This sounds absolutely fantastical to me - this sounds less like a bike ride and more like a protest a la Critical Mass. There's a world of difference between this scenario and that of a group rightfully taking the lane to prevent a dangerous squeeze-though attempt by impatient drivers behind them.

If there is a two lane street, that has heavy traffic, and no shoulder, why not ride on the sidewalk?

I agree. I'm just saying that the courtesy should go both ways.

Provided you go at walking speed, don't take up the whole sidewalk, and yield to pedestrians. But the OP described taking to the sidewalk to pass a group of cyclists, which rather suggests going faster than walking pace.

Riding on sidewalks is illegal where I live, and I used to be very opposed to bicycling on sidewalks myself until I went through a period of frequently getting hit with trash while waiting in the median riding the legal way. Taking the sidewalk for a freeway overpass on my commute let me avoid waiting for a car to activate a green light for me as well as avoid being a sitting duck for trashy drivers.

My wife and I were riding our tandem through Sammamish Washington when a woman in an SUV yelled at us, just before she crossed in front of us, “get on the sidewalk!”. Now since we were doing about 18 MPH and it was next to a shopping area, not a great idea. Besides, I had to yell back, “It’s illegal”. Which it was, at least there.

I'm not surprised that some drivers don't know the traffic laws.

That's why I have been advocating to include bicycle training as part of driver's education AND when drivers renew their plates and licences, a list of new and updated traffic laws since their last renewal.

That would be an incorrect way of looking at it. You know that's not what the law means.

Most states allow no more than 2 abreast and only if it's not holding up other traffic.

You're really good at this stuff! Kudos to you sir, Kudos!

:deadhorse2:

You have no legal right to ride as a group. If a group reaches a "critical size", there's an option not to ride in a group.

You're not holding up traffic if you're the traffic. Drivers' rights do not supercede cyclists' rights.

I learned how to "drive" on a motorcycle and, following that, I thought that all drivers should be subjected to the same education - unless you're a complete moron, your sense of vulnerability leads to greater awareness of conditions, the behavior and patterns of drivers around you, etc, and it think that it helps to anticipate, to think a couple steps ahead, to always have an out, etc. After tens of thousands of miles on a bike, I think that it's a similarly useful, teaching some of the same things but also some empathy, as well. That and, at least in the US, many of our fat asses could use the exercise in addition to the education. :D

No. You can certainly impede traffic in a car (which is traffic). Cyclists aren't generally covered by the "impeding traffic" law because they can move to the right to allow other traffic through.

Note that pedestrians are "traffic" too (see how far you'd get strolling in the middle of a 50mph lane).

Cyclists don't generally have the right to ride where ever they like. You are assuming rights they don't have.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...r=1.&article=4.

No, it's actually "a speed less than the normal speed of traffic".

Dude. Pedestrians are not vehicles. Bicycles are vehicles. Therefore cyclists are vehicular traffic.

it’s very dangerous for a swarm of riders to attempt to double up to let a car pass. The police don’t expect us to, there have been rides doing the same thing for decades.

For one, there could be literally hundreds of people on the sidewalk.

What’s next for the OP? A waving thread?

Do whatever you feel is safest for the area that you're riding, don't let other people dictate to you on how to ride and where to ride.

??? You had to qualify it as "vehicular traffic" to exclude pedestrians.

Anyway...

https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/traffic.html

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traffic

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/traffic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic

https://www.definitions.net/definition/traffic

(Some definitions restrict traffic to vehicles.)

You realize that the legal codes have different laws for pedestrians and vehicles, right? That's why pedestrians don't have to, for example, stand in the left turn lane to make a left turn at an intersection, the way vehicles (cars, trucks, bikes, motorcycles, etc.) do.

So jumping back and forth between legal codes and dictionary definitions makes for a meaningless argument.

EDIT: It would also blow a hole in the ass of your "Normal speed of traffic" argument if you say pedestrians are traffic, too, because then what's the normal speed of traffic? An average of foot traffic and vehicular traffic(all vehicles)? You were actually doing reasonably well with that argument till you overshot and threw in pedestrians. Then you wandered off into semantics and got lost.

Being in a "swarm of riders" is a choice. If it's something dangerous to get out of, maybe it's something you should avoid getting into in the first place.

The laws for cyclists and drivers of motor vehicles are sometimes different too.

But this has no bearing on what "traffic" means.

Bicycles don't need licenses. I guess that makes them not traffic.

Cars are not allowed to drive on sidewalks (there's no CA state law prohibiting cyclists from using sidewalks). I guess that means cars are not traffic.

https://www.robertjkaiser.com/blog/2...%20to%20county.

And don't ignore the fact that you are wrong here.

BTW, if "traffic" does refer to vehicular traffic, and on a particular road there tend to be more cyclists than cars (happens all the time on Canada Rd, where Larry and I both ride), then what is the "normal speed of traffic", if MOST vehicles are going 15-25 mph except the motor vehicles which are going 50-70?

Are you enjoying your time out there in the weeds? Because you're making the argument more and more poorly.

"Normal speed" is ambiguous. That still doesn't mean a cyclist riding at a particular speed necessarily defines what "normal" is (which is what you were claiming).

It would need to be tested in court as to what "a reasonable person" would see it as. It seems likely that the speed limit would have some bearing to what "a reasonable person" would see the normal speed would be in a given/particular situation.

:lol: