Originally Posted by benjdm

They're referring to Trotwood v. Selz. Selz was given a traffic ticket for 'impeding traffic', violating a city ordinance in Trotwood, OH.


Selz was convicted and the case was appealed up to an appellate court (Ohio's second), where Selz prevailed.
Selz case, Fred Oswald

I would bet this has been pointed out to you before...yup, it was discussed in a previous thread you participated in. It was brought up in post 28, with you making posts both shortly before and shortly after that (posts 7 and 41).
https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-s...do-i-call.html

Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94

Excuse me? I'm not FORCING anyone to do anything. If it's not safe to pass, it's not safe to pass. Doesn't matter if I'm controlling my lane or hugging the edge. If it's not safe to pass, the motorist needs to SLOW THE HELL DOWN momentarily until it's safe to pass. The difference is that when I'm controlling the lane it's crystal clear from hundreds of yards out that the motorist must slow down and wait until it's safe to pass. When hugging the edge line, it's not clear until they're almost on top of you, which is when you get swerving, slamming on brakes, close passes, etc.

It makes perfect sense to me. Why is it so difficult for many people to grasp the concept?

Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94

https://vimeo.com/17300276

Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94

Maybe not two, but moving 3-4 feet left really DOES work. Please watch this whole video, all the way to the end. First half with lane control, ALL motorists change lanes fully and with plenty of time to spare. Second half in the right tire track, a number of motorists split lanes as they pass, or change lanes much too late, which means the following cars have much less warning when he becomes visible. I started controlling my lane when I saw this video, and was amazed at how well it works.

Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94

Why is it so difficult for many people to grasp the concept?

Originally Posted by RoadTire

That particular video is pretty convincing. So is the bright jersey. Good rear lights would have been a welcome addition. Gonna have to find a professional consultant to help me get my wardrobe and lighting setup on the roadbike so I don't look to Fredly.

Originally Posted by spare_wheel

Due to the relatively common perception that cycling is not a genuine/real/equal transportation mode many motorists tend to view cyclists as disagreeable for behavior they would not notice from other modes.

Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94

What makes you think it's a common perception? Internet comments? That's a very small slice of the population, actually. If motorists find me disagreeable, I sure as hell don't know it. I just rode 15.5 miles home from work a couple hours ago, on a mix of rural, multi-lane and residential roads. Not a single problem from the hundreds of cars that passed me. They either passed me without incident or waited until it was safe and then passed. Sometimes I would help them along by flagging them by when it was clear ahead, but mostly people just used their own eyes to judge when it was safe to pass, and did so.

Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94

Maybe not two, but moving 3-4 feet left really DOES work. Please watch this whole video, all the way to the end. First half with lane control, ALL motorists change lanes fully and with plenty of time to spare. Second half in the right tire track, a number of motorists split lanes as they pass, or change lanes much too late, which means the following cars have much less warning when he becomes visible. I started controlling my lane when I saw this video, and was amazed at how well it works.

https://vimeo.com/17300276


Excuse me? I'm not FORCING anyone to do anything. If it's not safe to pass, it's not safe to pass. Doesn't matter if I'm controlling my lane or hugging the edge. If it's not safe to pass, the motorist needs to SLOW THE HELL DOWN momentarily until it's safe to pass. The difference is that when I'm controlling the lane it's crystal clear from hundreds of yards out that the motorist must slow down and wait until it's safe to pass. When hugging the edge line, it's not clear until they're almost on top of you, which is when you get swerving, slamming on brakes, close passes, etc.

It makes perfect sense to me. Why is it so difficult for many people to grasp the concept?



What makes you think it's a common perception? Internet comments? That's a very small slice of the population, actually. If motorists find me disagreeable, I sure as hell don't know it. I just rode 15.5 miles home from work a couple hours ago, on a mix of rural, multi-lane and residential roads. Not a single problem from the hundreds of cars that passed me. They either passed me without incident or waited until it was safe and then passed. Sometimes I would help them along by flagging them by when it was clear ahead, but mostly people just used their own eyes to judge when it was safe to pass, and did so.

Originally Posted by spare_wheel

Due to the relatively common perception that cycling is not a genuine/real/equal transportation mode many motorists tend to view cyclists as disagreeable for behavior they would not notice from other modes.

Originally Posted by spare_wheel

IMO, VC-centric classes taught by "i am traffic" types are a recipe for 1% mode forever. I am one of the most aggressive cyclists who comments here but I still have huge empathy for the 30-40% who are interested in cycling but are not interested in pretending to be motorvehicles or dancing with the bull. These classes need to disappear. They are holding us back.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

You and the video make a lot of noise that some drivers "split lanes" to pass. So What? The drivers gave the cyclist plenty of room. The video claims other drivers "waited too long" to pass. Based on what criteria and what makes anyone think that if the cyclist was several feet more to the left the drivers would have not waited the same amount of time before making their pass?

I call "shennanigans" about the whole phoney baloney intent of the video and the Vehicular Cycling dogmatists of Cycle Savvy. Probably one of the few bicycling organizations still enthralled with the John Forester ideology.

Originally Posted by CylingSavvy

CyclingSavvy stresses the advantages of being different. Bicycling is not merely motoring at a lower speed on a smaller vehicle. People want cycling to be enjoyable, not just safe. To that end, we show cyclists how to develop routes using pleasant, low-speed streets, trails, and connector paths where feasible, and major roadways where necessary. Often travel on a short stretch of major road is required to connect the local streets. By understanding how traffic flow works, cyclists can take advantage of the major roads without excessive interaction with high volumes of auto traffic.

Originally Posted by kickstart

4 feet to the left I would be splitting the lanes, no thanks.

Originally Posted by kickstart

Because the technique is garbage, Its net result is nothing more than an emotionally empowering placebo for those who lack intestinal fortitude.
A vehicle that changes lanes to pass is the same distance from a cyclist in the left tire track as a vehicle straddling the lanes is from a cyclist in the right tire track. Also, speaking from experience, being to the far left is an invitation to being passed on the right, and can be antagonistic to those looking for a reason to express their bias.

Originally Posted by howsteepisit

And millions use other techniques with "great success" although great success is undefined, I will assume its not getting run over.

Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94

Sorry but I want more than just "not being run over". I want a pleasant ride. The truth is that many cyclists riding in bike lanes, at the road edge, and on shoulders or sidewalks DO get run over. So what is the problem then? Should motorists wake the hell up and be more attentive and less distracted? Absolutely. But if I can do something to better my chances of that motorist waking up and noticing me, I'm going to do it. And controlling my lane is the best thing to do. Why? Because I still got close passed even when wearing high-viz and bright flashing lights when I was still edge riding. The ONLY thing that stopped the close passing was controlling my lane.

Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94

If "not getting run over" is the main objective while riding a bike, then that right there is what keeps so many people off the bike. Why not teach people crash avoidance techniques to give them a much better chance of NOT getting run over? That's part of what the CS curriculum does.

Originally Posted by kickstart

Keep in mind that only shows a cherry picked location and set of clips to sell a bill of goods. There isn't one magically "correct" way to ride for all conditions and locations.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

Any credible data or evidence other than anecdotes to support your, LAB's or Cycling Savvy's claim of risk reduction for people trained by Cycling Savvy or LAB's TS101 course?

Originally Posted by Cyclosaurus

You keep claiming this over and over when no one is saying that. There's a difference between saying you have the right to take the lane wherever it's legal and you should take the lane always. It seems almost willful that this point that you try to blur that distinction. I'm not a VCer myself, and I usually ride on the right tire track. But I don't try to belittle people who do take the lane because we have a different riding philosophy. This isn't about making someone feel bad, it's about reinforcing negative pressure for people to choose what they think is safest for them within the bounds of the law. Your endless ranting of, "it's legal but it's still wrong" is essentially telling people that they don't have the right to decide for themselves, regardless if it annoys drivers. If it's legal, you choose for yourself. I support people who encourage others to see VC as a legitimate alternative to more typical riding patterns. I've employed it myself on occasion where it felt like the safest thing.

Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94

I don't believe such data exists, unfortunately. I do know that I've only heard of 2 or 3 people hit while controlling their lane, and zero killed. I have heard/seen far more reports of crashes and deaths of cyclists riding at the edge of the road or on the shoulder.

Originally Posted by kickstart

I ride in the lane more often than not, including the left tire track if warranted by actual conditions. VC is a valid and useful technique when done intelligently, and that includes not doing it dogmatically. Presenting any one technique as a magical cure all for every situation is dangerous and irresponsible, especially when it calls for eschewing shoulders or bike lanes when perfectly safe and usable.