The discussions about how much roadway width to allow cyclists, or
may be taken by cyclists, are largely irrelevant to cyclists, being
little more than discussions of vague concepts and even less solid
emotions. The argument advanced by Jim Baross that since motorists
are allowed to ride two or three abreast, (not mentioning that this
is in one vehicle), so should cyclists, has a long, long history,
being advanced by the British CTC to support normal club rides, in
which the social enjoyment of talking to one's neighbor is part of
normal roadway use. The guiding principles are safety and
cooperation. Ride at the lateral position suggested by safety (which
is not curbhugging as militant motorists demand), while cooperating
with faster traffic when and if it appears, which may involve moving
to the right if such movement would both be safe for the cyclist and
facilitate safe overtaking by the faster traffic. Just get on with
cycling and stop worrying about how non-cycling legislators have
written bad law and traffic officers interpret it.

On the occasion when the enforcement process goes wrong to produce
absurd results, then attempt to change the lawmaking and enforcement
process, either through case law or through legislation, using the
absurd result as the example to provide motivation.

Of course, attempt to get the side of the road law eliminated
entirely, whenever there is a realistic opportunity to do so. Which
may well be not until the next century, considering the public
emotions involved.

John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St.
Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com