Originally Posted by DX-MAN
I will say, though, that the passing cyclists doesn't get to decide for the cop (or anyone he's passing) that he wasn't endangering the cop; it's a basic tenet of the "far right as PRACTICABLE" statute that WE have the discretion to decide what's safe (and therefore, practicable). To allow him to say he wasn't endangering the cop gives motorists the same right to say they're not endangering us when they buzz us close enough to write on their foggy windows.
Just sayin'....
And yet, who but, in this case, the cyclist /can/ decide what is safe, at least when it comes down to an individual case of a particular stop at a particular place on the road? I submit that the change lane law was written for ordinary full-width vehicles without considering the realities of two wheeled vehicles in general and bicycles in particular. If a two wheeled vehicle is in the leftmost reasonable position in all but the narrowest lanes will still leave room for even a tall cop to be knocked backwards from the edge of the lane and not get hit. To require a slow cyclist to merge into the left lane of two (in particular) same direction lanes, thereby further slowing an artificial bottleneck where there is still perfectly serviceable space well away from the officer, and when drivers are already likely distracted trying to see what is going on just strikes me as wrong, and at least potentially dangerous for all concerned. On a narrow two lane road I doubt many drivers will actually get all the way to the other side of the road, but rather just vacate the outer half of the lane, especially if traffic is light and they can keep moving at a slower pace. A bicycle, or even a motorcycle does just this without even needing to take up any of the next lane over.
Tor