Define "too narrow to share"
It is the language used in the law you previously cited. I don't know how CA defines it. If a lane is too narrow to accommodate a cyclist riding about 2 feet from the curb or fog line and a car passing at a safe distance, then it is generally considered too narrow to share.
Ok, so our logic is similar. So that equates to any lane 10.5-11.5 feet wide or less. (5 foot wide car, 2-3 foot margin for safety, 3 foot wide cyclist, 2 feet from tire to edge of road. Again, should there be obstacles/right turns, cyclists exceeding the speed of traffic... then the cyclist has no need to abide by "as far to the right as practicable".
So justify cyclists saying they should take the lane if it's narrower than 14 feet. This, in instances when none of the exceptions to cvc 21202 apply. Doing so because "it feelz dangerous if i don't take the lane"
Oh, just realized you said two feet from the fog line. Nope, sorry. There's no mention of "fog line" in the regulation. And here's why: There are shoulders here that are 4 feet wide or more, no obstructions or debris whatsoever. Absolutely zero justification for riding outside them unless 21202 exceptions apply. And yet, there are the pair of riders, two up, chatting away, with one outside the shoulder by a couple feet. Becuz "I need to take the lane for safety".
Bicyclists have a death wish and arrogance that needs controlled. The camera is wide angle and the distances are deceiving. This is a highway with a legal speed limit of 70 MPH. The truck in the oncoming lane is also doing 60-70 MPH and if you count the centerlines, it gives you a better idea of just how close he is and at this speed doesn't allow you to swerve over into the oncoming lane to avoid the cyclist. the cyclist is a better target than a semi truck. This is the rule, not the exception...
![[Linked Image]](http://i.imgur.com/VmEuUcF.jpg)
Damn rumble strips. That'd be an ideal shoulder if it didn't have them. What difficulty did you experience in seeing or negotiating your way around that cyclist? I am reckoning I could see him on that road from a mile away, and it's not like traffic density is such that I couldn't easily pass him.
Well, I ain't really taking one side or another in this debate, tho I just put in about 600 roadside miles (??) in Montana and might be about to put in another 140.
That guy in the photo could be me if I didn't hear the vehicle in back and/or weren't watching my mirrors. I run the widest tires I can fit on my 30yo touring bike (35mm) with an aggressive tread (Schwalbe Marathon Mondials) precisely for running off of the asphalt into the dirt when needed.
In that photo I would most likely be riding the strip of smoother asphalt between the rumble strip and the dirt. I can't very well RIDE the rumble strip of course, but I can transition across it pretty easy, my bike frame being so softly sprung. I haven't seen many places but one or two short stretches where the rumble strip took up ALL the shoulder.
In the fatality Shrapnel posted, it reportedly happened on a blind curve, for all we know if the dead guy had been center lane he might have simply been run over.
I must say I fail to see much difference between riding a bicycle in a traffic lane and being a pedestrian in a traffic lane, so I generally vacate them in a heartbeat in the presence of vehicles.
A sad deal for the RV driver, I'll bet it ruins your whole trip to kill some guy.
Like I've said if I get run over unintentionally its ALWAYS gonna be my fault, if it were me that got taken out by the RV mirror I'd say the same.
I will say I have learned to be wary of RV's
plainly lots of folks driving 'em don't have much time behind the wheel of a vehicle that size.
