Old 09-06-13 | 11:30 AM
  #30  
B. Carfree
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,037
Likes: 11
From: Eugene, Oregon
Originally Posted by merlinextraligh
Agreed the Judge made the proper decision. What is so unreasonable about requiring bikes to ride as far right as practicable?

The plaintiff is in this case is a self righteous zealot. Going around riding in the middle of the lane on a highway, holding up traffic, where it's safe to move to the right side of the lane is not doing any favors for cyclists.
I agree that the cyclist is a self righteous zealot. However, how can it be argued that he is holding up traffic when there is a lane available to pass him? And unless that lane he is in is over thirteen feet wide, he would be offering a dangerous invitation to same-lane passing if he hugged the fog line, which makes it impracticable to hug the side.

So, we agree that cyclists shouldn't have a big problem with riding as far to the right as is practicable, but you seem to be omitting the safety component of practicable; practicable is not the same as possible. We ride in the real world and I would think any cyclist with a reasonable amount of experience on the road would know the danger of inviting a close pass by hugging the right in a substandard width lane. (Using the common definition of substandard width lane being one in which it is not safe for a motor vehicle to pass a cyclist while both are entirely within the lane.)
B. Carfree is offline  
Reply