sggoodri

Thanks - I'll change the text to make it more accurate.

I would prefer not to legitimize any legislation that specifies when a cyclist may or may not operate away from the right edge of the travel lane, since what we have in NC works quite well as-is. On those roads with wide travel lanes and under conditions when it is safe for cyclists to share the lane, cyclists do so voluntarily under the current law. The only exceptions I can think of in my personal experience are large groups of cyclists that take over the entire rightmost through lane regardless of lane width, typically at intersections, but leave the left lane unoccupied. At such volumes I don't think enforcing lane sharing would serve the interests of safety. Besides, I doubt the NC legislature would accept the 14'/unsharable lane exemption - the bill could easily get passed without it.

Effectively defending cyclists' interests in equitable access to roadways means opposing proposed statute language that has the potential to be interpreted in overly restrictive ways by police, judges, and the general public, but also promoting permissive interpretations of ambiguous laws that are actually on the books. So while I promote interpretations of "practicable" that allow taking the center of a narrow lane, I know that this interpretation is opposed by many who would persecute and prosecute cyclists, and so when an actual law is being drafted, I recommend better language. And while I support 14' sharable lane language in states with mandatory stay-right laws, I think having no bicycle-specific mandatory stay-right law is better for cyclists. When a cyclist is descending a hill at high speed, 14' is not enough space for lane sharing with a truck. These details cannot be adequately expressed in mandatory stay-right laws; meanwhile, courtesy seems to be adequate motivation for cyclists to share wide lanes when it is safe to do so.