Yes, some states (mostly western ones, as far as I know) allow bicycles to use "limited access" highways but generally restrict them to the shoulders.

I pointed out the "shoulder is not part of the roadway" thing in post 3.

No one here is disagreeing with this.

you can add colorado to the list. in fact, i think that most states west of the mississippi allow it. i wish it were the case in Ct.

i would feel a hell of a lot safer riding an interstate should than i do riding 98% of the roads i am legally allowed to ride. i think that no side streets, no (almost) parked cars, no peds and a ginormous shoulder outweigh any danger posed by higher speed differential.

another plus is grading. highways tend to flatten out many of the little hills which is a good thing for my clydsdale arse.

as for "travelling" in the shoulder, i can definitely vouch for the travelling on the shoulder in slow vehicles. i own an old toyota rv. being a 4 cylinder house, it's hill climbing talents are just slightly better than mine. i'll bet i've spent hundreds of miles partly or fully on shoulders as vehicles with better weight/hp ratios pass.

ii've never once been pulled over for doing so. i suspect that cops probably actually appreciate it as it keeps traffic flowing as best possible.

+1 to the poster that mentioned being pulled over for a speeding violation. this is actually something i've been almost hoping for. there is a long straight downhill near my house which is posted at 25. you pretty much need to brake to stay below 30 and the slightest bit of pedaling gets you to 35. if i ever do get pulled over for it, i think i'll fall off the bike laughing.

wonder how cops handle bike speeders?

Me too :)

This is real simple: take the right third of the right lane - always. Once you are certain rear approaching cars have seen you - you are doing head checks when cars overtake you, right? - then wave and move over a bit towards the shoulder.

I'm much more aware than that...I use a mirror.

So do I. But I do head checks, so motorists know I'm paying attention to them.

It so happens I also have the side of my helmet painted fluorescent orange, so when I turn my head it is like a bright beacon waving at them up ahead.

Ah Jersey, the nation's armpit.

I've never come across that slogan. Is it a left coast thing?

...sorry to ask but for what purpose? If they know you are paying attention to them they will behave differently how?

I do head checks because it's the prudent thing to do, mirror or no mirror...but have no illusions of some subliminal message it might send a driver. ;)

1st i've heard of it too

Well, except for those that are.

Tell you what -- you keep saying that they can't do that, and they'll keep doing it, and the cops will keep generally not ticketing for it.

I was thinking more of light trucks with a big load -- somebody moving with a truck bed full of stuff barely strapped in so they keep their speed down, for example. But the law doesn't say anything about big trucks vs. light trucks on that shoulder, so people will do what they can get away with, whether it damages the road or not. If their big, heavy truck can't go over 40 mph, they'll drive in the shoulder to let people pass them too. And people will flash their lights to thank them!

OK, if you say so, but that's not what the law says. The law says you can't drive on the improved shoulder except under these circumstances ...
Yes, but cops ticket for that. If you're in Texas and driving on the right shoulder and traffic is passing you, you're almost certain to not a get a ticket for that, as the law permits it. And on the off chance that a cop does stop you for it, he's likely to just tell you not to do that.

Well, bicycles are one of *three* exceptions in the law, with the others being authorized emergency vehicles on a call and police patrols. Police patrols (like bicycles) can use the shoulder for regular travel if they see fit -- though hopefully they don't do so on a regular basis.

... and normal motor vehicles can do so if they moving slowly and allowing other vehicles to pass them. It's considered polite, and quite commonly done once you get out of the cities. Drive friendly, the Texas way!

OK, but Texas doesn't consider the shoulder to be part of the roadway.

Ultimately, my point was that your all-encompassing declaration was incorrect, and I've shown that. You can quibble about what you meant, and that's fine, but taken literally as written it was incorrect, at least in Texas. And so, if you're riding your bicycle in the shoulder, you may very well encounter some motor vehicles in that same shoulder, parked and moving, that are there legally as well. And they may not be expecting other (even more slowly moving) traffic there, so they may be somewhat of a danger for you. A mirror might be wise, to help you see traffic coming up behind you. (You may hear them, but you may think they're in the traffic lane, not in the shoulder with you, unless you see them.)

I guess I'm misunderstanding what he's talking about. It sounds like he head checks for the sole purpose of letting cars know that he knows they are there. To me a head check is a prudent, redundant safety move when changing lane position.

FWIW Some states allow passing on the shoulder and some states allow shoulders to be used as accelerator/decelerator lanes. So temporary driving is sometimes allowed.

Yes and yes.
Try this sometime - when you encounter someone and begin speaking to them, look them in the eye. Really look at them. Do this especially to those with whom you don't normally behave this way. See, if it doesn't change the dynamics of the meeting.

We always see the bike-auto encounter as only one sided, even adversarial... us against them. But we share the same road. Nearly all drivers I ask admit that. These drivers are also as concerned with you as you are with them.

Basically, they want to know you aren't going to do anything stupid, either.

If you try talking to drivers about cyclists, you'll hear them comment on two things very often,
1. Cyclists are a bother, taking up the road AND
2. They fear the cyclist will do something stupid (turn in front of them, for example).

So take advantage of that. Looking at them, or at least making them think you are, creates a "communication" between the cyclist and the motorist. In truth it already exists, although neither side sees it that way. So take the lane, and when a car approaches, turn your head and let them know you are aware of them. This places the same onus on them.

I too was hoping this would be a speeding ticket stop :lol:

Unfortunately, every encounter I've had with the local police here while on my bike (aside from them just cruising around) has been a near miss. They're the only ones that almost hit me every time I ride. Kind of ironic...

Aha! A smart remark from a MANIAC! The state where words are jealously hoarded ;as if answering a civil question will cause a shortage of conversation down the pike. " Ayah."

Well ... "almost the same" rules between bikes and cars is an approximation, sort of like how a whale is a fish, in the sense that they both live under water.

When you say "there are really only two basic differences in the law," this is exactly what I'm getting at. You know that isn't true, but ... you're letting the VC slogan fool you, at least momentarily. And that confusion is not a good thing for anybody.

There's FRAP (which, sure, is similar to my state's law about slow vehicles having to pull out when a line builds up behidn them) and an allowance to ride on shoulders. Lane splitting is legal in some places (eg California), but not for cars. My bike is illegal on many public roadways that my car is obviously welcome on. Drivers have to pass each other safely, but don't have to open a three-foot gap when they pass one of those "car" contraptions out on the road. In most states, you can blow through a stop light on your bike, be ticketed by the police, and the law forbids this to affect your driving status: no license points, no change in your "safe driver" pool. My state apparently doesn't recognize drunken bicycling as a crime.

Bike drivers don't need licenses. The law doesn't require liability insurance for cyclists. You don't need working brake lights to drive your bike, or to apply for your license. Nor do you pay taxes and registration fees on it. When was the last time you brought your bike in to have an emissions test?

A 12 year old can operate a bike, but not a car. It's illegal for cars to drive on the sidewalk - although I see this sometimes in pursuit of a good parking spot. A cyclist is not required to signal a turn in most states, if they feel that it would be dangerous to take a hand off the bars ( stability, access to brakes, whatever ), while cars drivers have no trump card. Cyclists can wear headphones, which is illegal for a driver of a car.

Those are the differences that jump to mind, and we're not even talking about Idaho stops. If I did some research, I could grow that list tenfold ... but fish are vertebrates and whales are mammals; bikes and cars share a "living" space, but are vastly different species. "Same rules" is patently false, and isn't much more nuanced than "a whale is a fish."

If you're passing a car with a car at less than 3', it's likely to be unsafe, even if a law doesn't specifically mention that 3' figure.

Also the Austin, TX law 3' passing law does cover motor vehicles -- motorcycles, people exposed riding tractors, etc. California law is likely different in some ways.

Not sure about most, but certainly some. Texas has no laws that say either way, but the local PDs, courts, DPS, etc. seem to waffle back and forth on it.

Mine neither, but public intoxication and reckless driving are always options.

You pay sales tax on it when you buy it, if your state has a sales tax. Some areas require registration.

Electric cars don't have emissions tests done either.

I don't think this is actually codified in law most of the time, being more of a practical matter. It likely applies to cars too, it's just that it applies a whole lot less often, since signaling is usually done with a very easily reached lever. If it's a super bumpy road and an antique car without signals, I'll bet it's pretty easy to argue that doing hand signals would be dangerous ...

Varies from state to state. I can't remember which state it was, but I seem to recall one that made it illegal to bike with headphones, but not drive with headphones. (I may be wrong about that.)

Most of the rules are the same, and when they're not there's generally a good reason for it (emissions tests on a bicycle would be silly, for example. Insurance less so, but it's still not as important as with a car.)

For every rule that you can find that is different between bikes and cars, there's ten that are the same. So "same rules" certainly isn't 100% true -- but it's not patently false either. But it's just a bumper sticker, there's not room to expand on all the exceptions.

I once had an officer tell me to get on the sidewalk. I asked for his name and badge number, and he gave them to me (by law they have to if a citizen asks). I then e-mailed the chief of police, quoting the part of the Municipal Code that forbids bicycles from the sidewalk, and asked why an officer would order a citizen to do something illegal.

I got a very nice reply to the effect that this passage from the Code would be incorporated into the next day's rollcall briefing.

Just a quick :thumb: to OP for handling the situation intelligently and respectfully.

got any other roads to ride besides the highway?

I'm not understanding the purpose or necessity of a fake headcheck or of a headcheck that is not needed - a mirror can give better visual information. Besides, I can't effectively turn my head to look behind me on my recumbents.

It's a well-understood heads-up to all around you that you're going to do something -- turn, change lanes, etc.

I'm not saying that you need to do it, but there is a benefit to doing it that goes beyond merely being able to see behind you.

(And I know what you mean -- I feel naked without my mirror, but doubly so on my 'bents.)

Thank you for calling me intelligent! That may be a first! ;)