I imagine they had a crosswind and nobody knows how to form echelons. It takes a leap of faith to form the second echelon. But if I'm right, everyone along the right side of that group is in the wind. If they had formed reasonable sized echelons, most of the riders would have been on the shoulder.

the bicyclists are idiots because stuff like this is red meat to some road raging crazee and it don't mean much to be dead right ......... once upon a time in north Louisiana i saw a pickup run a couple of Harleys off the road > the same pickup that i pulled over to shoulder lane to let pass cause the damn road was a pothole nightmare

Possible. But hogging both the lane and the shoulder is standard operating practice for training rides in geographical areas where the numbers of racers/former racers reach a critical mass. (Pun semi-intended.)

You are failing to make your point with your silly/irrelevant "excuses". That is, this thread is exactly the trap for that nonsense.

No.

Possible but unlikely compared to more usual causes. And you still end-up suggesting they should have been more right.

More BS.

Real compelling arguments from you so far :lol:

The fact remains, like I said, that there are thousands of these instances a year. They mean almost nothing to motorists, nor to society at large. We have de facto decided they are acceptable. The next step is appropriate modification of the legislation governing public roadway behaviors. I think the playbook is pretty clear, decriminalization and then explicit statutory protection for groups of cyclists. They deserve to use the roads, as they see fit and is appropriate (which we as a society at large already decided remember ;)) as much as anyone else.

I rest my case, see you at the next one.

Really, this is not about what is legal or criminal. It is about what is courteous or rude.

Those cyclists are participating in a pastime, not trying to pick up kids from school or get to doctor's appointments. You might as well argue that blocking a road to play kickball is just as legit since the roads are public and everyone has rights to them.

This has nothing to do with "taking the lane" for safety. It is more like taking for taking's sake.


Which isn't to say it is never okay to ride like this, but if traffic is starting to build up you are just being rude not getting out of the way for awhile. Slow drivers do this all the time.

Given that the U.S. has roughly 4 million miles of public roads, you're claiming that all but 200 feet have no (or very narrow) bike lanes.

Ok, let it be 99%, although I doubt.... Do USA has 40000 miles of bike lanes so large that a team of 8 cyclists can ride in a pack? That means enough space for 3-4 cyclists abreast. And even if it had, the team could not travel to those large lanes only to make their daily training because USA has a huge territory with huge distances. EU is not better, for sure.

It's probable that in the U.S., cyclists routinely riding three to four abreast while clogging the main lane happens mainly in Southern California and in other hotbeds of racing, or at least of populations of road bike riders.

I spent a couple of decades training and (sometimes) racing in Connecticut and then Maryland and never saw people doing that. Once everyone had settled in on a ride, we never rode more than two abreast, bike lane or no bike lane. In the bike lane if there was one, and AFRAP where there wasn't.

Your case appears to be that it's fine for cyclists to be inconsiderate when being considerate would be just as easy. Thankfully, you are in the minority.

8 cyclists riding 3-4 abreast? No team does that in a training ride.

Your "case" was incoherent whining about cars existing and spammy irrelevant images.

His position is that cyclist can't ever be inconsiderate and don't actually have to follow the law. He must be being paid by "big car" because his cycling advocacy sucks.

If they are breaking the law, it makes it worse. So, it's a relevant part of the discussion.

The "pastime" argument isn't a good one. It's never leveled at drivers.

Yes, "taking the lane" doesn't (appear to) apply in this particular case. They don't have to ride in such a big group.

Exactly. We seem to have this disease that causes us to automatically treat cycling as recreational and therefore "less than". If it's not meant for commuting, it's immediately inferior. Meanwhile, all the Mustangs, Camaros, and Chargers ripping down the roads magically have practical use 100% of the time. Oh, and let's not forget the myriad of pickup trucks without a single scratch on their bedliners that only get driven to Walmart and Cracker Barrel.

I do wish all states would change their laws stop requiring single file cycling when motor vehicles are trailing. It only creates more danger for both the cyclists and the motorist, because a single file line tempts the motorist to squeeze by without changing lanes. If one person sneezes the wrong way, it turns into a deadly pile up. Let's say you have a group of 20 highly experienced road cyclists riding double file. Even in the relatively quick time it takes them to form a single line, the motor vehicle could have already passed the group. Plus, it takes half the time to overtake a double file formation as it does a single file one. Unfortunately, most state legislatures are run by folks who haven't been on a bicycle since before their hairlines receded.

Pastimes that have no negative impact on traffic aren't relevant. If it were common for drivers to block traffic by driving slowly, then you would have a point. But that doesn't seem like a thing. So I don't know what you're talking about.

Creating traffic blockages just increases net pollution as well.

I'm pretty sure that most motorized vehicle traffic out in the hinterlands is someone on their way to buy cigarettes and lottery tickets. In town, they are driving their kids to school. Then they go to the convenience store and buy lottery tickets and cigarettes.

Non-pastimes are irrelevant in the same way. Something being "for business" is no excuse for being rude/inconsiderate/illegal either.

The "pastime" thing is a fairly-common excuse of some motorists to "ban" any cycling on roadways.

It's not a good argument and it's unnecessary anyway.

You are lucky. In my area (EU), I saw 100+ times more cars overtaking me on the same lane at 10-20 cm from me on empty roads, than packs of cyclists riding on the lane. Furthermore, 10-20% of the drivers honk aggressively while overtaking if you ride 2 abreast, even if the full road is empty. Sometimes it happens even if there are 2 empty lanes in each direction... to "discipline" you. These are aggressive and dangerous behaviors and come from many drivers. On the other hand, a driver spending 2-3 minutes behind a pack at 35 km/h instead of 70 km/h - as described here - looks to me as an insignificant discomfort.

You are never going to see this. If so, it's kind of pointless to keep arguing for it. I don't think even "cycling friendly" countries allow it.

Seems like it would be easier to pass 2 cyclists riding single file than it would be if they were riding abreast.

There's no particular right to ride in a group. If the group is too large to manage (go to single file), then the group is too large. Not riding in a group is an option.

This particular case wasn't a "double file formation" anyway. It was more of a blob 5-6 cyclists wide.

(The only groups of vehicles/drivers that is mentioned in law are funeral processions (AFAIK).)

Only if the average speed is low enough. This 2015 study concluded that emissions were slightly higher when average speeds dropped to something like 15 mph: https://www.nrdc.org/stories/speed-sweet-spot

However, this January 2025 study showed that increasing speed limits increases overall emissions: https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2025/0...peed-dirty-air

Of course, where are we more likely to find traffic blockages that substantially contribute to higher emissions? Is it the occasional slowdown from a gaggle of cyclists, or is it the daily March of the Penguins we see in rush hour? Maybe the former contributes, but the latter is by far the worse offender.

Ok, say 3 abreast. Because it is dangerous to align to the wheel in front of you - you must be on its right or left, to be able to overtake in case of emergency.
But these are details. The main message is that if you want cycling to be restricted only on bike lanes, or only 1 in a row on the main lane if there is no bike lane, then you implicitly interdict cycling in packs. This looks to me excessive.

I didn't make that argument about banning bikes from roadways, so it isn't appropriate for you to suggest the same.

Roads are for getting places. Building a 4 rider wide peloton is not using the road for getting places. It doesn't matter what activity we are talking about, the concept of blocking a road for no reason other than entertainment isn't good enough.

Let's put it this way - if I'm riding my bike and the road is clogged with a gaggle of slow moving cyclists, it is just as much an annoyance because they are unnecessarily impeding me.

Share the road.