Originally Posted by
genec
Of course the counter (motorist) argument to this is that a cyclist is very slow traffic and inevitably will be passed... the further to the right said cyclist is, the easier to pass they are.
Easier only if the passing vehicle is going to share the lane with the cyclist.
But the law (and the size of the lane) doesn't really permit that --
545.060. DRIVING ON ROADWAY LANED FOR TRAFFIC.
(a) An operator on a roadway divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic:
(1) shall drive as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane; and
(2) may not move from the lane unless that movement can be made safely.
so they're supposed to stick to one lane -- but Reed's lane was 12' wide, too small to share (unless he was to the very far right, which was not legally required of him, and even so that would likely put the car too close to him for safety, even if the area doesn't have a 3' passing law.)
So if somebody is going to pass him, they should get out of his lane entirely and take the other lane. (Remember, this wasn't a two lane road -- I think it had four.)
As for another cyclist, the law says that two cyclists riding abreast must do so in the same lane -- so it would seem to require it in that case. But that's only for two bicycles, not for a car and a bicycle.