Oh, man. This is very similar to how a cyclist, Hans Wichary, was killed near San Diego (in Santa Ysabel) a couple of years ago.

Hans was 3rd in a paceline of 4 cyclists on a narrow 2 lane highway with literally a 2-inch shoulder and 10 foot wide lanes. They were riding as far right as possible (these are undisputed facts) to accomodate potential faster traffic that wanted to pass, but there was no one traveling in their direction at the time.

In the oncoming lane was someone towing a boat, another car, and a Ford F250 pickup with a driver who wanted to pass the two slower vehicles in front of him, and did.

The first two cyclists saw the pickup coming at them, and, in reaction, braked and moved the inch or two further right that they could. The third cyclist, Hans, who happened to not be looking ahead at that moment, was apparently startled by their sudden slowing, and moved left... right into the path of the pickup and was killed instantly. 40 something. Married. Two kids. Gone. Just like that.

When CHP arrived at the scene, they declared the pickup driver did nothing wrong, and sent him home, even before the medical examiner got there. Local cycling advocates, including myself, wrote letters in protest. Eventually, the CHP report came out a few months later declaring that the pickup driver was indeed in violation of the vehicle code as several of us had noted, but the DA decided not to prosecute (apparently feeling a conviction was too unlikely).

In the mean time, the Hans' family sued the pickup driver, who, get this, counter sued the two other cyclists for slowing down and causing the 3rd cyclist to swerve left in front of him, alleging negligence on their part for doing that!

Anyway, for the last two years I have given this and similar hypothetical situations (like your real one) a lot of thought, have gone back and forth a few times, but have finally settled on this analysis:

• Cyclists riding so close to the right are essentially yielding the right of way to the remainder of the lane.
• The cyclist's intent is to yield the ROW to same-direction faster traffic coming from behind, but to an oncoming motorist who wants to pass slower traffic moving in his direction, it can easily look like the space is being yielded to him just as well. Legally, it is not (at least in CA). But in a civil case I think one can make a powerful argument that it was reasonable for him to assume what he did.

It is this case, and reading Cyclecraft by John Franklin, that convinced me that a cyclist should normally use the full lane in a situation like this, riding no further right than the right tire track, and only moving further right temporarily when safe and necessary to help faster traffic behind him pass him, but never any closer than 1.5 feet from the edge of the road.


Never risk your life, of course. Your backup plan is to ride into the ditch, but it's unlikely it will ever come to that.

While motorists often claim they didn't see the cyclist, what's usually really going on is that they don't "see" a reason to not pass. In particular, a cyclist riding off to the side is easy to not "see" as a reason to not pass, while a cyclist riding in the center of the lane is much, much harder to ignore. Even if the motorist does not see you at first, he will almost certainly notice you in the center of the lane as he pulls into your lane, but before the front of his car starts passing the rear of the car in front of him, and, so, in plenty of time to move back in.

I've read about motorists who play "chicken" with cyclists... the motorist moves out into the oncoming lane, and the cyclist takes a more assertive position. The motorist moves back into his lane, and then back out again. As long as the cyclist holds his position, the motorist backs off. This supports my theory that what they really expect is for you to get to the side of the road "where you belong" so that they have room to pass.

I really believe that almost all, if not all, of these motorists really have no idea how dangerous it is to do what they doing. How can they? Even most cyclists don't understand why same-direction close passing is so dangerous (and are perfectly comfortable being passed closely, as long as they are "protected" by a painted bike lane stripe). How is a non-cycling motorist supposed to understand that opposite direction close passing is dangerous when even cyclists don't understand that same direction close passing is dangerous?

That's why you have to hold your ground. If you move to the side, you're giving them the space (and excuse) to pass.

This is why I ride near the center of the lane on roads like this, with a mirror. Every few seconds I do quick micro-second monitor of the road behind me. If I see a motorist coming, I wait until I'm pretty sure they see me (slowing down is a good sign), and then move over to accomodate their passing of me. Waiting until I know they see me is to help prevent an inadverdent drift collision (into me), which is much more likely to occur if a motorist is not aware of the presence of a cyclist up ahead. I believe a motorist is much more likely to be aware of a cyclist riding up ahead who is in the center of his lane, and then moves aside, than he is to be aware of a cyclist just riding along in or near the shoulder. Also, waiting to pull aside, making it obvious that I'm doing so to accomodate their passing of me, is actually an opportunity to show some good will and cooperation to motorists, and their behavior (waving, smiling as they pass, thumb's up) indicates that it's effective. But as soon as there is no one behind me, I move back to my primary riding position (using John Franklin's terminology).