That is exactly what cars are. They are weapons loaded with ammunition and ready to be fired. It baffles me that many people don't seem to be aware of this material reality.
Familiarity. "Hmm, I've spent thousands of hours driving carelessly and haven't killed anyone. Why start being careful now? It'll just make me late to my meeting."
(As a cyclist, I think people drive a lot better than they are made out to, however. I can't think of any time anyone's endangered my life.)
As a cyclist, I think 99.99% of people drive a lot better than they are made out to. The 0.005% that meander onto the shoulder and swerve back into their lanes, narrowly avoiding you, are scary. The 0.005% that throw empty beer cans, honk as they drive by, swerve towards you intentionally, or otherwise try to run you off the road are the ones that really get me. I can think of three times when 50+MPH vehicles have been within 6 inches or less of me or my bike. If that doesn't count as endangerment, I don't know what does. Two of my friends have been hit (admittedly, both were in 25 MPH zones, survived with minimal injuries, and the drivers were in the first category).
I've been commuting via bicycle for seven years now. The majority of my experience has been positive. But I can think of five instances off the top of my head where my life was nearly forfeit to dangerous car drivers. Two of these instances I was harassed (profanities + shouting that bicycles don't belong on the road), driven off the road, and expected to be run over. Fwiw, I live in a mid-size city in central CA.
I'm always surprised at the unmitigated hostility at cyclists on the road. Like, nasty aggressive swerving, cussing, etc., all kinds of driving that makes the car driver a far greater liability than the cyclist.
As a longtime bicycle commuter and rider I have several times been on the receiving end of aggressive driving that was clearly intended to intimidate if not outright kill or injure. It is (fortunately) rare, but there are some people who do not seem to understand the responsibilities that come with the privilege of driving a motor vehicle.
You are probably a pretty good cyclist then. As best I can tell, cyclist's opinions of me as a driver tend to be directly correlated to how far into my lane they ride.
The ones that ride smack-dab in the middle of the lane on a 2-lane highway can be counted on to shake their fist at you any time you don't use the entire other lane for passing.
As best I can tell, cyclist's opinions of me as a driver tend to be directly correlated to how far into my lane they ride.
If there are parked cars, you have to move into the lane or risk getting doored. Near intersections, you have to move into the lane or people will cut you off and turn right in front of you when you're going straight. If the road has no shoulder, you have to move into the lane to dissuade people from running you off the road by trying to pass with insufficient space (and to give yourself some margin in case someone tries). The same holds if the shoulder is full of debris. If you're descending a hill, you have to move into the lane so you can maneuver around turns.
Any safe cyclist will spend some time taking a lane of traffic.
In reply to all three of you, I know a cyclist can take a lane. I was mostly referring to the ones that half-pretend to be riding on the shoulder, not taking a lane but not doing a good job staying out of the lane. I liken it to a car using 2 lanes, which is just as frustrating.
When it comes to 2-lane highways, I realize I am a little biased but I expect some co-operation on the part of cyclists. It doesn't have to all be about "me-me-me", but I expect cyclists to work with me to allow me to pass safely, same as I do for cars when I'm cycling on a 2-lane highway.
That. I get annoyed when cyclists aren't riding far enough to the left. Don't go straight through the right side of the right turn only lane. Turn left from the left lane.
Lately I've started riding farther to the left, and I've found it to prevent a lot of annoying situations. One situation that is made much easier is where a there's a traffic light with a lane to the right, but where that right lane becomes parking after the light. Instead of stopping in the right lane, it's much easier to just stop behind the cars. Then you don't have to merge in when the light turns green and you go across the intersection; you're already merged in. And, cars can pass you and turn right on red, which people seem to like to do.
I'm convinced that staying to the right is what kills cyclists. There are doors there, there are pedestrians jumping out in front of you, there are cars turning right. Ride confidently and you avoid all that. You have as much right to a full traffic lane as any other road user.
Don't get killed because you don't want to make someone late for their meeting.
Iirc, CA law says cyclists should use the bicycle lane when safe and convenient, but should not hesitate to act like a motor vehicle in the normal lanes when needed. Like you, I've found staying to the left of right-turn-only lanes prevents a lot of cutoff situations. It sounds like obvious advice, but it can feel intimidating for cyclists not used to traffic.
In my city (at least) cyclists are entitled to a full lane, just as a car is. If there is a curb lane designated for bicycles that is preferred, but a cyclist can always take up a full lane if needed.
(As a cyclist, I think people drive a lot better than they are made out to, however. I can't think of any time anyone's endangered my life.)