On a motorcycle lane position is very situational... however very very rarely if you are in motion is being in the middle of the lane a good idea. Generally speaking you should only be in the middle of the lane when you are fully stopped at a stop sign or light to keep cars from trying to squeeze by you.

On a normal two lane road (one each direction) you want to stay in the left hand side of the lane. This is so people over taking a car behind you spot you and don't force themselves in putting you in a dangerous spot.

On a four lane road (two lanes each way) you would hold the same position as previously mentioned if you were in the right lane however if you are in the left lane you would want to stay to the right side of that lane... this way again someone merging in from the right lane would see you.

Where are you from? In the few major US cities I've lived, this is legal. The road laws here typically treat bicycles the same as other cars (with exceptions).

IME, in urban, US east-coast cities, if you are toward one side of the lane, cars will try and pass you (even on the right... and yes that pushes the cyclist into oncoming traffic). It's a common opinion that you should take the whole lane, and let faster vehicles pass you as they would a slower car.

The Cyclist community disagree's with this in most places I've seen it mentioned but that doesn't change what the laws are. I'm not arguing safety I'm simply stating what is written. Obviously this varies from area to area but again suggest looking up what it actually states rather than your impression of it.

As far as cars passing you - if you are to the right side of the lane as most traffic laws require then cars should be able to easily pass you on the left without incident.

In my opinion a cyclist should not be purposely using an entire lane and backing up traffic for faster moving vehicles (forcing them to pass as they would a slower car which can cause issues during high traffic periods) when simply moving to the right is all that is required. Using the entire lane as a matter of principle increases your danger by provoking aggressive driving / road rage.

You state that there are "very few very specific exceptions", when in California I count 7 exceptions that cover a lot:

1. When the cyclist is going at or near the speed limit.

2. When the cyclist is overtaking or passing.

3. When the cyclist is preparing for a left turn.

4. When the cyclist deems it necessary for safety.

5. When the cyclist is preparing for a right turn.

6. When the cyclist is on a one way road with two or more lanes.

7. When signs and road markings say so.

My own experience as a cyclist suggests that these exceptions apply over 95% of the time, if not over 99%. It seems misleading to me to say there are "very few very specific exceptions" given this.

This is particularly true for the safety exception. Most lanes are simply too narrow to move to the far right as you suggest. That's doubly true if there's parking on the side, as the cyclist wants to avoid the door zone. Add on top of all this all the debris that accumulates to the far right. Etc.

(The first 6 exceptions are written in the law. The 7th was added later when I realized it also applies. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...)

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 = all rare (or only valid for brief moments in time).

You seem to be lumping #4 in for all cases which is a subjective view and I would argue isn't at all close to 95 or 99% of the time.

Thus I maintain that "very few very specific exceptions" applies and is not selective reading. I'd further suggest that you're pushing an agenda instead of being pragmatic and honest. It's fine if you don't like the laws as written, it's fine if you think things should be different in terms of how cyclists are treated on the road, however instead of trying to play loop hole games just get the laws changed.

Many drivers don't seem to realize that cyclists take very different paths than drivers do. You might be thinking "where I drive, these exceptions usually don't apply" but you should instead be thinking about where cyclists ride. Yes, these paths do intersect, but a cyclist will typically pick lower stress paths.

Let's take my commute as an example, starting at my home:

1. Bike lane until I have to make a left turn. I take the travel lane to make the turn. Note that as far as I'm aware, using the left turn lane (i.e., taking the lane) is required by law, not merely allowed for cyclists. This is because turning left from the far right is obviously dangerous. Do you think left turns are rare? I don't.

2. Short road segment leading to a stop light. I take the lane here because the speed is low.

3. Right turn onto a road with signs and road markings saying that cyclists can take the lane. Despite the signs, I get harassed by road raging drivers here much more frequently than I'd like. (The reason for the signs seems to be a reminder of the previous #4 to drivers. The single lane is perhaps 9 feet wide and there are parked cars on the right. Definitely unsafe to ride far to the right. I've been nearly doored riding in the center of the lane here. But all of this is irrelevant, as I don't need to invoke #4 to ride in the lane center here.)

4. Three stop lights in a row. Again, I take the lane because I'm no slower than anyone else.

5. 15 mph speed limit for about 3/4 of a mile until the destination. I take the lane because I'm usually going faster than that. This path includes both left and right turns.

Often during my commute I'll pass other cyclists who are going slower than I am. It's not uncommon for me to pass motor vehicles too, especially in the 15 mph part.

So my commute includes all of these aside from 4, 5, and 6. I can't be "lumping #4 in for all cases" here.

I don't take the lane for my entire commute. But for the 2/3 of my commute that doesn't have bike lanes, it's easy to legally justify taking the regular travel lane.

And to be clear, here's my agenda: Cycling safely on the road. The main obstacle I see is dangerous drivers, and sometimes the solution is to take the lane. If you don't like that, encourage your fellow drivers to treat cyclists nicer.

You're individual situation is not what I have experienced in a major city. The majority of cyclists are moving much slower than the flow of traffic, rarely over take each other (or other cars), use cycle lanes where available and stay over to the right when they can.

You may be an exception to that - and if so fantastic ... again I'm not saying not to take the lane, stop treating me like an adversary. Again if you're advocating for better safety and better relations between drivers and cyclists that's fantastic -- do it by getting the laws changed. Stop the "easy to legally justify" when you know that what you are doing most of time is pissing people off (rightly or wrongly). Get the laws changed, get them enforced and then culture changes to follow.

I don't appreciate the accusation. I should remind you of the HN guidelines.

> Get the laws changed, get them enforced and then culture changes to follow.

The laws should change to be even more friendly to cyclists, but strictly speaking, the laws don't need to be changed. You seem to take a pessimistic interpretation of the law, in contrast to case law which tends to side with cyclists based on what I've read. Case law is law, period. Look up Trotwood v. Selz for one famous case. Here's another case where a cyclist was ticketed for riding in the center of a 13.5 ft lane, but beat the ticket:

https://www.news-press.com/story/news/local/2015/01/28/cycli...

As the laws in most states are based on the Uniform Vehicle Code, case law in one state is frequently cited in others states.

Unambiguous laws like those in Texas are obviously preferred, but again, are not necessary. And given that people tend not to believe me when I tell them that Texas allows cyclists to ride in any lane less than 14 feet wide, I'm not certain making the law less ambiguous really would help much. It comes down to changing attitudes, which is one thing I'm trying to do here. You believe I don't have the right to take the lane, and I'm trying to show you that the law says I do.

What is your opinion about drivers of cars lane-splitting when passing cyclists (when, in almost all states, it's illegal for motorcycles to lane-split when passing cars)?

Most states, in the USA, base their vehicle laws on the uniform vehicle code (UVC). Though they state that those riding bicycles at less than the normal speed of traffic must ride as far right as practicable, they will list a number of exceptions for that requirement. One of those exceptions is if the lane is of substandard width which is defined as a lane that is too narrow for a car and cyclist to travel safely side by side [1]

Since a cyclist is about 2.5 feet wide[3] and many states have a 3 feet distance passing lane, the cyclist, even if they're riding further to the right will still need 2 feet to their right, their width, and 3 feet to their left. That adds up to 7 to 7.5 feet. Given that most surface street lanes are 10 feet wide[2] and passenger vehicle are about 6 feet wide[3], then it's not possible for a car and cyclist to safely travel side by side within the lane.

So the lane positioning you describe when driving a motorcycle also applies to bicycles.

[1] http://iamtraffic.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/UVC2000.pdf (section 11-1205 Position on Roadway item 3 -- page 185 of the pdf)

[2] https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/stre...

[3] https://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/tr...

When the road is too narrow, and there isn’t a safe place for a car to pass you, it’s important to consume the space in a way that makes it obvious to cars that they should not attempt to pass you.

Yes, there are some a-holes this pisses off because they had to slow down and lose 30 seconds of their day, but it’s far safer, and worth being honked at.

"When there isn’t a bicycle lane, try to stay near the right curb. Unless you are moving faster than vehicle traffic, passing another bicycle, or making a left turn, you should typically stay close to the curb or road’s edge."

http://www.calbike.org/bicycling_in_california_sharing_the_r...

"The law says that people who ride bikes must ride as close to the right side of the road as practicable except under the following conditions: when passing, preparing for a left turn, avoiding hazards, if the lane is too narrow to share, or if approaching a place where a right turn is authorized."

https://www.bikeleague.org/content/traffic-laws

> Bikes can share the same lane with other drivers. If a lane is wide enough to share with another vehicle (about 14 feet), ride three feet to the right of traffic. If the lane is not wide enough to share, “take the lane” by riding in the middle.

In Texas, 14 feet is explicitly written into the law. As a cyclist I frequently point this out to aggressive drivers. From what I understand there's often case law establishing this in states without an explicit law, but as I said, I live in Texas, so I'm not entirely familiar with other states' laws.

Quotes from Texas' law:

http://www.biketexas.org/en/infrastructure/texas-bicycle-law...

> (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:

> [...]

> (4) the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:

> (A) less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or

Also, in the US, my understanding is that cyclists can ride whereever they want if they are at or near the speed limit. Still doesn't stop some drivers from almost killing me because they think 20 mph in a 15 mph zone is too slow.

I'm not commenting on what you or I feel is safe simply what is written. Debating the "IF's" under that I'm not interested in.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....

> 21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

> [...]

> (3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a “substandard width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

Seems similar to Texas aside from Texas having a more clear definition of when a lane can be shared. To me, it's obvious that a typical 10-11 foot lane can not be safely shared, particularly with 3 foot passing laws in place. I believe that was the motivation behind the 14 foot figure, which came from a court case as I recall. Go measure the width of the lanes you typically drive on and do the math. Also consider parking on the right side of the road (door zone). Knowledgeable cyclists keep a certain distance from doors because few drivers look before opening their doors.

For what it's worth, the typical lane width on a surface street is 10 feet [1], though in older designs, they may be up to 12 feet wide.

[1] https://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/tr...

I don't like to suggest going against the laws but if you ride near the curb or parked cars you are going to get doored and people will pass way too close. If you move over a bit they may get annoyed but you'll be safer.

I would suggest that if the law requires change instead of encouraging people to go around it encourage the actions needed to change it.

IME in urban cycling on US east-coast cities, if you're on a two-lane road with parking (one each direction), "as close to the right side of the road as practicable" means the center of the lane.

If you stray to the right, you're putting yourself in danger of car doors being opened, or pedestrians deciding to step into the street without looking (it happens a TON more than you'd think)