If there is no bike lane, then legally you shouldn't be passing a cyclist unless it is a passing zone (broken yellow or white line), in which case you should have plenty of room to use the opposing lane.

If it's a solid line with no bike lane, then it's the same as if you were passing a car, i.e., illegal. I've been ticketed for that in SF.

And this is the problem, people going 8 miles per hour in a 40 mile per hour lane isn't safe for that person.

Just slow down for a bit. It won’t kill you (nor anyone else).

No, but in the aggregate the loss of efficiency + wasted fuel has a real social cost, which shouldn't be dismissed so glibly.

Cyclists significantly slowing traffic on major arterials IS a problem and sanctimonious truisms are not the solution. The solution is bike lanes or entire separate "bike arterials" which run parallel to "car arterials" so the two wildly different transportation mechanisms don't get in each others way too much.

The solution is for all road-users to continuously adapt to what's happening around them. Folk who aren't capable of that shouldn't be allowed on the road.

Cyclists are not a problem. They are a group of road-users. Equally entitled to use the roads as every other legal road-user.

Please explain how you think cyclists are equally entitled to use a road that was built solely for motor vehicles.

I got down-voted for this!

After n years. Time to sign out from HN.

Random stuff gets downvoted sometimes. It might not even have been intentional, what with no way to correct it. Obviously some people disagree with your statement, though, so who knows.

"Share the road? Then share the rules!"(tm)

Slowing down is a social cost, but killing people isn't?

Which part of my post implied that I think that? Was it the part where I specifically suggested a solution that would keep cyclists safe and speed up traffic?

By problem, you mean there are not enough bike lines? I agree :)

It's not a 40mph lane. It's an up to 40mph lane.

It depends whether you are referring to a lane with a posted speed limit of 40mph or one which the normal speed of traffic is 40mph. In California, both the posted speed limit and the normal speed of traffic are legally-significant values (particularly, there are significant legal rules that come into play for both vehicles in general and bicycles in particular that are being operated at less than the normal speed of traffic.)

It's a minimum 40 mph lane.

In most U.S. jurisdictions, a bicycle is traffic, just like a car. If you think they might take the lane, the legal thing to do is to leave room for it to happen safely.

Moreover, if you're a bicyclist and there's no bike lane (or insufficient bike lane) so you'll have to bike erratically if you don't take the lane then take the lane. Signal, make sure it's clear, and do it early. The safest thing everyone can be is predictable.

I feel the problem is that we're deeply over-trained to read cues for what a car will do, and less so for bikes. To whit, if a bike _could_ dart in front of me, I assume it will. Much like a squirrel, deer, or inner city car in a traffic jam.

Edit: actually, I would probably hit the squirrel. Swerving/sudden speed changes are often far more dangerous. Hopefully the point holds: if you always feel the need to fail safe, then expect congestion and traffic problems.

The same consequences as if it were a motorbike.

Legally, a bicycle has the same legal right to the road and lane as you and your car does. You must not encroach on that.

> Legally, a bicycle has the same legal right to the road and lane as you and your car does.

Legally, in California, a bicycle that isn't maintaining the "normal speed of traffic" for the road it is on is required to be operated as close as practical to the right-hand curb except in specifically enumerated circumstances. It does not have the same legal right to the road and lane as a car does. (California Vehicle Code Sec. 21202)

Where I live, the minimum speed is half the top speed, so if a bike is doing less than 20 mph in a 40 mph street it is theoretically violating traffic rules - not that it justifies anyone risking running over the cyclist.

In general, it is not good to illegally share a lane with anpther vehicle. If you want to pass, move to an open lane.

> In general, it is not good to illegally share a lane with anpther vehicle.

IIRC, in California, it isn't illegal to share a lane, (though it still may be a bad idea) but its illegal to straddle lanes.

If you do the first grade math on a bike width, car width, minimum distance the car has to keep while passing and the distance the bike needs from the curb or parked cars, no, you can not share the lane. As you say, you can not straddle either, so the only option is the full lane.

> If you do the first grade math on a bike width, car width, minimum distance the car has to keep while passing and the distance the bike needs from the curb or parked cars, no, you can not share the lane.

Legally, you can; the width of cars and bikes are actual facts, of course, but I don't think you'll find a fixed-in-law minimum distance for most of those things in the California Vehicle Code.

Starting Tuesday, there is. California's "Give me three" law goes into effect. However in a standard 13' wide lane a passenger car and a bike not forced off the right curb by parked cars or trash in the road can pass without the car needing to leave the lane. Happens all the time, no problems.