As this was a group ride, the group has likely been down that road before, and has also likely made a concious decision as to how they will handle that particular stretch, deciding to stay two abreast until some designated point. It is the cyclist/group that has to decide what is safely practicable for a given stretch. It sounds like they did so, but we have no way of knowing if, instead, they were merely oblivious to the situation. The cop did much better than most do. Here in Arizona, there are numerous examples of LEO issuing tickets, or finding cyclists at fault in accidents, when the cyclists were obeying the law, and the motorist was not. Then the case goes to court, and often the Superior Court judge is also ignorant of the law, and issues an incorrect decision. It isn't until it gets to the appeals court that there is sufficient knowledge to set things straight. I find that amazing, since the statutes are just not that complicated.

Guess how much training AZ police officers get on the statutes governing cyclists? Zero. Zip. Nada. But wait, the officers on bicycles get training... BUT... it is only on how to safely ride the bike. They aren't trained in the statutes either!

This is ironic, and would even be funny, if it didn't contribute to the risks we cyclists face on the road each day.

There is a lot of ignorance out there. But who do you think is likely to understand the applicable bicycling statutes better: your basic motorist that studied a driver's handbook for 30 minutes prior to a test? The officer who was trained only in the statutes they are most likely to deal with every day? Or someone who rides all the time, has faced unsafe/questionable situations, and who has made sure he/she understands the law?