Educational article

On Jun 16, 9:15 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 16, 2:42 am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:



On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:01:10 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski

wrote:
As is often the case, nobody here gives evidence of having read it.
(...)
http://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-m...of-bicyclists/

As proof that I read the article, I found that clicking on some of the
pictures in Firefox ver 21.0, would produce a Javascript based slide
show of 23 images. Image 5 is black and the viewer hangs on Image 9.
The remainder are erratic, sometimes causing the viewer loading
indicator to endlessly spin. Some of the images can be seen in:
http://iamtraffic.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Image-01.jpg
http://iamtraffic.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Image-23.jpg
by changing the number in the URL, but most are missing. I suspect a
synchronization error between the Lucid v1.5 theme for WordPress and
the photo archive as the likely culprit.

Hmm.

snip

I didn't seem to have any problems.

Naturally.

snip


Regarding discussion above the "****in' DUH" level, let me make it
clear that I don't agree with everything the authors write. In
particular, I don't have a problem with motorists passing me partly
within my lane, so long as they give me adequate passing clearance.
Dan Gutierrez calls those "straddle passes" and seems to detest those,
but many people who are well known in vehicular cycling advocacy seem
to disagree with him on that point.


How wide is a lane that is wide enough to safely share, and where do
you position yourself in such a lane?

How narrow is a lane is not wide enough to safely share, where do you
position yourself in such a lane?

snip

On Jun 16, 3:17*pm, Dan O wrote:
On Jun 16, 9:15 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:









On Jun 16, 2:42 am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:01:10 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski

wrote:
As is often the case, nobody here gives evidence of having read it.
(...)
http://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-m...of-bicyclists/

As proof that I read the article, I found that clicking on some of the
pictures in Firefox ver 21.0, would produce a Javascript based slide
show of 23 images. *Image 5 is black and the viewer hangs on Image 9.
The remainder are erratic, sometimes causing the viewer loading
indicator to endlessly spin. *Some of the images can be seen in:
http://iamtraffic.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Image-01.jpg
http://iamtraffic.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Image-23.jpg
by changing the number in the URL, but most are missing. *I suspect a
synchronization error between the Lucid v1.5 theme for WordPress and
the photo archive as the likely culprit.

Hmm.

snip

I didn't seem to have any problems.

Naturally.

snip



Regarding discussion above the "****in' DUH" level, let me make it
clear that I don't agree with everything the authors write. *In
particular, I don't have a problem with motorists passing me partly
within my lane, so long as they give me adequate passing clearance.
Dan Gutierrez calls those "straddle passes" and seems to detest those,
but many people who are well known in vehicular cycling advocacy seem
to disagree with him on that point.

How wide is a lane that is wide enough to safely share, and where do
you position yourself in such a lane?

How narrow is a lane is not wide enough to safely share, where do you
position yourself in such a lane?

snip

I think in your part of the world, taking the lane means you move left
about six inches -- aren't you in [unnamed, secret rural town] with a
river and a bridge? Riding around that part of the Valley, you're
taking the lane no matter where you are.

Yesterday's ride -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/visit-bend/8341005116/
(minus the pack of cyclists). I was at a conference in Bend and drove
home this morning and did one of my usual loops just to shake out
the legs.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Jun 16, 6:17*pm, Dan O wrote:

How wide is a lane that is wide enough to safely share, and where do
you position yourself in such a lane?

How narrow is a lane is not wide enough to safely share, where do you
position yourself in such a lane?

First, let's be clear that the appropriate measurement is not the
pavement width. Instead, it's the width of the reasonably rideable
pavement. Potholes, glass, bad gravel, railroad tracks, drain grates
etc. are not rideable.

Second, the boundary between "wide enough to safely share" and "too
narrow to safely share" is fuzzy. It can vary depending on the width
of the approaching vehicles (assuming the traffic is reasonably
light). It depends on the traffic volume, on the speed of the motor
vehicles, the speed of the bicyclist, on whether it's a straight and
simple road or whether one's approaching an intersection, and more.

And I'd say it depends to a degree on the bicyclist's judgement. But
as the cited article explains, lots and lots of bicyclists have their
judgement unduly influenced by a false belief that they have no real
right to the road.

Numbers? For me, I'll almost never share an 11 foot lane. I'll
almost always share a 14 foot lane. 12 foot lanes are common on major
roads, and I occasionally share them (narrow car approaching, no
intersections, slow speed, etc.). Sometimes I'll use "control and
release," where I ride lane center then move over a bit when the car
gets closer and has slowed. Generally, I don't share those lanes. In
fact, I now have learned that things work much better if I obviously
take those lanes, so motorists have plenty of time to work out their
lane changes and passing maneuvers. See (again)
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...e-positioning/

- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, June 16, 2013 11:58:12 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 16, 6:17*pm, Dan O wrote:



How wide is a lane that is wide enough to safely share, and where do

you position yourself in such a lane?



How narrow is a lane is not wide enough to safely share, where do you

position yourself in such a lane?



First, let's be clear that the appropriate measurement is not the

pavement width. Instead, it's the width of the reasonably rideable

pavement. Potholes, glass, bad gravel, railroad tracks, drain grates

etc. are not rideable.



Second, the boundary between "wide enough to safely share" and "too

narrow to safely share" is fuzzy. It can vary depending on the width

of the approaching vehicles (assuming the traffic is reasonably

light). It depends on the traffic volume, on the speed of the motor

vehicles, the speed of the bicyclist, on whether it's a straight and

simple road or whether one's approaching an intersection, and more.



And I'd say it depends to a degree on the bicyclist's judgement. But

as the cited article explains, lots and lots of bicyclists have their

judgement unduly influenced by a false belief that they have no real

right to the road.



Numbers? For me, I'll almost never share an 11 foot lane. I'll

almost always share a 14 foot lane. 12 foot lanes are common on major

roads, and I occasionally share them (narrow car approaching, no

intersections, slow speed, etc.). Sometimes I'll use "control and

release," where I ride lane center then move over a bit when the car

gets closer and has slowed. Generally, I don't share those lanes. In

fact, I now have learned that things work much better if I obviously

take those lanes, so motorists have plenty of time to work out their

lane changes and passing maneuvers. See (again)

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...e-positioning/



- Frank Krygowski

How many bicyclists stop to measure the widrh of a lane? I've been riding a bicycle for over 50 years and i couldn't tell you the width of any lane. Just how do you determine how many feet wide a lane is?

Cheers

On Jun 16, 8:58 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 16, 6:17 pm, Dan O wrote:



How wide is a lane that is wide enough to safely share, and where do
you position yourself in such a lane?

How narrow is a lane is not wide enough to safely share, where do you
position yourself in such a lane?


What I was looking for here is under wnat conditions you'd accomodate
a "straddle pass".

First, let's be clear that the appropriate measurement is not the
pavement width. Instead, it's the width of the reasonably rideable
pavement. Potholes, glass, bad gravel, railroad tracks, drain grates
etc. are not rideable.


I agree that road conditions matter. I don't necessarily agree that
those (etc.) are "unrideable" (that would make it tough to get
anywhere even with no other trafffic); but I do agree that - when
being passed by a motor vehicle - you need the most optimum, stable
conditions under your bike.

But basically I was asking oyu the same question you always ask us in
your eight-and-a-half foot truck and ten foot lane scenario - in which
you always So for the purposes of discussion, let's assume "rideable"
conditions.

(I have to say, it sounds like you're saying, "It depends." :-)

Second, the boundary between "wide enough to safely share" and "too
narrow to safely share" is fuzzy. It can vary depending on...

(Thought so. :-)

... the width
of the approaching vehicles (assuming the traffic is reasonably
light). It depends on the traffic volume, on the speed of the motor
vehicles, the speed of the bicyclist, on whether it's a straight and
simple road or whether one's approaching an intersection, and more.


"... and more." So, It depends.

And I'd say it depends...

Ah, "it depends"....

... to a degree on the bicyclist's judgement. But
as the cited article...

What article? (Consider quoting relevant context.)

... explains, lots and lots of bicyclists have their
judgement unduly influenced by a false belief that they have no real
right to the road.


You're changing the subject.

Numbers? For me, I'll almost never share an 11 foot lane. I'll
almost always share a 14 foot lane. 12 foot lanes are common on major
roads, and I occasionally share them (narrow car approaching, no
intersections, slow speed, etc.). Sometimes I'll use "control and
release," where I ride lane center then move over a bit when the car
gets closer and has slowed. Generally, I don't share those lanes. In
fact, I now have learned that things work much better if I obviously
take those lanes, so motorists have plenty of time to work out their
lane changes and passing maneuvers.

So, lane center, then. If you're two feet wide at lane center in a 12
foot lane, and you probably want three feet of passing clearance, that
doesn't accomodate much of a "straddle pass", now does it. And if you
*sometimes* move right a little *after* forcing them to slow first, I
have to say that doesn't sounds like it might be ""undue interference
with the flow of traffic.”

See (again)http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...motorists-with...


I won't "lower" myself to your level of discussion by saying anything
about "riding like twits". If it works for you and Aunt Bea - nothing
wrong with that. As Monderman says, "When Grandma walks out into the
road, you accommodate her" (something like that). Just see if you can
say the same four little words for other approaches.

On Jun 16, 10:21 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Jun 16, 8:58 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Jun 16, 6:17 pm, Dan O wrote:

How wide is a lane that is wide enough to safely share, and where do
you position yourself in such a lane?

How narrow is a lane is not wide enough to safely share, where do you
position yourself in such a lane?

What I was looking for here is under wnat conditions you'd accomodate
a "straddle pass".

First, let's be clear that the appropriate measurement is not the
pavement width. Instead, it's the width of the reasonably rideable
pavement. Potholes, glass, bad gravel, railroad tracks, drain grates
etc. are not rideable.

I agree that road conditions matter. I don't necessarily agree that
those (etc.) are "unrideable" (that would make it tough to get
anywhere even with no other trafffic); but I do agree that - when
being passed by a motor vehicle - you need the most optimum, stable
conditions under your bike.

But basically I was asking oyu the same question you always ask us in
your eight-and-a-half foot truck and ten foot lane scenario - in which
you always...

Uh, my turn to hit send before finished. ... in which you always
scornfully reject "it depends".

So for the purposes of discussion, let's assume "rideable"
conditions.

(I have to say, it sounds like you're saying, "It depends." :-)

Second, the boundary between "wide enough to safely share" and "too
narrow to safely share" is fuzzy. It can vary depending on...

(Thought so. :-)

... the width
of the approaching vehicles (assuming the traffic is reasonably
light). It depends on the traffic volume, on the speed of the motor
vehicles, the speed of the bicyclist, on whether it's a straight and
simple road or whether one's approaching an intersection, and more.

"... and more." So, It depends.

And I'd say it depends...

Ah, "it depends"....

... to a degree on the bicyclist's judgement. But
as the cited article...

What article? (Consider quoting relevant context.)

... explains, lots and lots of bicyclists have their
judgement unduly influenced by a false belief that they have no real
right to the road.

You're changing the subject.

Numbers? For me, I'll almost never share an 11 foot lane. I'll
almost always share a 14 foot lane. 12 foot lanes are common on major
roads, and I occasionally share them (narrow car approaching, no
intersections, slow speed, etc.). Sometimes I'll use "control and
release," where I ride lane center then move over a bit when the car
gets closer and has slowed. Generally, I don't share those lanes. In
fact, I now have learned that things work much better if I obviously
take those lanes, so motorists have plenty of time to work out their
lane changes and passing maneuvers.

So, lane center, then. If you're two feet wide at lane center in a 12
foot lane, and you probably want three feet of passing clearance, that
doesn't accomodate much of a "straddle pass", now does it. And if you
*sometimes* move right a little *after* forcing them to slow first, I
have to say that doesn't sounds like it might be ""undue interference
with the flow of traffic.”

See (again)http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...motorists-with...

I won't "lower" myself to your level of discussion by saying anything
about "riding like twits". If it works for you and Aunt Bea - nothing
wrong with that. As Monderman says, "When Grandma walks out into the
road, you accommodate her" (something like that). Just see if you can
say the same four little words for other approaches.

And before you start in characterizing my approach as drunk wrong-way
no-lights chaos, let me describe my approach:

I generally look for and use routes that minimize interaction with
other traffic. And then I mostly ride anywhere I want to.

But when there is other traffic to deal with - to accomodate and be
accommodated by - I ride as far right as practicable. Actually, let
me qualify that - I ride as far right as practicable if I stay on the
same road with them. I may very well look for an alterantive that
takes me completely out of the practical equation for them. They may
still wonder if I'm going to pop back out in front of them, but I'm
not - that doesn't make any sense at all.

If an adjacent lane is clear for them to use or "straddle" into, I
will maintain a substantial but reasonable space to my right (maybe a
foot-and-a-half or two). If the adjacent lane is unavailable to them,
I will ride carefully within a foot of the right edge (unless
conditions there are bad enough to pose too much risk of a crash). In
almost all cases, the overtaking motorist will *still* wait until they
can at least straddle into the next lane, in some fewer case they will
carefully pass in the same lane, and in some very few cases they will
make a statement of disregard as they pass. But i'm not about to
create "undue interference with the flow of traffic" as SOP because of
those very few assholes who are going to give me the business whatever
I do.

As I've said, there are two places in all my many miles and many
routes where I "take the lane" such that motorists must wait until the
adjacent lane is clear: One is a very short, narrow little bridge
over a ditch; and een there my mere presence *anywhere* on the bridge
necessitates passing cars at least straddle the center line; so there
I stay out a couple of feet from the left edge so as not to invite
some real idiot trying to squeeze by in the same lane.

The other place I is a very fast descent with hairpin curves -
visibility ahead is insufficient to ensure availability of the
adjacent lane for a safe pass at that speed, *and* the road is in very
bad shape, with eroding edges and patches and potholes and washboard
whoop-de-doos - such that it is necessary for me to use most of the
lane just for a reasonably rideable line down the hill. So here I
*do* make it clear to traffic approaching from behind that I'm using
the whole lane, and they universally lay back and wait. The curves
and and my speed being such that it would take a real lunatic to even
consider trying to pass there.

Other than that, I try to not to impede the flow of traffic, *mostly*
by avoiding situations where it's even an issue, but also by using my
riding ability to choose a line that accomodates passing traffic, with
the often realized hope (I'd *like* to say expectation, but that would
be rather naive) of reciprocal regard.

But yes, I do inevitably find myself in the hairy midst of hostile
cagerland cluster*&^%, and then - for a little while - until I can
bust back out of there - it's... what's that movie called - "Premium
Rush"? ;-) (Sorry, but "if cars were six feet long, two feet wide,
and you could pick it up one hand, how do you think people around here
would drive them?”)

On Jun 17, 12:23*am, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, June 16, 2013 11:58:12 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 16, 6:17*pm, Dan O wrote:

How wide is a lane that is wide enough to safely share, and where do

you position yourself in such a lane?

How narrow is a lane is not wide enough to safely share, where do you

position yourself in such a lane?

First, let's be clear that the appropriate measurement is not the

pavement width. *Instead, it's the width of the reasonably rideable

pavement. *Potholes, glass, bad gravel, railroad tracks, drain grates

etc. are not rideable.

Second, the boundary between "wide enough to safely share" and "too

narrow to safely share" is fuzzy. *It can vary depending on the width

of the approaching vehicles (assuming the traffic is reasonably

light). *It depends on the traffic volume, on the speed of the motor

vehicles, the speed of the bicyclist, on whether it's a straight and

simple road or whether one's approaching an intersection, and more.

And I'd say it depends to a degree on the bicyclist's judgement. *But

as the cited article explains, lots and lots of bicyclists have their

judgement unduly influenced by a false belief that they have no real

right to the road.

Numbers? *For me, I'll almost never share an 11 foot lane. *I'll

almost always share a 14 foot lane. *12 foot lanes are common on major

roads, and I occasionally share them (narrow car approaching, no

intersections, slow speed, etc.). *Sometimes I'll use "control and

release," where I ride lane center then move over a bit when the car

gets closer and has slowed. *Generally, I don't share those lanes. *In

fact, I now have learned that things work much better if I obviously

take those lanes, so motorists have plenty of time to work out their

lane changes and passing maneuvers. *See (again)

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...motorists-with...

- Frank Krygowski

How many bicyclists stop to measure the widrh of a lane? I've been riding a bicycle for over 50 years and i couldn't tell you the width of any lane. Just how do you determine how many feet wide a lane is?

OK, first please understand I've been involved in bicyclist advocacy
since at least 1980, so I took an interest in lane width long ago.

Now the geek part: At some time in the 1990s, I parked the car I had
then in an empty parking lot, laid down a measuring tape, and marked
my windshield along the bottom. Using those marks, I was able to get
reasonable estimates of lane width as I drove my car.

For a long time, noting lane widths was something I occasionally did
while driving. I'm still curious about it, although my current cars
don't have the windshield marks. (In a Utah small town a few weeks
ago, I noted with amazement that the two lane residential streets were
fully 60 feet wide! I paced that off as I was walking to my car.)

Of course, I don't physically measure lane width as I ride bike, and
my judgement about whether or not to share is not driven by the
number. But by now, I think I'm pretty good at estimating those
numbers, and they're helpful for explaining technique.

(Further geekiness: In my current old Honda station wagon, I've
installed a bubble level device on the driver's door. It allows me to
measure the gradient of a road as I drive. It was helpful recently
when we were working on bicycle transportation maps for the two-county
region.)

- Frank Krygowski

On Jun 17, 2:39*am, Dan O wrote:

And before you start in characterizing my approach as drunk wrong-way
no-lights chaos, let me describe my approach:

I generally look for and use routes that minimize interaction with
other traffic. *And then I mostly ride anywhere I want to.

Fine. Many of us ride quiet roads when the choice exists. It's an
aesthetic thing. But I do lots of my shopping by bike, and most
stores are on busier roads. Acting as a legitimate vehicle operator, I
can get anywhere, even on busy roads. And acting as a legitimate
vehicle operator makes that much more pleasant.

But when there is other traffic to deal with - to accomodate and be
accommodated by - I ride as far right as practicable. *Actually, let
me qualify that - I ride as far right as practicable if I stay on the
same road with them. *I may very well look for an alterantive that
takes me completely out of the practical equation for them. *They may
still wonder if I'm going to pop back out in front of them, but I'm
not - that doesn't make any sense at all.

Many people ride that way, thinking "alternative that takes me out of
the equation" means sidewalk (up to 13 times as dangerous per mile),
parking lot (where motorists come from any direction without warning),
gravel or grass by the side of the road (where a hidden hole can throw
you down), etc. The imaginary perfect ninja can handle all that; but
real-life cyclists get hurt much more often riding there.

If an adjacent lane is clear for them to use or "straddle" into, I
will maintain a substantial but reasonable space to my right (maybe a
foot-and-a-half or two). *If the adjacent lane is unavailable to them,
I will ride carefully within a foot of the right edge (unless
conditions there are bad enough to pose too much risk of a crash).

Yes, as I suspected. The first piece of negative feedback I got in
the first road cycling class I took (back in the early 1980s) was
"You're riding too far to the right," and I was nowhere near one foot
from the edge. Dan, no matter how much it offends you, you do meet
the definition of an edge rider or gutter bunny. (You can decide
which term is more memorable.)

*In
almost all cases, the overtaking motorist will *still* wait until they
can at least straddle into the next lane, in some fewer case they will
carefully pass in the same lane, and in some very few cases they will
make a statement of disregard as they pass.

However, it's extremely common for people who ride at the edge to
suffer close passes, right hooks, left crosses, pull-outs, etc. And
it's extremely common for people who have learned to move away from
the edge to note that such incidents drop dramatically, to almost
zero. I've described it, my friends have described it, people on VC
forums have described it. In fact, it's not uncommon for those people
to note that they effectively never have such problems any more.

But i'm not about to
create "undue interference with the flow of traffic" as SOP because of
those very few assholes who are going to give me the business whatever
I do.

I think the disconnect here is the definition of "undue." You think
guaranteeing safe passage from motorists is "undue interference" or
"hall monitor" behavior. I think it's specifically permitted by law,
recommended in all competently written bike safety information, and
the only really logical way to ride. You're willing to kowtow to
motorists simply because they're motorists, and assume additional risk
to save them negligible time. I'm not.

As I've said, there are two places in all my many miles and many
routes where I "take the lane" such that motorists must wait until the
adjacent lane is clear: *One is a very short, narrow little bridge
over a ditch; and een there my mere presence *anywhere* on the bridge
necessitates passing cars at least straddle the center line; so there
I stay out a couple of feet from the left edge so as not to invite
some real idiot trying to squeeze by in the same lane.

And does it work?

The other place I is a very fast descent with hairpin curves -
visibility ahead is insufficient to ensure availability of the
adjacent lane for a safe pass at that speed, *and* the road is in very
bad shape, with eroding edges and patches and potholes and washboard
whoop-de-doos - such that it is necessary for me to use most of the
lane just for a reasonably rideable line down the hill. *So here I
*do* make it clear to traffic approaching from behind that I'm using
the whole lane, and they universally lay back and wait. *The curves
and and my speed being such that it would take a real lunatic to even
consider trying to pass there.

So does it work?

Other than that, I try to not to impede the flow of traffic, *mostly*
by avoiding situations where it's even an issue, but also by using my
riding ability to choose a line that accomodates passing traffic, with
the often realized hope (I'd *like* to say expectation, but that would
be rather naive) of reciprocal regard.

And as I've said, I seem to have far fewer hassles from motorists than
most cyclists. Perhaps when a person makes it obvious he has
confidence and knows what he's doing, people respond to that?

But yes, I do inevitably find myself in the hairy midst of hostile
cagerland cluster*&^%, and then - for a little while - until I can
bust back out of there - it's... what's that movie called - "Premium
Rush"? ;-)

Yes, I saw that movie a few months ago. Crazy fantasy bicycling, not
even counting the idea of a guy on a fixie keeping up with a strong
guy on an 11-speed road bike on a long downhill. Too bad there are
guys who believe the fantasy. :-/ Fortunately, most outgrow the
really radical fantasizing by the time they're 25 or so.
Unfortunately, few seem willing to try to learn to improve their real-
world biking. Like teenagers, most bicyclists think they already know
everything.

I know I won't change your mind, Dan. I just thought that some people
might be interested in an in-depth article on the genesis of common
attitudes. And since you seem to tend to forget context, that article
was
http://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-m...of-bicyclists/

- Frank Krygowski

On Jun 17, 9:19*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 17, 2:39*am, Dan O wrote:



And before you start in characterizing my approach as drunk wrong-way
no-lights chaos, let me describe my approach:

I generally look for and use routes that minimize interaction with
other traffic. *And then I mostly ride anywhere I want to.

Fine. *Many of us ride quiet roads when the choice exists. *It's an
aesthetic thing. *But I do lots of my shopping by bike, and most
stores are on busier roads. Acting as a legitimate vehicle operator, I
can get anywhere, even on busy roads. *And acting as a legitimate
vehicle operator makes that much more pleasant.

But when there is other traffic to deal with - to accomodate and be
accommodated by - I ride as far right as practicable. *Actually, let
me qualify that - I ride as far right as practicable if I stay on the
same road with them. *I may very well look for an alterantive that
takes me completely out of the practical equation for them. *They may
still wonder if I'm going to pop back out in front of them, but I'm
not - that doesn't make any sense at all.

Many people ride that way, thinking "alternative that takes me out of
the equation" means sidewalk (up to 13 times as dangerous per mile),
parking lot (where motorists come from any direction without warning),
gravel or grass by the side of the road (where a hidden hole can throw
you down), etc. *The imaginary perfect ninja can handle all that; but
real-life cyclists get hurt much more often riding there.

If an adjacent lane is clear for them to use or "straddle" into, I
will maintain a substantial but reasonable space to my right (maybe a
foot-and-a-half or two). *If the adjacent lane is unavailable to them,
I will ride carefully within a foot of the right edge (unless
conditions there are bad enough to pose too much risk of a crash).

Yes, as I suspected. *The first piece of negative feedback I got in
the first road cycling class I took (back in the early 1980s) was
"You're riding too far to the right," and I was nowhere near one foot
from the edge. *Dan, no matter how much it offends you, you do meet
the definition of an edge rider or gutter bunny. *(You can decide
which term is more memorable.)


I like "Edge Rider" (in *italics* indicating speed :-)

To me a foot from the edge means a foot out of the gutter if there is
one. Gutter is not road, and it's a very poor option to ride in
(though it's not quite "unrideable"). I won't ride within a foot of a
curb, either (curbs and gutters are usually a single entity around
here anyway).

We seem to be having a pretty good discussion here so far. Will have
to get to the rest later. Looking forward to it...

snip