Its legality doesn't make it considerate or smart.
This is precisely the kind of combativeness that earns us enemies.
We two-wheeled indians are few and the pale-faced motorists are many. I council peace.

Did you read the OP or any part of the discussion other than the few posts with applicable laws? Nobody's disagreeing with you on this.

colorado just passed a law that says cars must give bikes 3 feet to pass, bikes have the right to ride 2 abreast if theyre not blocking traffic, and cars have the eright to cross double yellows to get around them, when its safe to do so.

I did indeed, and it appeared (IMO) to be deteriorated into a discussion about the legality of being inconsiderate. Peace.

The draft isn't always directly behind. Google "crosswind and echelon."

if the only thing that makes double pacing inconsiderate is that people think crossing the double yellow is illegal and therefore cyclists are forcing drivers to choose between slowing down and breaking the law, then the fact that the law has changed is extremely germane to the argument about ettiquette and being considerate.

Fair enough. I for one agree that it's not only nice to be considerate to motorists, but it's safer too.

I've often wondered why many, if not most, motorists care more about a stripe of paint than their fellow road users.

When they're out on the road, they don't (and it shows). When they're at home on their computers trying to think up reasons why cyclists shouldn't be on the road, they do.

I agree 100%

They're like rats in a maze... (no thinking, rationale, or logic) And they feel as though the painted line on asphalt is a concrete wall!

Drives me crazy!

beyond which, there is a degree to which you have to sacrifice safety to assert you rights, and without people who are willing to assert them, even at some risk to safety, it doesnt really matter what the uniform vehicle code says. if the law says i dont have to flatten out for cars, i'm not going to. not to be a dick, but because if i do, then cars will continue to expect that, and wont learn to share the road.

True in many cases, but in the isolated case of this thread, moving to single file is quite often a polite thing to do that does not have to be seen as relinquishing your rights.

fair enough

I am glad others are willing to be inconsiderate and put their safety at risk to protect my rights.

Naw, don't bother. I will just use common sense and when we hear "car back" go to single file. It doesn't impede my riding satisfaction or fun and makes life easier for all concerned.

If the lane is 'substandard' and is too narrow for a car and a bike to safely share, then the cyclist isn't hurting the autos by taking the lane or by doubling up -- the car still has to cross the center line to pass. In a lot of those cases, stringing out single-file makes it *harder* for cars to pass, because the string of bikes is longer. Many states have codified this logic and specifically allow cyclists to occupy the entire lane under certain conditions. Of course, the drivers still get incensed over it, because they think 'sharing' means bicycles getting the h*ll out of their way.

Referring to narrow roads only, I'm not sure about any real practical help being given to motorists when riding single file. Seems more like a token of good will while inhibiting the passing process further.

A single file line is twice as long as a double thus requiring twice the amount time and distance to pass. If I'm following behind a group of riders waiting for gaps in traffic in the oncoming lane, I'd want to be able to pass as soon as possible. If the group wants to be helpful, quadruple up.

Maybe the psychological effect of "Look we're doing all we can to help you pass" is more important than actually helping them pass.

Add in a winding road while in a narrow lane, and it's simply never safe to pass a group of riders. No matter what you do, it's a quite a gamble when there could be an oncoming car at any moment.

but its doesnt make anything easier.

its more work for you, and theres more of you in the line than there are in the car. i mean if the conditions call for it, i'm certainly willing and able to flatten out for traffic, but the reflexive insistence that we should be expected to isnt "considerate" or fair and certainly doesnt constitute "common sense", and conversely, asserting the right to share the road in a responsible way isnt "inconsiderate".

VIrginia Law -

Where to Ride

• Bicyclists must ride with the flow of traffic on the right side of the highway.
  
• Bicyclists operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place under conditions then existing shall ride as close as safely practicable to the right curb or edge of roadway. Exceptions to this are when bicyclists are overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction, preparing for a left turn, avoiding unsafe conditions, avoiding riding in a lane that turns or diverges to the right, riding on a one way street where bicyclists may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of roadway, or when the lane width is too narrow to share with a motor vehicle. Additionally, bicycles are not excluded from riding on the highway shoulder.
  
• Bicyclists must not ride between two lanes of traffic moving in the same direction unless one lane is a separate or mandatory turn lane.
  
• Bicyclists cannot ride more than two or more abreast on highways. When riding two abreast, bicyclists cannot impede the movement of traffic, need to move into single file when being overtaken from the rear. On a laned roadway, bicyclists shall ride in a single lane.
  
• Bicyclists are not permitted to ride on Interstate and certain other controlled access highways. The restricted sections of the highways are marked with conspicuous signs.
  
• Bicycles may be ridden on sidewalks unless prohibited by local ordinance or traffic control devices. While on sidewalks and shared use paths, bicyclists must always yield the right of way to pedestrians and give an audible signal before passing a pedestrian.
  
• Bicyclists pulling onto a sidewalk or highway from a driveway must yield the right of way to pedestrians or vehicles already on the sidewalk or highway.

I wouldn't say it's "generally believed" to be "more dangerous". It depends on the actual road being discussed. (It's quite possible that there are very few turn-offs on this particular road.)

I've never been able to comprehend how some states have the "3 feet" law but, at the same time, they have not also passed the "right to cross the double yellow" law.

I regularly argue with people that to solve the issue of cars and bikes sharing the same space, we need to go beyond the "same rules for everyone" approach. What you describe above, for me, is a great start. It enables drivers to give the space and make the pass. I'm all for a law that allows for safe and legal passing - for there's nothing I want less than an anxious driver behind me.

Having said all this, I still stand by belief that at some point in my riding career I will be the eye-witness of a head-on (fatal) crash that results from a car overtaking me (by using the opposing lane) in a situation when it is not wise to do so. I'm astounded by the number of times I am passed in "less than ideal" contexts - such as an approaching, 90-degree uphill turn. Seems that some people operate on the "see bike, must pass bike no matter what" mantra. No law is going to help these people. Unfortunately, when such an accident occurs, the comments under the online newspaper article will surely blame the cyclist and not the poor decision making on the part of the dead driver.

the real thing is that most of us, cyclists included, think that anything that inconveniences us is inconsiderate or rude or wrong. sometimes life is just inconvenient, and finding whats fair is a matter of balancing that out. if 10 people are pacing together and i am driving and want to get around them, theres no reasonable defense for the suggestion that my convenience is more important than thiers, other than just propogating the entrenched idea that bikes are second class users of public roads.

how often are we inconvenienced by student drivers, or elderly drivers, or oversized vehicles or RVs or farm vehicles, or pedestrians, or animals, or nature, or kids, compared to cyclists? if everyone wold be a little bit less righteously indignant about being inconvenienced (95% of the time, the inconvenience amounts to a matter of seconds, anyway) we'd have a lot lower colelctive blood pressure, and lots fewer accidents.

That depends. I'll ride downhill on just about any seriously twisty road, as I usually descend faster than the cars. There's a nearby highway descent where I'll take the entire lane and keep ahead of traffic. In all the years I've been riding that road, I remember having been been passed twice by cars (small cars with skilled drivers).

Exactly. The city council in my town was stunned when everyone involved, including bicycle advocates, was against more bike lanes when they were proposed.


But the idea remains that drivers will notice you if you are in the travel lane and will ignore you if you are on the shoulder. And "general" does not imply "100% of the time."

>a whining two-lane country road marked at 55 mph<

Where, specifically, is this whining [sic] two-lane country road maked at 55mph?

Except there is no real data that establishes this "fact" as being "generally" true. Plus there is no magic "invisibilty" curtain that makes a cyclist riding just to the right of the "fog line" versus one who rides just to the left of it!

No, it doesn't imply 100% (obviously) but it does imply much more than a simple majority.

In fact, it's "generally believed" by the general population that riding on the shoulder is safer and obligatory!