Originally Posted by
Digital_Cowboy
IF a lane is wide enough that cyclists can ride 3 or more abreast. Than why shouldn't we be allowed to do so? I mean down here in Florida a "standard width lane" is 14' wide, so let's say we have a road that has at least two lanes for each direction of travel and it is a "standard width lane" i.e. 14' wide and if 3 cyclists can safely ride side-by-side than why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?
My understanding of Florida law from watching Keri Caffrey's videos is that if the lane if 14' or more wide, then bicyclists are required to keep far right -- which implies that they can't ride two or more abreast. If it's narrower than 14', then bicyclists are not required to keep far right, and can ride 2-3 abreast. The reasoning behind this is that if the lane is narrower than 14 feet then it is too narrow for a bicycle and a car to share safely side by side.
I'd be surprised if 14' was the standard lane width. That would be unusually wide in my experience in most states. I've never been to Florida though I have seen Keri Caffrey's videos and I didn't see 14' wide lanes.
Originally Posted by
dougmc
I concur -- that's a silly law.
My guess is that they were simply adopting the law that permits motorcyclists to ride two abreast (they're bigger, faster, so need more space) for bicycle use?
California's law (CVC 21202) requires bicyclists to keep far right but exempts them from this requirement in substandard width lanes which it defines as a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a car to share safely side by side within the lane. If it is substandard width, then they are exempt from the requirement to keep far right and can ride 2-3 abreast if they want. California law does not name an explicit number for the width of a substandard width lane. However AASHTO and most bicycle safety experts and many state laws or road design standards name 14' as the minimum width of a lane for safe side by side sharing by bicycles and cars.