I believe cyclists have an ethical obligation to share wide lanes when it is safe to do so. Just not a legal obligation, in NC, due to the way the law is written to the benefit of cyclists.

I believe NC cyclists are better served by promoting a voluntary paradigm of lane sharing with the legal right to decide for themselves where to position themselves in a lane. The alternate approach, of promoting a legal mandate to stay to the right within a marked lane, but with exceptions, places a greater burden on cyclists, and is more likely to result in unfair treatment of cyclists by police. I believe the public harm of unfair treatment of cyclists operating as far right as is safe - due to frequent misinterpretation of FRAP laws in other states - is greater than the public harm of the very rare cyclist riding in the center of an wide lane and slowing traffic when a position farther right would work just as well.

I've never heard about citizen complaints to police about cyclists holding up traffic in 14' lanes, or police pulling cyclists for riding in the center of 14' lanes. All of the complaints and police actions have been in narrow lanes, or at left turns, or at roadside hazards. Our local clubs do ride two abreast on some group rides in the outside 14' lanes on some 4-lane roads, but this doesn't cause any significant problems.

The problem is the harassment of cyclists in lanes where you say "practicable" wouldn't require hugging anyway. Your solution is to rely on a judge's or police officer's interpretation of the word "practicable." My solution is to rely on a judge's or police officer's interpretation of the word "or."

My approach has been working pretty well so far. Yes, we want to educate the police about why it's not safe or reasonable to hug the right side of the lane in many cases, but that can happen in parallel with the most direct approach to protecting the rights of cyclists who are getting harassed in narrow lanes.