(See postscript - I've modified my original statement for clarity)

We might have a fundamental disagreement here, or we might be just missing each other. We have the same rights and responsibilities as traffic. And slow traffic, whether automotive or bicycle, needs to behave differently than regular, full speed traffic.

For example, on a two lane road (one lane each direction), you are not allowed to pass another moving car by crossing the double yellow line. You can (and should) cross the double yellow line to pass a bicycle or other slow moving vehicle. We agree up to here? If so, then we agree that bicycles and cars shouldn't always act the same way. If we don't, then we've now isolated where we disagree.

As far as your example, it depends a lot on the road in question. Sometimes riding two abreast is the right thing and sometimes it isn't. I was on an organized metric century ride where we were on a curvy road where a group was riding several (many more than 2) abreast and making it very difficult for cars to pass. This made life painful for not only the car drivers, but the bicycles that were stuck behind them as well.

And, for what it's worth, it is illegal in some (many?) states to ride two or more abreast if it interferes with traffic (and it is not a substandard width lane).

In practice, even if we do disagree, I don't think it leads to many practical differences between the two of us. When necessary (which is often), I take the lane and advocate such. But as a vehicle that is moving much slower than the rest of traffic, I do believe I should do my part to make sure I don't slow down the rest of traffic more than is necessary to ensure my safety. A car going 15 in a 45 is likely to get a ticket for blocking traffic if it is not doing what it can to mitigate the the problems it is causing. How should a bike be different?

Cheers,
Charles

p.s. I do agree that if the lane is too narrow to allow passage, riding two abreast is the right thing to do. I've edited my original post with this change).

This depends a lot on state to state. It is illegal in some states. If for your safety, you need to take up enough of the lane to ensure that you don't get passed in the wrong situation, then I don't disagree with you. But I see many situations where this isn't the case, where a car would be able to safely pass a single rider, but not two in a single lane. And in this case, I don't think it's the right move (or legal in many states).

Cheers,
Charles

p.s. I do agree that if the lane is too narrow to allow passage, riding two abreast is the right thing to do. I've edited my original post with this change).

I agree that slower moving traffic does have obligations vs. faster moving traffic. But, by the same token just because a portion of the traffic wishes to travel at a speed that is considerably faster then the posted speed limit doesn't give them the right to do so.

Agreed, IF it is safe to do so.

How wide was the road? If it was a substandard width road, it shouldn't matter how many abreast they were riding. Although they really shouldn't have been riding more then two abreast. If instead of bicycles they were riding motorcycles would a person in a car been able to safely pass them in the lane?

Agreed, but the irony is that motorists cause each other more delays then cyclists do. And I haven't been able to figure out how two or more cyclists riding two abreast cause anymore of a delay then a single cyclist would. Maybe not being a driver I lack the "proper" perspective on this.

I refer you to the case of Trotwood v. Selez. As well as again pointing out that motorists cause each other more delays vs. cyclists.

The situation of 2 abreast is more of a perception than an actual, as with many things. It has factual backing to say it is valid and maybe better, but perception is another matter when you do not get the chance to explain to the drivers. Sometimes I do get to talk to people in a different context about such and they come around when it is explained, but that is another matter. From what I have observed, one bike holding/taking position is a message to the car behind and two wide is taken as flagrant road hogging(I know it isn't but it looks like it).

Awesome! I'm glad that someone got the joke without flaming!

I saw this elsewhere and had to laugh. https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...-safety-option

I've often thought about doing this, but with several different color permanent markers at the end. I'd even be willing to have a sign explaining what will happen to the cars that pass too close...

From: bicyclesafe.com