Advocacy & Safety - Hogging a lane and becoming an obstacle

On my A1A ride yesterday, I watched a pack of appprox. 20 cyclists coming down off Boca Inlet bridge and as they hit the bottom, they remained in the center of the road with several cars "patiently?" trailing behind them. It's not like they were racing; they were chatting to each other etc. This whole stretch of A1A has bike lanes so cars can safely pass. Instead this group continued 3 and 4 across and blocked the motor vehicles from passing.

How do you folks view this? Is it okay or the norm in group rides?

I think it's one reason that some motorists have a gripe about cyclists. I think it's arrogant on the part of the riders. Go ahead and fire away. I'm just looking for some opinions.

PS; on the riders behalf, it's much safer to stretch out on these bridges because of the metal grating and some motorists will try and pass instead of waiting another 30-seconds. It would be a long fall and swim assuming you don't fall onto the deck of a boat. But still......:(

A&S xxxxx

I agree, it's arrogant. I ride in large groups like that all the time and sometimes we let cars build up behind us but as soon as there is a clear shot we ride single file if possible and wave them on. In my state two abreast is legal till there is a faster vehicle wanting to pass. 4 abreast is not sharing the road and indeed would piss off your average driver.

Sometimes though it's safer to travel in a tight pack then it's analogous to following a slow car (hazard lights on) or farm vehicle. Drivers won't complain about the farm vehicle as much as they would the bikes though - go figure. IT would be very dangerous for cars to pass 20 riders single file around a corner and when drivers approach and see riders single file it invites them to zip right on by.

So it depends on the situation but four abreast none the less is not right.

A&S xxxxx

Perfect. Wouldn't want to get off course in the Road Cycling forum with this topic. Thanks a bunch.

Perfect. Wouldn't want to get off course in the Road Cycling forum with this topic. Thanks a bunch.

You're welcome.

i try and stay 3 feet from the white line to share, but if people start making boneheaded passes because i'm giving up too much lane to the left of me, I plop my self dead center of the lane so they have to swing to the other lane to pass me.

It pisses me off when a car passes me when another car's coming in the other lane. Putting me and the oncoming car in danger to save 3 seconds isn't gonna fly.

For a minute there, I thought A&S meant Arrogant and Selfish.

For a minute there, I thought A&S meant Arrogant and Selfish.

Considering the source, you're not far off track.

Considering the source, you're not far off track.

:roflmao2:

I don't know the particulars of the traffic in the example the OP gave, but I take the lane as a single rider quite regularly. I do it most commonly when I'm riding the same speed as traffic or when there's no safe shoulder for me to ride on (like the short overpasses I have to navigate to get out of the city to the country roads). As a single rider, occasionally I'll use the sidewalk over those overpasses if traffic is really heavy (rush hour).

Mac

The law typically states that if there are multiple lanes in a given direction then cyclists can occupy the entire lane. If there is a single lane, then they need to ride as far right as safely possible. It does not sound like this pack of cyclists were doing so in this situation, and thus, as far as the law is concerned is in the wrong. I tend to agree with the law in this case as well.

There are stretches of single lane road where our club will not typically single up and ride to the right of the lane. These case are few, and as per the law, is because it is not safe to do so. Usually because we are approaching a left hand turn where giving a motorist the idea to pass us would be unsafe, or likewise on a winding section of road where it would be equally unsafe.

Varies by state as to situations where taking the lane is permitted. In Michigan there is a 'no mandatory sidepath' law. So a paved shoulder or bike lane being there would be immaterial. I don't like riding in bike lanes or on shoulders because that's where all the flat-causing debris is. Also, we are allowed to take the lane if it is too narrow to safely share (minimum 3-foot passing rule, which means anything under 14 feet wide would be considered 'substandard.') Ironically, these rules mean I often take the lane when, if there were simply a wide outside lane, I would be able to safely ride further to the right.

Bike lanes don't exist for the convenience of cars, although I'm sure that's what they think. Bike lanes exist because too many beginner riders ask for them, believing that a 4" wide paint line will somehow keep those big bad cars from rear-ending them.

it's the same as a big slow truck, i don't see the problem.

A&S xxxxx

:thumb: This is a perfect thread...for A&S

http://img125.echo.cx/img125/7155/attention9ha.gif

Not to hijack, but my experience has been that drivers really respect white lines.

Just saying.

:thumb: This is a perfect thread...for A&S

http://img125.echo.cx/img125/7155/attention9ha.gif

And so it goes......

My view is that in large groups, it is better to remain as a pack---strength in numbers---and just because there is a bike lane, it doesn't mean cyclists must use it or remain in it, at least here in Ontario. Cyclists are entitled to the entire right lane, generally, and, if turning left, may occupy the entire left lane. If some motorists are inconvenienced, so be it. The cyclists are not doing anything illegal and are not endangering anyone either. Motorists don't feel the slightest bit guilty about inconveniencing, endangering and imposing their exhaust fumes on cyclists, why should they feel agrieved if cyclists adopt a similar attitude or impose upon them a little?

If there was a parade of cars moving slower than normal, would the motorists waiting behind demand they move into the bike lane? No. Sharing the road sometimes means having to go slower and endure inconveniences. I think it's arrogant for motorists to think cyclists should get out of their way simply because they have the ability to go faster. Just because they can go faster, doesn't mean they should.

I was of the understanding that cyclist lost the fight to get 5 feet wide bike lanes on much of A1A and as a result many bike lanes there are 3 feet or less wide. If that is true, I would not be willing to use the bike lanes either.

Also, are the bike lanes free of glass and other debris? It is extremely unsafe if the cyclist in a group ride have to move out of the bike lane to avoid debris.

^^^ The cycle lanes on A1A are wide enough for 2 riders, side by side.
Arrogant roadies are a huge problem in this area. Ive attended meetings
to try to advocate and when you see the home movies of what people are
talking about there is nothing to defend. This is a good A&S thread because
a lot of these people will not ride in the lane even if it is open. Yeah, you can
legally take the road, but why when you know you are only contributing to an
already over the top culture of hostility ?

If the road is under 14 feet width, riders have the legal right to ride no more then two abreast in a lane. Florida does not have a mandatory BL use law either.

However, you describe "three and four across" - do you mean riders? I would assume so.

I'm still not entirely clear on your description of the situation, though if I may say so, provided the riders were taking up one lane, while a second lane to the left or right is free for traffic to safely pass, I see no problem in such use of the lane. Besides the fact that it is legal to do so on a sub-14ft lane, the cluster of cyclists riding 2-abreast is far shorter to pass then a single line.

Likewise, it protects the group far more then if they were spread across a single line down the BL (particularly in the case of possible left-hooks at intersections) and it prevents any long string of cyclists from plugging the entire road in a left-turn merge situation.

-Kurt

I thought only arrogant motorists can take up extra room on the roadway. The need to move 4 empty seats at speeds that make motoring the #2 killer performs a "greater good" for our society then any health or global warming benefit cyclists will ever hope to accomplish.
[/sarcasm]

Bikes on road. Big deal. Motorists can either slow down, or start cycling. Or just keep on whimperin' and whamperin' about those Horrible Bikes that -gasp- Slow Them Down.

The nerve of those roadies to ride their road bikes on the road!

Drivers won't complain about the farm vehicle as much as they would the bikes though - go figure.

Maybe because farm equipment is a fixed width. The tractor cannot make itself skinner. A pack of bikes can easily do so, and should, especially if there is a bike lane available.

it's the same as a big slow truck, i don't see the problem.

Yeah except they're expected to actually pull over and stop off the road is need be to let vehicles pass...


I agree with what someone said up higher, drop to single file and let them pass safely.




PS; on the riders behalf, it's much safer to stretch out on these bridges because of the metal grating and some motorists will try and pass instead of waiting another 30-seconds. It would be a long fall and swim assuming you don't fall onto the deck of a boat. But still......:(
Alas, it comes down to safety, if they don't feel safe letting them pass yet, then wait it out a little while longer, but don't be cruising along being little chatheads without acknowledging there are people waiting on you.

On my A1A ride yesterday, I watched a pack of appprox. 20 cyclists coming down off Boca Inlet bridge and as they hit the bottom, they remained in the center of the road with several cars "patiently?" trailing behind them. It's not like they were racing; they were chatting to each other etc. This whole stretch of A1A has bike lanes so cars can safely pass. Instead this group continued 3 and 4 across and blocked the motor vehicles from passing.

How do you folks view this? Is it okay or the norm in group rides?

I think it's one reason that some motorists have a gripe about cyclists. I think it's arrogant on the part of the riders. Go ahead and fire away. I'm just looking for some opinions.

PS; on the riders behalf, it's much safer to stretch out on these bridges because of the metal grating and some motorists will try and pass instead of waiting another 30-seconds. It would be a long fall and swim assuming you don't fall onto the deck of a boat. But still......:(

Not only do I know exactly where this is but I have biked in the area. I can offer no more than an opinion I guess.

It is simply ********, very unsafe, and extremely arrogant of the group to do this. Riders, me included, complain all the time of the a-hole motorists doing all kinds of crap, but this is a prime example of instigating hate and reaction. I see it all the time on A1A from Miami all the way as far north as Jupiter and even Ft. Pierce. Just because you can ride and take the lane with numbers doesn't mean you should. It also doesn't make you safer as drivers sitting behind you are not patiently waiting. They are simply looking for a way to pass you, and will do so at the first chance even it it means taking someone out. I have seen it many times already.

My advice to others, for whatever it is worth, is to ride as if anything alive out on the road is out with the single purpose of killing you. It doesn't matter if it is a rabbit, a motorcycle, a car, a truck, or even a pedestrian. Let them pass you, let then go first, signal with your hands even the obvious, etc. After you are down and injured with a broken bike, it DOES NOT matter whose fault it was.

Not only do I know exactly where this is but I have biked in the area. I can offer no more than an opinion I guess.

It is simply ********, very unsafe, and extremely arrogant of the group to do this. Riders, me included, complain all the time of the a-hole motorists doing all kinds of crap, but this is a prime example of instigating hate and reaction. I see it all the time on A1A from Miami all the way as far north as Jupiter and even Ft. Pierce. Just because you can ride and take the lane with numbers doesn't mean you should. It also doesn't make you safer as drivers sitting behind you are not patiently waiting. They are simply looking for a way to pass you, and will do so at the first chance even it it means taking someone out. I have seen it many times already.

My advice to others, for whatever it is worth, is to ride as if anything alive out on the road is out with the single purpose of killing you. It doesn't matter if it is a rabbit, a motorcycle, a car, a truck, or even a pedestrian. Let them pass you, let then go first, signal with your hands even the obvious, etc. After you are down and injured with a broken bike, it DOES NOT matter whose fault it was.

:thumb:

This pretty much sums it up.

Most FL. motorists are dopes but pavlovianly trained to somewhat respect the
lines on A1A. When the lane is almost five feet wide, why is it necassary to
ride to the left of the lane line by a foot and hold people up ? This can only
be interprited as making a militant statement to which you are not going to
endear yourself to anyone. I can only suppose a large portion of the roadie
population has a way different way of looking at things if they are only riding
A1A or Jupiter Island, etc.....Doing their best to anger people on the weekend
gets passed on to us utilitarian bikers on the other 5 days of the week in
the not so scenic and pleasant areas.

I really think it depends on whether it's a busy road or not, and whether it's a long straight road or a twisty one.

This got me thinking about a ride in Toronto called the "Donut Ride". A large group ride that leaves from downtown TO every weekend or so.

Here are some pics

http://www.moralesimages.com/cyclists.htm

I'm sure motorists must be thrilled, lol.

How may cars were there? If there were less than the 20 bikes, then the bikes were "traffic" & had every right to hold the lane. I wouldn't ride four abreast, but other than that, there was nothing wrong with what they did. Most states have laws allowing cyclists to take the lane when going the same speed as traffic. So, if there are more bikes on the road than cars, bikes are "traffic". Try getting a cager cop to understand that though:)

i try and stay 3 feet from the white line to share, but if people start making boneheaded passes because i'm giving up too much lane to the left of me, I plop my self dead center of the lane so they have to swing to the other lane to pass me.

It pisses me off when a car passes me when another car's coming in the other lane. Putting me and the oncoming car in danger to save 3 seconds isn't gonna fly.

yep, and when the moron behind me honks because I'm taking the lane when it is clearly unsafe for him to pass me or because there is a red light ahead I just wave, once I had a guy yell at me saying I cannot be in the middle of the road as he tried to cut me off at a red light, then when I got my position back I told him to read the laws, and in the end he just stayed behind me for the next half mile stretch, didn't have anything to do with me taking the entire lane though:innocent: but I was going 25 in a 30 so he can live with it, and technically it's on the University campus so the speed limit might even be 25 on that stretch

I don't need a pack of riders to help me 'hog' a lane if i feel i need to claim the entire lane for my safety. coming off a giant intercoastal waterway bridge, I'd likely be in the middle of the lane all by myself unless there was a six foot relatively clean shoulder/bike lane to ride in.

there's a legal opinion that bicyclists, being traffic, can never be impeding traffic, as they are part of the prevailing speed of traffic on any given road they are allowed to ride.

goodwill towards bicyclists from motorists over the virtues of our lane position is another issue entirely.

I don't need a pack of riders to help me 'hog' a lane if i feel i need to claim the entire lane for my safety. coming off a giant intercoastal waterway bridge, I'd likely be in the middle of the lane all by myself unless there was a six foot relatively clean shoulder/bike lane to ride in.

there's a legal opinion that bicyclists, being traffic, can never be impeding traffic, as they are part of the prevailing speed of traffic on any given road they are allowed to ride.

goodwill towards bicyclists from motorists over the virtues of our lane position is another issue entirely.Sounds like that VC stuff that you hate so much Bek.

Good enough for you Bek, because you think you are so superior to other cyclist (the cyclist that you do not believe can learn VC).

there's a legal opinion that bicyclists, being traffic, can never be impeding traffic, as they are part of the prevailing speed of traffic on any given road they are allowed to ride.
So are trucks, but legally they are required to pull over when available when enough cars pack up behind them.

So either: A) bikes are vehicles, this logic applies, or B) bikes are not vehicles.

I'm just being consistent.

I feel that most of the time, a pack is better off two abreast. Motorists don't have to go that much further over the other lane to pass, and they must do so for half as long, because the group is half the length. It might be hard for a motorist following a bunch of cyclists to see just how long the thing they are about to overtake actually is. We don't have "long vehicle" signs on our bums, but often the pack is just that.
Also, a group in single file encourages a certain kind of motorist to overtake into oncoming traffic, which is unsafe. This kind of driver thinks that overtaking cyclists "doesn't count", and they needn't follow normal safety procedures. I think they just don't realise how far into the opposite lane they must go to pass a cyclist. Were they to encounter a wide vehicle coming the other way, my guess is that they'd swerve into the pack of cyclists. I don't want that to happen to me.

actually, will, that 'pull over' regulation applies in most states only to two lane, highway speed roads.

On multiple laned roads or city streets there is no such requirement.

that is a generalization but that's the general rub on the 'impeding traffic, pull over' laws.

bikes are vehicles and are not required to pull over on a city street or multiple laned road if they 'impede' motorists.

Now, I'm a believer of give and take on the roads. Road groups can be polite and move to the single lineup as soon as practicable to allow motorists to pass, but I think big packs of road riders present a slow moving band of traffic that motorists must learn to cope with.

Additionally how does the bicycling community police this?? There is no one rider leading packs of rides unless it's a disciplined team ride - most 'club' rides are totally disorganized affairs of doofus moves and miscommunications, overlapping wheels and wild trajectories.

having viewed some pics of the boca inlet bridge, its not a big multiple laned intercoastal bridge but a relatively small two laner. but the slope still probably puts riders up to 35 mph coming off it and there's a lot of road static on the offrun.

motorists in that area should learn to expect bicyclists 'impeding' traffic coming off that bridge deck.

actually, will, that 'pull over' regulation applies in most states only to two lane, highway speed roads.


Wanna get me a quote? Being as I've seen it being used on roads that aren't highway speed.

Wanna get me a quote? Being as I've seen it being used on roads that aren't highway speed.



"Most places in the United States have what has become known as a slow-vehicle law. The law is designed so that a vehicle traveling at a low rate of speed doesn't impede the flow of traffic or cause traffic hazards.

The law basically states that if you are traveling in a slow moving vehicle on a two-lane highway and there are five or more cars backed up behind you, you must pull off to the side of the road at the nearest safely accessible turnout."

http://ezinearticles.com/?Explaining-The-Slow-Moving-Vehicle-Law&id=1004799

http://ezinearticles.com/?Explaining-The-Slow-Moving-Vehicle-Law&id=1004799

Oh an opinion article on a website where anyone can publish content? Awesome.


Get me the law.

I searched the Florida traffic laws and couldn't find any specifics. It states no motor vehicle operator shall impede the regular/reasonable flow of traffic unless required for safe operation or to comply with law. No detail about how many vehicles constitutes impeding, nor a resolution about pulling over when safe to let impeded vehicles pass.

There are no provisions in the Florida traffic law concerning cyclists impeding traffic except for the two abreast rule. This rule only applies to lanes that may be shared. No mention of pulling over to let faster moving vehicles pass.

FWIW This is a great resource on the UVC and variations by state for bike/ped laws.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/bike/resourceguide/dldirections.html

Oh an opinion article on a website where anyone can publish content? Awesome.


Get me the law.

Delaware:

§ 4125. Turning off roadway by slow-moving vehicle.

On a 2-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, behind which 5 or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. As used in this section, a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place. (60 Del. Laws, c. 701, § 24.)

http://delcode.delaware.gov/title21/c041/sc03/index.shtml#TopOfPage

Pennsylvania:

§ 3364. Minimum speed regulation.
(a) Impeding movement of traffic prohibited.--Except when reduced speed is necessary for safe
operation or in compliance with law, no person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to
impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
(b) Slow moving vehicle to drive off roadway.--Except when reduced speed is necessary for safe
operation or in compliance with law, whenever any person drives a vehicle upon a roadway having
width for not more than one lane of traffic in each direction at less than the maximum posted speed
and at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the driver shall,
at the first opportunity when and where it is reasonable and safe to do so and after giving appropriate
signal, drive completely off the roadway and onto the berm or shoulder of the highway. The driver
may return to the roadway after giving appropriate signal only when the movement can be made in
safety and so as not to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms/vehicle_code/chapter31.pdf

California:

21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21656.htm

There are plenty more but these are the ones I had handy. Not every state has this law either. I used to confuse this law with the impeding traffic laws but have since been convinced that the "turning off roadway" laws are a seperate entity. Impeding traffic is the intentional act of causing traffic to move slower than it otherwise could. A slow moving vehicle is one that cannot safely travel any faster and as such cannot impede traffic, but still must comply with the "turning off roadway" law.

Don't see anything about freeway only speed, just normal operating speed of the road.

Don't see anything about freeway only speed, just normal operating speed of the road.

Two things. First, I do not know what "highway" speed is. Any public road is a "highway" so highway speed can mean anywhere from 15-80mph in my experience. Freeways are a different type of roadway which generally have slow moving vehicle bans and never are only one lane in each direction. Hence discussing freeways is not applicable to this discussion.

Second, I did not realize that Bek was trying to make the point that the "turning off roadway" laws only applied on (presumably) higher speed roads. That distinction is not made in any of the laws. The only interesting difference between the laws quoted is the use of "normal speed" or "normal and reasonable" speed. "Normal speed" could easily be interpretted as meaning one must travel faster than the speed limit to not be a slow moving vehicle. The latter offers a lot more wiggle room for what is "slow".

FWIW, I've pulled over to let backed up traffic pass on roads ranging from 25-55mph.

all about 'motor vehicles' or 'two lane highways'.... that california law codifies it as occuring at a place signed by the highway authorities..... and bikes aren't 'vehicles' in california, nor a motor vehicle in pennsylvania.

the spirit of the law is to apply to slow moving motor vehicles on two lane highways.


are you bicyclists actually lobbying for us to have to pull over everytime we're moving slower than the cars on every road????


:eek: shocking.

all about 'motor vehicles' or 'two lane highways'.... that california law codifies it as occuring at a place signed by the highway authorities.....

You really only read what you want to read. All three laws quoted apply to all vehicles, which includes cyclists. The CA law also mentions turning off the roadway "wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists."

remember, joe, a bike is not a motor vehicle, nor is it a even considered a vehicle in california. and delaware does not consider a bicycle a vehicle either except as a special class. 'vehicle' as defined in delaware excludes human powered devices.

from delaware code.... "Vehicle" means every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, excepting devices moved by human power....."

learn to interpret the laws if you're going to attempt to clarify them.

Bek,

CVC 21200
Every person riding a bicycle upon a street or highway has all the rights and is subject to all the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle, including the provisions of law dealing with driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.

As is pertinent, every public road in California is considered a highway. As has already been mentioned:

CVC 21656
On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

A bicyclist moving slowly on a 2-lane road (with traffic accumulating) is required by law to utilize a turnout, or where safe, to allow faster traffic to pass. This is how the California Vehicle Code works, and this law does apply to bicycles.

Two things. First, I do not know what "highway" speed is. Any public road is a "highway" so highway speed can mean anywhere from 15-80mph in my experience. Freeways are a different type of roadway which generally have slow moving vehicle bans and never are only one lane in each direction. Hence discussing freeways is not applicable to this discussion.

Second, I did not realize that Bek was trying to make the point that the "turning off roadway" laws only applied on (presumably) higher speed roads. That distinction is not made in any of the laws. The only interesting difference between the laws quoted is the use of "normal speed" or "normal and reasonable" speed. "Normal speed" could easily be interpretted as meaning one must travel faster than the speed limit to not be a slow moving vehicle. The latter offers a lot more wiggle room for what is "slow".

FWIW, I've pulled over to let backed up traffic pass on roads ranging from 25-55mph.


This is why:


actually, will, that 'pull over' regulation applies in most states only to two lane, highway speed roads.
I just get picky when something doesn't sound right.




all about 'motor vehicles' or 'two lane highways'.... that california law codifies it as occuring at a place signed by the highway authorities..... and bikes aren't 'vehicles' in california, nor a motor vehicle in pennsylvania.

the spirit of the law is to apply to slow moving motor vehicles on two lane highways.


are you bicyclists actually lobbying for us to have to pull over everytime we're moving slower than the cars on every road????


:eek: shocking.
Only one of the laws mention "motor vehicle", before we go playing lawyer you need to read more closely, not to mention that only applies to subsection A.


However, I'm not so much going to say you're completely wrong, I'm just saying you need to be consistent when you say "A bike is a vehicle and has as much as a right to the road as one" (an all too common flag to wave around here without putting consistent treatment behind it), I don't know your exact stance so I'm not going to make a rant against you, all you can say is "a bike is not a vehicle" and it's fine.


Though I'd like to know about California not counting a bike as a vehicle, being as I'm pretty sure you can still get ticketed for running red lights, and that's a vehicular specific law is it not?

Second, I did not realize that Bek was trying to make the point that the "turning off roadway" laws only applied on (presumably) higher speed roads. That distinction is not made in any of the laws. The only interesting difference between the laws quoted is the use of "normal speed" or "normal and reasonable" speed. "Normal speed" could easily be interpretted as meaning one must travel faster than the speed limit to not be a slow moving vehicle. The latter offers a lot more wiggle room for what is "slow".

FWIW, I've pulled over to let backed up traffic pass on roads ranging from 25-55mph.


California, in practice, tends to follow a principle built around the flow of traffic, that a highway could be safely traveling faster than the established speed limit at which point this becomes the normal speed. Try driving LA highways - the traffic is going 20 over, and the cops are absolutely apathetic about it. It's the guys going 30 over who get targeted, because they are faster than the flow of traffic. Anecdotally, I've heard of drivers pulled over on the highway for going too slow (driving a little under the speed limit when traffic was flowing well over) - no ticket, but a request from the cop to keep up with traffic.

That's my understanding anyways. Keeping up with average traffic is a good idea in an automobile anyways - otherwise you eventually get rear-ended by some idiot who wasn't watching.

california does not recognize a bicycle as a vehicle......


from California code....

"A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be
propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved
exclusively by human power"

and a five minute read of the pennsylvania statutes clarifies that the chapter quoted above about 'slow moving vehicle' expressly does not apply to bicycles. chapter 3301b contains the only slow moving laws that apply to bicyclists, not 3364....


gentleman, having given this more than the cursory review provided those so quick to sell off our right to the road to motor vehicle operation, i need to clarify:

bikes are generally not required under slow moving vehicle statutes to pull off a roadway to allow motorized vehicles to pass.

these 'slow movers pull off' laws you all vaguely reference are generally codified to apply only to motor vehicles.

regardless of how much some of you want to kowtow to faster motorists, I'm not going to be pulling off the road and stopping to allow motorists to pass me, i'll ride as far right as practicable and

keep on truckin'

becasue that's what MY read of the state laws surrounding bicycle operation in the face of faster traffic indicates!!!