R15757 wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote in part:

I 'm with Wayne on this. The typical situation with a cyclist in a
narrow lane is extremely similar to the situation of a 30 mph driver on
a 35 mph road - say, because he's towing a heavy trailer up a steep
hill, or because he's transporting some very fragile cargo.

He has a right to use the road. ...

The key word there is "narrow". Cyclist
in a NARROW lane.

The situation is very different for a
cyclist as opposed to a trailer-hauling
truck, because if the lane is wide
enough, the cyclist is able to share the
lane with another vehicle.

"Narrow lane," in practice, should not be defined as width of pavement.
For example, a 13 foot lane with 4 feet of deep potholes at the right
is a narrow lane for the cyclist, even if a motorist could drive over
those potholes.

A lane with a big patch of broken glass at the right is a narrow lane
for a cyclist, although it doesn't affect a motorist at all.

A lane with wet fallen leaves reaching out several feet from the curb is
a narrow lane for a cyclist. So is a 12 foot lane with a 2 foot drain
grate with slots parallel to the direction of travel.

IOW, there are many road situations where an experienced cyclist knows
he cannot safely use the right portion of the lane. Motorists may not
understand this. Even cops may not understand this. But it's obvious
to the cyclist, who is likely to be much more expert in this matter, as
well as much more concerned by it.

The upshot is this: The cyclist gets to decide when he should take the
lane. Nothing else is reasonable.

There may be blatant abuses, of course - but in my experience, they are
few and far between. In fact, they are much more rare than blatant
cyclist abuse by motorists.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]