.

Bruce also said: “The average arterial right hand lane in Florida is 12 feet, the average car is seven, a three foot gap to pass (generous), leaving more than enough space even if the car doesn’t cheat into the other lane.”

That assumes the left side of the passing vehicle is exactly on the centerline. If there is a truck in the on-coming 12 foot lane, is that going to happen, or is the passing vehicle going to move toward the cyclist? If you ride on the roads, you know the answer.

FDOT says 14 feet is the MINIMUM width of a lane for MOST motor vehicles to safely pass cyclists. Wider vehicles, which are legal up to 10.5 feet need more room. I don’t want to try to share a 12-foot lane with a semi going 45 mph.

I agree with the problem with the use of the term “taking the lane”. It indicates aggressiveness, rather than assertively using the statutes to ride safely. Although I have used that term, I prefer to use “safe and legal road position”.

In the 70’s, another misunderstanding was that cyclists should ride against traffic, and it was safer. I have heard that the laws stated that as well, but I can’t confirm that. That was shown to be unsafe. Many people still believe that is the law.

Despite the belief of many, there is no statutory requirement for cyclists’ to avoid disrupting other traffic. Cyclists (and motorists) should take pride in operating safely and legally. In some situations other traffic may be temporarily delayed, but that is not unlawful. See http://flbikelaw.org/2010/05/bicycles-impeding-traffic/

“Taking the lane” is not a cycling technique, it is mere political theatre. It’s a stunt.

That being said, the foregoing cannot be considered anywhere near a categorical statement. There are many situations where such riding is required, for example those roadway situations listed in 316.2065(5); transitions between roadways of different geometrics; and areas with parallel or angle parking. There, I admit, it is necessary to ride out farther from the curb than is normally required by the side-to-side sway of the average skilled rider (at most, one foot out from the curb face; maybe eight inches from the lip of the gutter pan).

The average arterial right hand lane in Florida is 12 feet, the average car is seven, a three foot gap to pass (generous), leaving more than enough space even if the car doesn’t cheat into the other lane. Lanes less than 12 feet? yes, they are all over, but usually with speed limits below 35 and two-way ADTs below 10,000, where a two-foot clearance is fine or, more typically, a two-foot cheat into the next lane by the car is no problem because the traffic is light and there is no interference.

I’m showing my age (55), but in the 70′s the ability to hold a road edge in a tight, rope-like line was considered the mark of the accomplished rider, not speed. One’s ability to ride on a busy street WITHOUT disrupting traffic was something we took great pride in. The first I ever heard of the “take a lane” concept was when that blowhard Forester came through town in the late 70′s. He didn’t advocate it because it was an improvement in safety, he pushed it as a way of protesting against bike lanes, by saying “hey, if you’re going to paint a stripe four feet out from the curb, “I’m going to ride SIX feet out from the curb.” We, who were teaching the newbies precision, straight-line riding at low to moderate speeds, all thought he was a wack job at the time, and I still think he is a wack job today.

“The only cyclists adversely affected are those misbegotten souls who would use obscurist readings of statutory terms to justify what is, after all, antisocial behavior: ”

I must one of those misbegotten souls you are yammering about.

I don’t know how things work where you come from, but around here the AASHTO Geometry Green Book recommendations are really just recommendations, and not requirements. Much like speed limits, those recommendations are regularly violated.

Let me say this more plainly so you understand me, the AASHTO recommendations are more often ignored than they are followed.

I have attended bicycle/pedestrian meetings where 3 foot bike lanes were talked about as being sufficient since there was no money for ROW acquisition. I measured myself and I am actually 2.5 feet wide, not 2 feet wide as is quoted in all the literature. Heaven help me if I should wobble six inches one way or the other.

When presented with less than a 5 foot lane next to parked cars I do not think it extraordinary to demand more than the lane allows. In fact, being 2.5 feet wide, I will take more than the lane allows. I will take the traffic lane gladly and I will take whatever I need to take to insure my safety. So what if people have to take their foot off the gas for thirty seconds?

I don’t consider it to be an anti-social act to insure my safety. You may, but I don’t.

If the unfortunate clerk’s language in the introduction of the bill is ignored (which has no legal significance) and only the plain text of the change to the statute is considered, the only legal implication of HB 971 is that it removes the prior existing conflict of law that required adherence to the “keep to the right” rule even if a bicycle lane was present. Under the new wording, riding ANYWHERE within the marked lane satisfies the equivalent of the “keep to the right” rule.

The only cyclists adversely affected are those misbegotten souls who would use obscurist readings of statutory terms to justify what is, after all, antisocial behavior: out-of-control bunch riding or head-in-the-clouds cruising six-and-a-half feet out from the curbline under the guise of avoiding a “too narrow lane.”

In this example, a cyclist might be departing a location on the left side of the roadway with the intention not to go straight through the intersection, but to turn left at the next intersection. Crossing three lanes to get to the bike lane, then crossing three lanes again would not seem to be a safer option.

Educated and experienced bicyclists have no problem with being passed on the right when they are riding legally and understand that visibility and being traffic, rather than avoiding other traffic, helps them fare better. Motorists respect cyclists that show that they know what they are doing.

All roadways are different, and present us with many unique situations. We are all free to make the choice.

The point is of this post is that, even with HB 971, the laws permit the use of the left lane of a one-way, multi-lane highway.