On a road with no bike infrastructure his option is only the best one if you are a physically capable and assertive cyclist, in a place where drivers aren’t dangerously hostile toward cyclists, and also aren’t hostile toward whatever race, gender presentation, clothing, and any other thing you happen to be doing.
So no, most of the time the best option with no infrastructure is still to just stick to the side of the road and not die. Forrester’s system really only works for assertive, athletic, racially privileged men in places where motorists are somehow held to account, and even then it doesn’t save you from that last driver you ever interact with: The one with their face buried in their phone.
Yes. When deciding on any option, it first needs to be an option. As in, something you can actually do.
But what you said about riding on the side of the road and trying to not die, is most of his system. A lot of roads don’t have any shoulder to ride on, so you’re just as far right in the lane as you can be.
Quite the opposite, Forrester insisted that cyclists should ride in the center of the lane, with cars. The central idea of his Vehicular Cycling was that cyclists should be using the road in exactly the same way as drivers.
That is just stupid as BLANK! Even with perfect drivers, something mechanical could cause a dangerous situation & no escape available. Really what protrayed in the video is perfectly/dream land.
I took the course in the 90s.
The rule is, you keep to the right side of the lane you need to use.
So unless you’re making a left, or not using the right turn lane, you keep to the right side of the right-most lane. Which is something like 98% of the time.
There are specific circumstances for that. Something like a narrow one lane, one way alley. When there isn’t enough space for cars to pass you safely, then “Taking the Lane” so to not even suggest it’s an option is the best plan. But that’s only as a last resort for short distances.
On a road with no bike infrastructure his option is only the best one if you are a physically capable and assertive cyclist, in a place where drivers aren’t dangerously hostile toward cyclists, and also aren’t hostile toward whatever race, gender presentation, clothing, and any other thing you happen to be doing.
So no, most of the time the best option with no infrastructure is still to just stick to the side of the road and not die. Forrester’s system really only works for assertive, athletic, racially privileged men in places where motorists are somehow held to account, and even then it doesn’t save you from that last driver you ever interact with: The one with their face buried in their phone.
deleted by creator
Yes. When deciding on any option, it first needs to be an option. As in, something you can actually do.
But what you said about riding on the side of the road and trying to not die, is most of his system. A lot of roads don’t have any shoulder to ride on, so you’re just as far right in the lane as you can be.
Quite the opposite, Forrester insisted that cyclists should ride in the center of the lane, with cars. The central idea of his Vehicular Cycling was that cyclists should be using the road in exactly the same way as drivers.
That is just stupid as BLANK! Even with perfect drivers, something mechanical could cause a dangerous situation & no escape available. Really what protrayed in the video is perfectly/dream land.
I took the course in the 90s.
The rule is, you keep to the right side of the lane you need to use.
So unless you’re making a left, or not using the right turn lane, you keep to the right side of the right-most lane. Which is something like 98% of the time.
Maybe I’m confusing his system with Take The Lane defensive cycling.
There are specific circumstances for that. Something like a narrow one lane, one way alley. When there isn’t enough space for cars to pass you safely, then “Taking the Lane” so to not even suggest it’s an option is the best plan. But that’s only as a last resort for short distances.