I should add, the reason he probably noticed me in the first place is he had someone pulled over, and I passed him in the rightmost lane. When he stopped me he told me that he could give me a ticket for that, but when I checked the law just now, it says I had to (a) reduce speed, (b) give him space, and (c) if practical, move into the next lane. By the time I noticed him I couldn't have merged, and I'm pretty sure I wasn't endangering him.

Well, bottom line is "Safety first", "Law second" at least that's how I've always looked at it. I don't know any State (or Province) where a mirror is required. Lights and reflectors yes, during dusk and night and before sunrise. I used to ride with a mirror when doing long distance tours and I do recall bailing (leaving the road and hitting the ditch) once because of traffic from the room taking the itty-bitty shoulder I was on - they may have seen me in time and moved over but I wasn't taking any chances.

Overall I've found it best to not argue and then just go about my business. Case in point, my son and I were riding beside each other on a very wide shoulder. Police (RCMP) slowed down to our speed and said we couldn't ride side by side. "OK, thanks" and I pulled in front, waited a minute for car to get out of sight, resumed original position.

[QUOTE=Mr IGH;12211020]I never said he shouldn't ride in the traffic flow. I did say OP should be more visible, OP should have lights and mirror, no matter what the law. If he had those items, the cop might be more respectful. [QUOTE]

Sorry, but where does it say that he wasn't visible? And how does having a mirror make him more so? By agreeing with the cop, you are saying that, altho' the cop's knowledge of trafic law, re bikes, is wrong, he shouldn't exercise his proper rights under the law

.

I would question the cop's ability to recognise a fool, since he doesn't understand local cycling legislation

Perhaps you could give chapter and verse as to how the OP isn't aware of vehicles.

Illinois bike rules of the road.........

http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/pu...s/dsd_a143.pdf

OP's conduct on the road (except for the close pass, a lot of states are going to that for the cop's safety) was what it should be. The cop was basing his statements on cultural norms instead of the law.

And...yeah...it's "SPEED LIMIT", not "SPEED AVERAGE". And I have yet to see any state law that requires a minimum speed out of a bike....

Please, it's a lower limit

I've been given to u. nderstand that most cops think most people are oblivious idiots, and they're right. They also get a lot of training in situational awareness and noticing what's out of place. So they probably never think that a mere civilian could possibly possess situational awareness skills equal to theirs. Seriously, if we don't notice what's around us we die.

Perhaps not what the law says, and I don't know exactly what Iain's position in the lane was, but I would think that a bicycle in the left portion of the lane at normal moving but not sprinting would be within the reasonable conduct the law is trying to achieve. As for traffic safely flowing around the stopped officer, a bicycle remaining in the left portion of the right lane of two or more same-direction lanes is probably safest for all concerned. Therefore I would suggest that the officer telling you that you should have changed out of the right lane probably could reasonably be construed as potentially endangering /all/ officers on traffic patrol, along with you and any other cyclists who ride by a traffic stop, and even to a lesser extent, nearby motorists.

I'll leave the rest to the other excellent comments.

Tor

Wait, now I have to ride with mirrors and my front and rear flashers running in broad daylight to be taken seriously by local law enforcement? That borders on harassment.

OP: Post a link to scene in Google Street View, like this.

So how many states' laws specify in the laws concerning bikes exactly where the lane ends, and how many cops remember that definition? Texas Transportation Code 541.302(11) says, ""Roadway" means the portion of a highway, other
than the berm or shoulder, that is improved, designed, or
ordinarily used for vehicular travel." [bold added] So a cop would be wrong to tell you you must be in the parking lane or on the sidewalk. But as in many states, as far to the right as "practicable" lacks clear definition.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to shave on a bike?

I was referencing what Mr IGH said, which is left hook. Maybe he meant right hook.

And I agree with you about lights in daylight.

Flashing headlight is to prevent lefthooks, by far my most serious threat, I leave it on at all times including daylight. On multilane roads, slower bike traffic gets passed on left by traffic in the same direction, cager in on-coming lane wants to make a left across traffic and is never looking for a bike. Mirror is for general awareness, helps some on right hooks.

I never get pulled over because I'm a Fred and my bike is a Fred mobile (lights, rack/basket, bell etc), it's been my experience that cops leave Freds alone. I never confront the cops, most want to play nice so I try to get them talking with me. In Illinois the cops and courts all work together, once you're in front of a judge it's over. Pretty sure it's the same in Utah....

The cops that patrol the areas you commute through are always right. That's life.

Because of this.

Upon re-reading the law as written for his area, I have to agree, he was OK. In MY state, he would have been up for a ticket -- they passed the 'change lane for a cop' law last year, IIRC. Doesn't apply AT ALL to other motorists, though -- specifies police in the performance of their duties.

I will say, though, that the passing cyclists doesn't get to decide for the cop (or anyone he's passing) that he wasn't endangering the cop; it's a basic tenet of the "far right as PRACTICABLE" statute that WE have the discretion to decide what's safe (and therefore, practicable). To allow him to say he wasn't endangering the cop gives motorists the same right to say they're not endangering us when they buzz us close enough to write on their foggy windows.

Just sayin'....

I think you're in the right here. The above responses should all be appropriate.

I'd still however use some judgment with riding in the road vs a perfectly serviceable shoulder if there is one. I ride a commercial road to work here from time to time which has a big shoulder with a couple rough patches but still perfectly good to ride on, even fast on narrow tires. I was driving that route earlier this week, and came across a cyclist taking up the entire right lane. Granted, at this time in the AM, there was only light traffic and it was easy to go around, but it does seem like bad form to close down a lane riding at 17mph when the average speed is 45mph AND there's a huge shoulder (bigger than an actual car lane) on the side that's very safe to ride.

If there were no shoulder and nowhere else to go, I'd take the lane - in fact, as a driver, I probably would have defended such a rider by driving slowly a good distance back from him so he doesn't get hit by a fast driver not expecting a cyclist in the lane. But when there are other clear options, it's worth taking the safest AND most considerate ones, even if 'you're in the right.'

Yep. A lot of the posts here address cyclists rights and most are true. The problem is you can be completely in the right and get hit by a distracted driver, someone whose drunk, talking on a cell phone, etxting, etc. Also depending on where you live, drivers usually excced the speed limit and the limit is often considered the minimum speed. Taking the lane doing 17 mph in a 40 mph speed limit, especially if the road is conjested, just annoys most drivers.

I would do what's safest for you.

The cop was ignorant of the law, but I also think that what some have tried to say here is true as well. Be as visible as you can. Right or wrong doesn't matter to a 5,000lb SUV that mows you down. The law doesn't mean much to your family when you are dead. I used to have a similar argument with my ex-wife regularly as we walked through parking lots or near traffic. She would consistently just meander out in the road (not to imply that the OP is doing that) and I'd say, "watch where you're going!" Her response was, "I'm a pedestrian, I have right of way." and I'd always say, "How can you argue for your rights if you are dead?" All that cop, or really anybody wants is for you to be safe. He may have been wrong on the letter of the law, but I don't think he was trying to harass you.

Alright; it sounds like I should consider riding in the parking lane when there are no cars in it, no snow on the ground, etc. I'll do that in the future.

So he complained that you weren't far enough left while not riding far enough right? :wtf: :bang:

He said, if I was going to ride in the lane, I had to follow all the laws of the road (I interjected, "I do"): stop at lights and signs ("I do"), signal ("I do"), at that point he said, well, when you passed me you should have merged right. I could ticket you for that.

^
Eh, I take back some of what I said. Sounds a little condescending. :(

I would assume if there is not a sign that says bikes are not allowed, you are ok. That is why they have signs on our expressways . they say no horses no pedestrians, no etc... But then again that is only an assumption.