If you try to "take the lane" you are essentially positioning yourself in a way that tries to police other drivers behaviour, or block them. This behaviour in a car would annoy people, and it is more annoying on a bike because bikes are slower. I understand sometimes this may make it safer for you, but this is why people are getting annoyed if it's confusing to you.
I also can't know what you consider to be an 'unsafe pass' but these days I think cyclists and road rules seem to expect cyclists to need a totally impractical amount of extra room. I think a few feet is often comfortable, depending on context, when I'm cycling, but official guidance in the UK is 'a car width'. How then should cars pass people cycling side by side? Not at all? I personally think these rules have created a more toxic situation on UK roads. They need to be more practical if they want better conformance. They do also need to be policed. But I strongly advise members of the public to not try and enforce them themselves.
>If you try to "take the lane" you are essentially positioning yourself in a way that tries to police other drivers behaviour, or block them.
If a driver gets so annoyed at another road user that they'll honk at them or become agressive, then the driver is by this definiton trying to police the other's behaviour.
But really this should not be a battle between 'drivers' and 'cyclists'. Most people can be both, and certainly most cyclists are also at least occasionally drivers.
When a cyclist 'takes the lane' they are trying to signal to the drivers behind them that a narrow pass is unsafe, if they need to pass then they need to wait for a clear road from the opposite lane, just as if the cycle was a large slow motor vehicle. Except the cycle gives the passing driver excellent visibility and an easy pass.
Another reason can be if the cyclist has an upcoming left turn, they obviously need to position themselves towards the left of the lane (s/left/right/[UK,AUS,NZ,IN,etc]).
Ok, but then the more appropriate recommendation would be a periodic pshycological evaluation for drivers, not to tell vulnerable road users to stay away.
Most roads in the UK have two lanes, both of which are wider than a standard cars width, so if there’s no oncoming traffic it’s perfectly safe for a cyclist positioned in the middle of their lane to be overtaken by the driver using most/all of the opposite lane.
I don’t know what you’re expecting a cyclist to do when legally using a road ? cram themselves into the leftmost 50cm of carriageway so the truck can skim past through oncoming traffic, leaving no room for error ?
Your “strong advice” against cycling defensively, as the GP was describing, is harmful. Positioning yourself to allow maximum room for error and unforeseen circumstances is literally the first thing that you’re taught on any cycling proficiency course.
I don't know where you got this statistic from but it's not true where I live.
>Your “strong advice” against cycling defensively
I didn't advise that, I said don't try to enforce rules. I think you should "take the lane" sometimes.
These cycling proficiency courses that tell people to cycle in the middle for no reason sound harmful.
>I don’t know what you’re expect a cyclist to do when legally using a road ? cram themselves into the leftmost 50cm of carriageway so the truck can skim past through oncoming traffic, leaving no room for error ?
As I said, depends on context. This is safe depending on vehicles involved, road, speed, conditions. I'm going to cycle like this, you don't have to.
> I'm going to cycle like this, you don't have to.
Exactly. The law allows a cyclist to “take the lane”, so many of us do. This isn’t “policing” other drivers, it’s simply following the rules of the road and staying safe.
But sometimes it's not necessary, then you're just blocking people unnecessarily. Which is not very sociable in my opinion, but I won't freak out and be aggressive/dangerous. But insane people will. And I don't get why someone would choose this confrontation when they can just share the road.
The road works because it is governed by written rules. The written rules allow the cyclist to take the lane. If you don't want to obey the written rules don't operate a motor vehicle.
You didn’t. You gave “strong advise” and an opinion on passing cyclists with a “few feet” of room, which is dangerous and contrary to the highway code, which states a minimum of 1.5m.
It's not dangerous at all depending on context, a word I was careful to use. You don't have a magic bubble around you that makes you safe with a 1.5m radius.
Think of it like this - if you’re driving your car within 50cm of me on my bike, and I swerve to avoid something, or fall off sideways, you’re more likely to hit me than if you’re passing at 1.5m.
Context has nothing to do with it. Just obey the law and let cyclists ride the roads without someone in a metal box deciding what level risk they should be exposed to.
A car shouldn't pass a cyclist in the same lane, it's dangerous to the cyclist.
Just pass like you would a slow car, by using a different lane. I do it all the time, I promise you it won't make much if any difference to your arrival time.
I also can't know what you consider to be an 'unsafe pass' but these days I think cyclists and road rules seem to expect cyclists to need a totally impractical amount of extra room. I think a few feet is often comfortable, depending on context, when I'm cycling, but official guidance in the UK is 'a car width'. How then should cars pass people cycling side by side? Not at all? I personally think these rules have created a more toxic situation on UK roads. They need to be more practical if they want better conformance. They do also need to be policed. But I strongly advise members of the public to not try and enforce them themselves.