Experiment determines drivers do not see 22% of cyclists in clearview.

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 9:06:29 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2015 16:12:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Once again, the question is: Ten foot lane, 8.5 foot truck. Where do
you ride? If you try to avoid it by skimming the pavement edge, you
signal to the trucker that it's fine to brush your elbow and squeeze past.

No thanks. I've tried both tactics; I know what works better.

I see what you are typing but you seem to use the refrain "take the
lane" like a mantra. Keep repeating it and you'll be all right. But
what about taking the lane on a highway where the motor vehicles are
traveling at. say 80 - 100 KPH?

They come over the hill or around the corner and there you are..,
right in the middle of the lane pedaling along at 20 kph.

About a 22 Mtr/sec differential velocity. They come over the hill and
you are 100 meters ahead and they have 4.5 seconds to (1) notice you
and (2) decide what to do. If it is a lady refreshing her lip gloss,
looking in the rear view mirror, well, say a couple of seconds to
apply and sort of mash the lips together, another couple of second to
blot with the tissue and take a final look and you are 0.5 seconds
from Nirvana. A bit of a frown and the thought, "Whatever is that
right in the middle of the road? A Bicycle?" and you are just a
receding picture in the rear view mirror.

And, from what I read, this is not a rare event in the U.S. I read
that over 70% of U.S. drivers surveyed admitted to texting, reading
e-mail, applying makeup or reading the newspaper while driving.

"Oh, I didn't see him", while perhaps not a valid excuse seems to
becoming a common excuse.

First, rather little cycling is done on highways with high speed limits.
Perhaps that means you don't, in fact, disagree with lane control when
necessary at slower speeds. I hope that's the case.

In the case of a higher speed highway, IME they seldom have blind curves
that hide cyclists until the last second. That's based on my riding in
47 U.S. states (so far) and about a dozen foreign countries. High-speed
roads that do have blind curves or sharp hill crests almost always have
low traffic, meaning the problem you cite comes up infrequently.

In the unusual instances where those problems arise, I've done fine by
paying attention to the possibility of traffic from behind. For sharp
curves, one can adjust road position to be visible. That almost always
means moving closer to the center line, which makes one visible further
around the curve. I suppose for a sharp crest with a motorist flying up
from behind, one could be ready to bail onto the shoulder if necessary.
I doubt that it's frequently necessary.

(FWIW, our club's annual century, which I ran for about 8 years, went
partly through Amish country, including hilly roads where Amish buggies
obviously cannot share the lane. There's never been tons of carnage,
either of cyclists or of buggy riders.)

If these dire situations were as common as some here pretend, we wouldn't
have over 10 million miles ridden per bike fatality.

- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 9:06:34 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
I have nor read every state's traffic regulations but the three I did
read all stated that "thou shall not impede other traffic" (in
Biblical terms :-) so while the three states did specifically state
that bicycles had a right to use the road none of them gave the
bicycle a right to impede other users.

Courts have decided otherwise, setting useful legal precedents when
doing so.

This man was instrumental in one of the more important cases.
http://www.ohiobikelawyer.com/uncate...e-road-stinks/

Essentially (IIRC) the appeals court judges ruled that the capabilities of
the vehicle must be taken into account. So farm tractors, delivery vans,
post office trucks, garbage trucks, heavy loads, scooters and bicyclists
are not required to abandon their rights to the road because they
can't go fast. The few exceptions are usually limited access highways.
But even those are legal for cyclists in many western U.S. locations.

- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 1:02:04 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 8:50:14 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
... any
argument to the contrary would bring up Danger! Danger! rants and more
bull**** statistical misinterpretations and miles traveled and walking
helmets and all sorts of other nonsense.

You mean to say that in the face of arguments to the contrary, I'd bring
in data.

And you've shown time and again that you have no appreciation of data.
In general, its use or analysis just drives you into ranting - generally
because available data shows your arguments are so often wrong.

I understand that this situation frustrates you. But it doesn't make
you any more correct.


Well, it looks like Florida and Commute Orlando are leading the way for bicycle safety -- unfortunately, the wrong way: http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...florida-25385/
http://www.southfloridapersonalinjur...ents-amon.html

Mode share in Orlando: .4% Wow! That's awesome! Its also amazing considering that the place is dead flat, sunny all the time and has roads with incredibly long site lines. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ib5Ny5-kBs (and these guys are in the left lane because?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8eCmVpzFSk -- snore. Wake me up when I get home.

Portland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI7T2iuGjjc We're serious around here. I podiumed this morning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3nMnr8ZirI


-- Jay Beattie.


P.S. dissenting opinion on taking the lane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS1yP8jJXIs Kind of goofy, but fun.

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 1:36:06 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 9:06:34 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
I have nor read every state's traffic regulations but the three I did
read all stated that "thou shall not impede other traffic" (in
Biblical terms :-) so while the three states did specifically state
that bicycles had a right to use the road none of them gave the
bicycle a right to impede other users.

Courts have decided otherwise, setting useful legal precedents when
doing so.

This man was instrumental in one of the more important cases.
http://www.ohiobikelawyer.com/uncate...e-road-stinks/

Essentially (IIRC) the appeals court judges ruled that the capabilities of
the vehicle must be taken into account. So farm tractors, delivery vans,
post office trucks, garbage trucks, heavy loads, scooters and bicyclists
are not required to abandon their rights to the road because they
can't go fast. The few exceptions are usually limited access highways.
But even those are legal for cyclists in many western U.S. locations.

That Ohio case applies in Ohio and clearly does not represent the law in most states. The standard UVC (Uniform Vehicle Code) provisions apply to bicycles, including the prohibitions on impeding traffic and failing to yield to overtaking traffic. Again, one must look to state law. There are fifty states with different versions of the UVC, and I think a few states that don't follow the UVC at all.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Fri, 29 May 2015 13:36:03 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 9:06:34 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
I have nor read every state's traffic regulations but the three I did
read all stated that "thou shall not impede other traffic" (in
Biblical terms :-) so while the three states did specifically state
that bicycles had a right to use the road none of them gave the
bicycle a right to impede other users.

Courts have decided otherwise, setting useful legal precedents when
doing so.

This man was instrumental in one of the more important cases.
http://www.ohiobikelawyer.com/uncate...e-road-stinks/

Essentially (IIRC) the appeals court judges ruled that the capabilities of
the vehicle must be taken into account. So farm tractors, delivery vans,
post office trucks, garbage trucks, heavy loads, scooters and bicyclists
are not required to abandon their rights to the road because they
can't go fast. The few exceptions are usually limited access highways.
But even those are legal for cyclists in many western U.S. locations.

- Frank Krygowski

You are correct. Just as I stated "bicycles had a right to use the
road". Shoot, in a farming community you didn't need a Judge to tell
you that you could drive your tractor on the road, you just "knew" it.

But the point that you leave out is that there equally isn't a law
that gives a farm wagon, or a bicycle, the right to deliberately
impede other traffic, which in essence you are encouraging by arguing
that "take the lane" is the perfect solution. In fact I distinctly
remember signs posted by the Highway Department that said "Slow
Traffic Keep Right", in other words "do your best not to impede
others".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 29 May 2015 13:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 9:06:29 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2015 16:12:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Once again, the question is: Ten foot lane, 8.5 foot truck. Where do
you ride? If you try to avoid it by skimming the pavement edge, you
signal to the trucker that it's fine to brush your elbow and squeeze past.

No thanks. I've tried both tactics; I know what works better.

I see what you are typing but you seem to use the refrain "take the
lane" like a mantra. Keep repeating it and you'll be all right. But
what about taking the lane on a highway where the motor vehicles are
traveling at. say 80 - 100 KPH?

They come over the hill or around the corner and there you are..,
right in the middle of the lane pedaling along at 20 kph.

About a 22 Mtr/sec differential velocity. They come over the hill and
you are 100 meters ahead and they have 4.5 seconds to (1) notice you
and (2) decide what to do. If it is a lady refreshing her lip gloss,
looking in the rear view mirror, well, say a couple of seconds to
apply and sort of mash the lips together, another couple of second to
blot with the tissue and take a final look and you are 0.5 seconds
from Nirvana. A bit of a frown and the thought, "Whatever is that
right in the middle of the road? A Bicycle?" and you are just a
receding picture in the rear view mirror.

And, from what I read, this is not a rare event in the U.S. I read
that over 70% of U.S. drivers surveyed admitted to texting, reading
e-mail, applying makeup or reading the newspaper while driving.

"Oh, I didn't see him", while perhaps not a valid excuse seems to
becoming a common excuse.

First, rather little cycling is done on highways with high speed limits.
Perhaps that means you don't, in fact, disagree with lane control when
necessary at slower speeds. I hope that's the case.


That is, in a left handed way, exactly what I meant. I might add that
much, perhaps most of my cycling is done on roads that are as
described, but that isn't the point.

The point is that, as I said, you appear to preach "take the lane" as
a mantra to solve all bicycle-motor vehicle interaction and it
obviously isn't, as you seem to admit above.

If, as you do not say, the mantra went something like "take the lane
where it is safe to do so" than I wouldn't comment, but you don't say
that.

You describe the wide truck and the narrow road and say, "take the
lane".

I described an incident where two women and two kids, on a 100 cc
motorcycle did exactly that and the results was one truck turned over
and the driver injured sufficiently to be admitted to the hospital,
one woman and one child killed in the crash and the other woman and
child were admitted to the hospital "in critical condition".

You replied to my post saying, "they shouldn't have done that".

So, essentially your "take the lane" advice, while perhaps logical in
certain situations is not the cure all solution that you seem to be
trying to market it as.

In the case of a higher speed highway, IME they seldom have blind curves
that hide cyclists until the last second. That's based on my riding in
47 U.S. states (so far) and about a dozen foreign countries. High-speed
roads that do have blind curves or sharp hill crests almost always have
low traffic, meaning the problem you cite comes up infrequently.

I'm in Phuket at the moment and I can assure you that on the "road to
town" where traffic is usually passing me when I'm doing 80 KPH in my
old pickup, there are at least three places where the road curves
sufficiently that you cannot see a cycle 100 Meters ahead and several
hills that are sufficiently abrupt that the same conditions apply.

In the unusual instances where those problems arise, I've done fine by
paying attention to the possibility of traffic from behind.

But Frank, you don't say that, you say, "take the lane". You imply
that in the wide truck, narrow road situation, that you describe, that
every thing will be hunky-dory if one just takes the lane.

Now you say "take the lane, but watch your arse" which is a
significantly different thesis.


For sharp
curves, one can adjust road position to be visible. That almost always
means moving closer to the center line, which makes one visible further
around the curve. I suppose for a sharp crest with a motorist flying up
from behind, one could be ready to bail onto the shoulder if necessary.
I doubt that it's frequently necessary.

(FWIW, our club's annual century, which I ran for about 8 years, went
partly through Amish country, including hilly roads where Amish buggies
obviously cannot share the lane. There's never been tons of carnage,
either of cyclists or of buggy riders.)

If these dire situations were as common as some here pretend, we wouldn't
have over 10 million miles ridden per bike fatality.

- Frank Krygowski
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/29/2015 5:27 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 1:02:04 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 8:50:14 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
... any
argument to the contrary would bring up Danger! Danger! rants and more
bull**** statistical misinterpretations and miles traveled and walking
helmets and all sorts of other nonsense.

You mean to say that in the face of arguments to the contrary, I'd bring
in data.

And you've shown time and again that you have no appreciation of data.
In general, its use or analysis just drives you into ranting - generally
because available data shows your arguments are so often wrong.

I understand that this situation frustrates you. But it doesn't make
you any more correct.


Well, it looks like Florida and Commute Orlando are leading the way for bicycle safety -- unfortunately, the wrong way: http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...florida-25385/
http://www.southfloridapersonalinjur...ents-amon.html

It's pretty silly to blame Commute Orlando for Florida's relatively high
bike crash counts, don't you think? After all, it's not like even half
of Florida cyclists use their techniques. In fact, it's not like half
of one percent of Florida cyclists use their techniques.

The Commute Orlando crew is pretty brilliant, IME. But their problem is
the same as the problem with every other cycling education effort:
Nobody's interested, because everybody THINKS they already know all
about bicycling.

We can discuss the reasons for Florida's high bike crash count, if you
like. But as a hint, I'll note that California is typically second in
bike crashes. Texas is often third. Now why would that be?

Mode share in Orlando: .4% Wow! That's awesome! Its also amazing
considering that the place is dead flat, sunny all the time and has
roads with incredibly long site lines.

Have you ridden there?

Problem #1 is that the "modern" recently developed areas of Florida (at
least, in my experience) are all car-centric, in the sense that shopping
centers, office buildings, housing complexes etc. are spread out at much
lower density than where I live or where you live. They are frequently
connected by super-wide, super-high-speed roads that look and feel like
freeways. They are really not pleasant for riding. Even if you're not
afraid of the traffic, it's far from aesthetically pleasing.

Problem #2 is that the heat and humidity are pretty brutal. One guy I
know well was a longtime cyclist before he moved there. He's done quite
a lot of riding with me, including at least one century ride. But he
feels he can't possibly ride the five miles (IIRC) to his professional
job, because of the heat, humidity and roads.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ib5Ny5-kBs (and these guys are in the
left lane because?)

Because they are getting ready to make a left turn, Jay.*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8eCmVpzFSk -- snore. Wake me up when I get home.

And isn't that part of the point? So many people expect constant
terror. The reality is actually boring.


P.S. dissenting opinion on taking the lane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS1yP8jJXIs
Kind of goofy, but fun.

Goofy is right. He shows so many car crashes you'd think he's trying to
say motoring is foolish. And it's interesting that a video of a cyclist
running into the back of a car is "proof" that you shouldn't take the
lane!

Note: When I ride near lane center, I always take care to have my eyes
open.*

(*The things you have to explain to some people!)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/29/2015 10:01 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2015 13:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 9:06:29 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2015 16:12:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Once again, the question is: Ten foot lane, 8.5 foot truck. Where do
you ride? If you try to avoid it by skimming the pavement edge, you
signal to the trucker that it's fine to brush your elbow and squeeze past.

No thanks. I've tried both tactics; I know what works better.

I see what you are typing but you seem to use the refrain "take the
lane" like a mantra. Keep repeating it and you'll be all right. But
what about taking the lane on a highway where the motor vehicles are
traveling at. say 80 - 100 KPH?

They come over the hill or around the corner and there you are..,
right in the middle of the lane pedaling along at 20 kph.

About a 22 Mtr/sec differential velocity. They come over the hill and
you are 100 meters ahead and they have 4.5 seconds to (1) notice you
and (2) decide what to do. If it is a lady refreshing her lip gloss,
looking in the rear view mirror, well, say a couple of seconds to
apply and sort of mash the lips together, another couple of second to
blot with the tissue and take a final look and you are 0.5 seconds
from Nirvana. A bit of a frown and the thought, "Whatever is that
right in the middle of the road? A Bicycle?" and you are just a
receding picture in the rear view mirror.

And, from what I read, this is not a rare event in the U.S. I read
that over 70% of U.S. drivers surveyed admitted to texting, reading
e-mail, applying makeup or reading the newspaper while driving.

"Oh, I didn't see him", while perhaps not a valid excuse seems to
becoming a common excuse.

First, rather little cycling is done on highways with high speed limits.
Perhaps that means you don't, in fact, disagree with lane control when
necessary at slower speeds. I hope that's the case.


That is, in a left handed way, exactly what I meant. I might add that
much, perhaps most of my cycling is done on roads that are as
described, but that isn't the point.

The point is that, as I said, you appear to preach "take the lane" as
a mantra to solve all bicycle-motor vehicle interaction and it
obviously isn't, as you seem to admit above.

If, as you do not say, the mantra went something like "take the lane
where it is safe to do so" than I wouldn't comment, but you don't say
that.

You describe the wide truck and the narrow road and say, "take the
lane".

I described an incident where two women and two kids, on a 100 cc
motorcycle did exactly that and the results was one truck turned over
and the driver injured sufficiently to be admitted to the hospital,
one woman and one child killed in the crash and the other woman and
child were admitted to the hospital "in critical condition".

You replied to my post saying, "they shouldn't have done that".

IIRC (and correct me if I'm wrong) you eventually said they pulled out
from a side road almost directly in front of the truck. And it's true,
they shouldn't have done that. Nobody is advising such a move.

So, essentially your "take the lane" advice, while perhaps logical in
certain situations is not the cure all solution that you seem to be
trying to market it as.

I've never marketed it as a cure all solution. FWIW, as safety chairman
of my bike club, I've written articles almost every month on some aspect
of bike safety. There's been far more to say than just "take the lane."

OTOH, when teaching in any field, the principles that are most important
and most often ignored are the ones that should get the most emphasis
and repetition. (I was noted for hammering into my students that I
wanted them to always explicitly show units of measurements and their
conversions in every calculation.) And any casual observation of
American cyclists will show that there are far more gutter bunnies than
riders properly controlling lanes. Heck, look at the arguments the lane
control idea gets in this forum, despite links to dozens of
corroborating sources, despite examination of crash causes, despite
citations of legal decisions, etc.


In the case of a higher speed highway, IME they seldom have blind curves
that hide cyclists until the last second. That's based on my riding in
47 U.S. states (so far) and about a dozen foreign countries. High-speed
roads that do have blind curves or sharp hill crests almost always have
low traffic, meaning the problem you cite comes up infrequently.

I'm in Phuket at the moment and I can assure you that on the "road to
town" where traffic is usually passing me when I'm doing 80 KPH in my
old pickup, there are at least three places where the road curves
sufficiently that you cannot see a cycle 100 Meters ahead and several
hills that are sufficiently abrupt that the same conditions apply.

I can only comment on the places where I've ridden. The place I found
most uncomfortable for lane control was Tallinn, Estonia (although I had
no trouble in another smaller Estonian town). Another very avid rider
of my acquaintance claimed that the formerly communist eastern European
countries were unpleasant that way. He theorized that those who were
finally rose out of communist poverty and scarcity were lording it over
those they perceived as being sticks in the mud, so to speak. I can't
say whether his sociological guess was correct.

I can envision there might be countries this doesn't work at all - say,
places where the rule of law is extremely weak, or places with an
intense "might makes right" culture. (And as I've said, nothing works
100% of the time.) But it's clear to me that in westernized, generally
non-cycling countries, the vast majority of cyclists have grossly
inflated "fear from the rear," and they actually subject themselves to
extra risk by gutter hugging.


In the unusual instances where those problems arise, I've done fine by
paying attention to the possibility of traffic from behind.

But Frank, you don't say that, you say, "take the lane". You imply
that in the wide truck, narrow road situation, that you describe, that
every thing will be hunky-dory if one just takes the lane.

My experience, having done it thousands of times, is that yes,
everything is hunky-dory if one properly uses their right to the road.
It's not that nobody _ever_ honks at me. It's not that nobody _ever_
passes closer than I'd like. But the honks are rare and don't bother
me; and the close passes are far fewer than in my gutter-hugging days.

Now you say "take the lane, but watch your arse" which is a
significantly different thesis.

Well, I know one nationally-known bicycling advocate who emphasizes the
use of a rear view mirror, and in fact emphasizes it enough that it
irritates some of his colleagues. I do like my eyeglass mirror and do
keep an eye on rearward traffic, but I can't think of a situation where
it's really made a difference. So I don't think it deserves as much
emphasis.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/29/2015 8:09 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 1:36:06 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 9:06:34 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
I have nor read every state's traffic regulations but the three I did
read all stated that "thou shall not impede other traffic" (in
Biblical terms :-) so while the three states did specifically state
that bicycles had a right to use the road none of them gave the
bicycle a right to impede other users.

Courts have decided otherwise, setting useful legal precedents when
doing so.

This man was instrumental in one of the more important cases.
http://www.ohiobikelawyer.com/uncate...e-road-stinks/

Essentially (IIRC) the appeals court judges ruled that the capabilities of
the vehicle must be taken into account. So farm tractors, delivery vans,
post office trucks, garbage trucks, heavy loads, scooters and bicyclists
are not required to abandon their rights to the road because they
can't go fast. The few exceptions are usually limited access highways.
But even those are legal for cyclists in many western U.S. locations.

That Ohio case applies in Ohio and clearly does not represent the law in most states. The standard UVC (Uniform Vehicle Code) provisions apply to bicycles, including the prohibitions on impeding traffic and failing to yield to overtaking traffic. Again, one must look to state law. There are fifty states with different versions of the UVC, and I think a few states that don't follow the UVC at all.

This has been in the UVC since at least the year 2000:

"11-1205-Position on roadway
(a) Any person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a roadway at less
than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the
conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to
the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any
of the following situations:
1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
proceeding in the same direction.
2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into
a private road or driveway.
3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions' including
but not limited to: fixed or moving objects; parked or moving vehicles;
bicycles; pedestrians; animals; surface hazards; or substandard width
lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb
or edge. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is
a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to travel
safely side by side within the lane."

Note that last part, please.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/29/2015 10:01 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2015 13:36:03 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 9:06:34 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
I have nor read every state's traffic regulations but the three I did
read all stated that "thou shall not impede other traffic" (in
Biblical terms :-) so while the three states did specifically state
that bicycles had a right to use the road none of them gave the
bicycle a right to impede other users.

Courts have decided otherwise, setting useful legal precedents when
doing so.

This man was instrumental in one of the more important cases.
http://www.ohiobikelawyer.com/uncate...e-road-stinks/

Essentially (IIRC) the appeals court judges ruled that the capabilities of
the vehicle must be taken into account. So farm tractors, delivery vans,
post office trucks, garbage trucks, heavy loads, scooters and bicyclists
are not required to abandon their rights to the road because they
can't go fast. The few exceptions are usually limited access highways.
But even those are legal for cyclists in many western U.S. locations.

- Frank Krygowski

You are correct. Just as I stated "bicycles had a right to use the
road". Shoot, in a farming community you didn't need a Judge to tell
you that you could drive your tractor on the road, you just "knew" it.

But the point that you leave out is that there equally isn't a law
that gives a farm wagon, or a bicycle, the right to deliberately
impede other traffic, which in essence you are encouraging by arguing
that "take the lane" is the perfect solution. In fact I distinctly
remember signs posted by the Highway Department that said "Slow
Traffic Keep Right", in other words "do your best not to impede
others".

The point of lane control is not to deliberately impede others. The
point is to avoid a lane position that puts the rider at unnecessary risk.

Despite the skepticism in this forum, the Uniform Vehicle Code and every
adult cycling education scheme I know of recognizes that it's foolish to
ride far right when a lane is not wide enough to safely share. And the
law should not (and AFAIK does not) require a person to endanger
themselves in order to save another person fifteen seconds.

--
- Frank Krygowski