Are we really that provocative?

[Trigress]

Is there a real reason you need to ride two across and make everyone go into another lane in order to pass you?

Mainly in order to be more visible. Most roads here are so narrow that in order to pass safely the driver needs to use the other lane anyway, and with lots of curves it's certainly not an easy question whether it's better to ride two abreast and shorten the peloton or to ride one by one and stretch it through the curve. Often it's more dangerous for us if we're only one and then the driver gets encouraged to pass with a foot clearing, if we're two at least they see us.

We tend to stretch out one by one if the road really is broad enough to pass safely even with oncoming traffic.

[lph]

I think all the clubs here reckon two abreast as the safest way to move, as the cars have to treat the group like another car and not like some annoying narrow obstruction they could probably squeeze by.

But when there's a lot of traffic we split up into groups of max ten or so, i.e. 5 pairs, which isn't hard for a car to pass if the opposite lane is clear.

[Zen]

When I first read the post heading I thought you were having trouble with men harassing you

[Trigress]

When I first read the post heading I thought you were having trouble with men harassing you

Well, sort of - the driver was indeed male!

As lph said, it's safer on these narrow roads to always ride two abreast: the rule is that cars should only overtake when the oncoming lane is empty, so it shouldn't really be much of a difference to the drivers. And two abreast means shorter and more visible peloton. That said, on American roads I think I'd support one at the time - you really di have much better roads.

[Tuckervill]

It's a good point...if bikes are vehicles (and in Arkansas, they are), then it's unsafe to pass anything without going into the next lane. That means drivers have to wait until the the other lane is clear of oncoming vehicles and they can see far enough ahead to determine that. It doesn't always make sense for cars to wait for there to be a single yellow line, but technically, they're supposed to. (I pass tractors all the time on double yellow, if I can see ahead and it's moving slow enough.)

Karen

[OakLeaf]

In most states, it's only forbidden to cross the double yellow to pass another "motor vehicle" (which excludes farm equipment and horse-drawn buggies as well as bicycles). Vehicles in the road that are not defined as "motor vehicles" by state law are considered "obstructions" (more equivalent to a fallen tree, a piece of truck tire or an enormous pothole ), and it's perfectly legal to cross the double yellow (when safe) to pass us.

(This is a general rule - I haven't researched the law of every state.)

ETA: one point nobody's mentioned is that when there's a long line of vehicles behind you, whether you're riding a bicycle or driving a car below the speed limit, it's common courtesy to pull over and let them pass when you have a safe opportunity to do so. Yes, it's inconvenient, and a long paceline makes it very difficult to do, but it's still common courtesy. Sometimes there just isn't a safe place or time to pull over (e.g. in rush hour traffic, once you pulled over, you'd never get back in line), and in those cases the cars do just have to deal with it IMO.

Several years ago I was looking at the California vehicle code (which is much more detailed than most states'), and IIRC, even when you're in a car, if you're holding up five or more vehicles, you are required to pull over. Something to think about.

Additional edit: here's the California statute:

Turning Out of Slow-Moving Vehicles

21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

Amended Ch. 448, Stats. 1965. Effective September 17, 1965.

[Trigress]

I haven't heard anything like that here, but out of courtesy one might as well take it up. I'll keep it in mind in fact, although I have rarely had the problem of holding up more than one or two cars. In the incident I mentioned there were three, but the reason why the two last cars were held up was the first one that stopped. But it's sensible to do as you mention, in those cases where it would be relevant.