I think this is a generalization. If it's a 2 or 4 lane roadway with narrower lanes, I would stay in the right tire track or in the center of the right lane. But if a 4 lane and cars weren't being diligent about giving enough space (ie, crowding into my lane), I'd ride in the left side of the right lane.

Still, if it's a really wide lane, I might stick in the right tire track, but veer to the right after traffic behind me had slowed down. I'd stay there until they passed.

It also depends on traffic. If there's a lot of traffic and everyone is crowding as they pass, I'd probably get off the road and find another route.

Or head back home and call it a day.

If there are no pedestrians, I'd use that nice concrete path to the right. Otherwise, about 4 to 5 feet out from the curb.

Really? 8 miles of my commute every day (each way) is on 50 MPH roads (typical speed 60 MPH actually), 5 years and 21000 miles now, no incidents at all. What am I doing wrong?

You're just lucky :) ..... be careful out there!

But I see, we do agree....

I'm usually all for riding on the road, avoiding the sidewalk, and being in the right tire track/taking the lane. And if I were to ride in the road there, I'd be 2-3 feet over from the gutter's edge somewhere around the right tire track. BUT, I must say, the sidewalk/path on the side does seem very inviting. Low density of pedestrians and basically no driveways, crossing streets, etc. for cars to be turning into or out of for quite a strecth. I'd probably give riding it up the next light a try personally...

MTO law here states no more then 3 ft from the right side curb or side of the paved road. Gives you room around those nasty sewer grates

If you want to ride in this un-sharable lane, you'll need to make it clear to motorists that they will need to change lanes. (or slow down to your speed behind you) Right tire track is sometimes not far enough into the lane to do this.

I'd default to a foot or so from the center. No traffic approaching from behind? Left of center. Then when someone does approach, I'll glide a little right as they start to change lanes to give us both more room. Never would I be more right than right tire track, and I wouldn't be there for long.

I find it kind of sad that this board has an unfortunate tendency to label any off street bike path a "sidewalk" automatically and insist on biking on the street no matter what. Must be an ego thing. I do wonder - looking at the pics, there's what appears to be a bike path smack up against the side of a 2 lane road with absolutely no shoulder. If instead of a "sidewalk" the exact same area was an shoulder marked as a "bike lane" next to the street, would it suddenly be "ok" to bike there?

Probably. It would then be a "segregated cycle facility." ;)

Unless its marked a bike path, its gonna be a sidewalk. The sidewalk there isn't posted as a bike route, so it defaults to a sidewalk instead of path. Sure as hell looks like a normal sidewalk to me. (Not that its not rideable, that might be perfectly safe)

That said, I don't really think anyone insisted he ride the road. He asked about where to ride in the road, so the answer was provided.

You're right about the last part, I've probably just accidentally started ranting. Just get tired of hearing the "the sidewalk is illegal and unsafe" theme - I find it to be as untrue as the old "it's always safer on the sidewalk" theme which was just as bad. I grew up in the suburbs, where a lot of "sidewalks" were obviously built with the intention that bikes would ride on them. Like here's one -
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...86.49,,0,14.58

Perhaps it would be "safer" to bike on the 55mph freeway? I mean, there's no giant signs saying you can bike on it. Or there's another stretch of 45mph highway by where I live where they built a double wide sidewalk clearly intended for bikers as well as peds - don't think biking on the street there would be a good idea either. Or the numberous interstate bridges - would it be safer to ride on the shoulder of an interstate than to bike across on the pedestrian walkway on the bridge? I mean the thing is like half a mile long - probably not a ton of pedestrians on it...

Anyways, sorry. Just had to get it off my chest I guess.

The larger width of the path the OP linked to suggests to me it's intended for bike use - pedestrian only sidewalks tend to be narrower, and/or in front of businesses. I think it's probably a little rude to take up a lane on a 2 lane road with a lot of traffic, if there's what appears to be a bike intended sidepath next to it. To be fair though, there are several places by me where I might stay on the road if there's no or little traffic, so maybe I'm imagining things.

If I was biking on the road there and couldn't or didn't use the path, I would definitely ride in further, far enough into the road to claim the lane. There just doesn't appear to be enough shoulder room on the road for a car and a biker to be in the lane at the same time.

I won't ride in most cases on a "sidepath" bike lane even if it is so designated because I can't then move to the left of right-turning traffic at intersections. The sidepaths are easy to get hooked at unless you are travelling really slowly.

However if there are few intersections sure. But a shoulder differs from a grade-separated bike lane because I can move further inwards approaching a (rare) intersection.

I appreciate all the comments. Some of you do have a valid point about the sidewalk/bike path. Once you go further up the hill to the stoplight, the "sidewalk" changes dramatically, as well as the width of the right lane.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...,0.002411&z=19

seeing the map of where you are riding, it is too bad that no other low speed roads parallel this street. That is what is very annoying about "planned" suburban subdivisions.