If there's a wide bikeable shoulder, you could go side by side and still not interfere with traffic.
If there's a narrow bikeable shoulder, you're forced into single file in it, in most cases.
If there's no bikeable shoulder, then you're taking up the lane no matter what, and then those rules say nothing against being side by side except while being passed.
The rule is not "go single file". The rule is "stay out of the lane when you can".
I have no idea which part of my post that's a response to.
Especially because the first sentence of your second link is "Only three states allow bicyclists to ride side by side but require them to ride single file when being overtaken by a vehicle. New York is one of those states."
allow bicyclists to ride side by side...
Because, just to be extra clear again, the scenario you laid out earlier was complaining that they were side by side before any attempt at overtaking was happening.
> This post sure sounds like you think they already aren't following the rules by hanging out side to side, having a conversation for an extended period of time.
If that's not what you meant, that you're only talking about when someone tries to pass, then okay I guess we're not in disagreement here.
I wonder what you think “overtaking” means, in the context of not impeding traffic.
>And let's not forget that you also said:
>> Cyclists going side-by-side in a single-lane (per-direction) is violating the rules.
Which is only true on certain shapes of road,
You mean like “….why are groups of cyclists going in rows of two or three in a *narrow service road* (40 to 50 mph speed limit).”
> So I think any misunderstanding on my part is understandable and not purely my fault.
Oh, it’s absolutely your fault. Context is everything.
> I wonder what you think “overtaking” means, in the context of not impeding traffic.
Someone has to be trying to pass before it counts as overtaking and possibly impeding.
The law definitely doesn't say to stay in single file at all times just in case someone might want to overtake at some point.
> You mean like “….why are groups of cyclists going in rows of two or three in a narrow service road (40 to 50 mph speed limit).”
No, not at all! They only have to leave the lane if there is a big enough shoulder. A narrow service road is exactly where bikes are permitted to use the lane!!
You cut the most important part of my sentence which is "the core of the rule is staying out of lanes when possible, even when they're already single-file."
If the road forces them to be in the lane anyway, then they don't have to be single file as a general rule, only when someone is overtaking.
The only reason not to be side by side, other than overtakers, is when one bike could fit in the shoulder but the second bike would have to be in the lane. If both bikes can fit in the shoulder, then side by side is no worse so it's allowed. If zero bikes can fit in the shoulder, then side by side is no worse so it's allowed.
> If there is a quality shoulder then the law tells them to stay on the shoulder.
This is completely separate from single file vs. side by side. Just stay on the shoulder.
Even single file in the lane would break the rule.
If side by side fits in the shoulder then they can do that too.
Yes.
So the situation I’ve been writing about is where there is a quality shoulder, but the cyclists going side-by-side end up jutting into the driving lane.
This is because there isn’t enough space for two cyclists to reliably stay in that shoulder.
If cyclists don’t proactively go back to single file, at this point a car has swerve out partially into oncoming traffic or brake check and down to bike speeds and wait for the cyclists go back into
their lane.
Either decision creates hazards to other drivers and other cyclists.
So no, in the context I’ve been dealing with weekly these aren’t separate issues.
> Cars shouldn't have to slow down quite that much, but overall yes cars might have to wait a couple seconds as they approach the bikes and show intent to pass.
A 40 to 50 mph service means going down to 25 mph. That impedes traffic and it’s dangerous, especially when you consider that cyclists are less visible to begin with.
The best outcomes are where cyclists proactively move, when they hear the courtesy honk.
Weekend cyclists having a conversation don’t care.
> Someone has to be trying to pass before it counts as overtaking and possibly impeding.
So are you saying cars need to slow down to bicycle speeds, wait for the cyclists to go to single file (assuming they do at all), then go back to normal speeds?
> No, not at all! They only have to leave the lane if there is a big enough shoulder. A narrow service road is exactly where bikes are permitted to use the lane!!
Nope. Again, you failed to understand the context.
The service road is narrow—just two lanes, but one for each direction—but the shoulder is well-paved, clean, and nearly the width of a full lane.
I make this extremely clear in my discussion elsewhere.
New York insists that cyclists stay on that righthand shoulder.
I'm making this part separate because it's less important.
> So are you saying cars need to slow down to bicycle speeds, wait for the cyclists to go to single file (assuming they do at all), then go back to normal speeds?
Cars shouldn't have to slow down quite that much, but overall yes cars might have to wait a couple seconds as they approach the bikes and show intent to pass.
Once one car passes, other cars can easily go by after them, since they'd need to stay single file until the cars are done overtaking.
It's a very short wait and only for the first car in line.
And, mind you, this is only on roads where bikes can't use the shoulder.
If the law wanted bikes to stay in single file at all times it would just say that, and not "when being overtaken".
> (assuming they do at all)
Well if they don't then that's breaking the law, of course.
If there is a quality shoulder then the law tells them to stay on the shoulder.
This is completely separate from single file vs. side by side. Just stay on the shoulder.
Even single file in the lane would break the rule.
If the shoulder is nearly the width of a full lane, then it would fit for them to be side by side entirely inside the shoulder, and that would be allowed too.
Sometimes, as a secondary effect, this rule blocks being side by side. But only when the shoulder is very specific widths. It's not the point of the rule.
To quote myself:
> It’s for their safety and courtesy, telling them that a car is passing because they (the cyclists) aren’t following the rules and interfering with the flow of traffic.
To be extra clear: I’m already overtaking a duo/trio and I’m doing so because they still haven’t yielded or gone single file.
> I’m talking about duos and trios just riding in sync having a conversation.
> This happens way too frequently in some areas of where I cycle. Nobody calls them out on it either, except honking drivers.
This post sure sounds like you think they already aren't following the rules by hanging out side to side, having a conversation for an extended period of time.
If that's not what you meant, that you're only talking about when someone tries to pass, then okay I guess we're not in disagreement here.
And let's not forget that you also said:
> Cyclists going side-by-side in a single-lane (per-direction) is violating the rules.
Which is only true on certain shapes of road, and the core of the rule is staying out of lanes when possible, even when they're already single-file. So I think any misunderstanding on my part is understandable and not purely my fault.
It sounds like, when there is a usable edge, that rule both allows side by side on the edge and disallows single file in a lane.