Ignorant or Acceptable?

[Biciclista]

well, Eden, your points are all good and since neither of us were there, I guess we can only imagine.

[Eden]

well, Eden, your points are all good and since neither of us were there, I guess we can only imagine.

Exactly - from the described circumstances we can only say until the red light, he wasn't breaking any laws here in WA. I think people are too quick to judge without knowing any of the why's. There are places that I will never use a bike lane even it it is provided and cared for -for example steep/long down hill - I just will not limit myself to 3 or 4 feet of pavement for a 35mph descent. I want the whole lane when negotiating a corner at that kind of speed.

[Kathi]

From Colorado Department of Transportation.

"When to take a lane
A bicyclist may take the travel lane where traffic is slow
and the lane is narrow, there is no shoulder or bike lane,
when approaching an intersection, or if you are moving
at the same speed as the flow of traffic. Moving to the
center of the lane establishes your position and prevents
motorists from passing until there’s enough room."

Also, bicyclists may ride 2 abreast only if they are not impeding traffic.

I do habitually run a red light but it is during the low traffic time of day, rarely does a car show up to trip the light so I stop, make sure there is no traffic then proceed thru the light to the bike lane.

[Eden]

Remember traffic law is very location specific. Here in WA it is always legal to ride 2 abreast. In some places it is never legal. Here in WA bicycle lanes are always optional - in other states they are always mandatory.

[pll]

Eden,

I agree with you on most of the points you make -- on a descent, you might be going faster than car traffic and it is not safe to be next to curb or edge of the road. And if the bike lane is dangerous because of car doors, debris or crack, the same applies.

I still think it is rude to ride two abreast when there is heavy traffic. Yes, it might be legal, but "legal" is not the same as courteous (or ethical in other contexts). In Illinois, that has been 'codified' into the law already ("Persons riding 2 abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane..."). In heavy traffic, two riders abreast also make life difficult for cyclists that might need to pass.

Regarding running red lights, as many have expressed here, I won't run one unless it is one that only changes when cars are present. In my usual riding route, there is only two of those and I have reported them to IDOT. I am curious to see what happens, because one of those lights won't even react to three big motorcycles -- I saw this last weekend. 3 motorcycles and two cyclists, the light never turned green. The next day, I arrived at the same intersection, with a car behind me, and within seconds we had a green light.

[Eden]

In Washington our law reads...

Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

Technically they weren't even two abreast if they were in separate lanes. (you don't think of cars in adjacent lanes as two abreast do you?)

And I still don't think that there was nearly enough information to form any sort of judgment about what he was doing.... If he was on a street like Roosevelt, which is one way, but has 2-3 lanes at all times, not using the bike lane doesn't generally impede anyone. If traffic is so heavy that all of the lanes are full and a car could not simply change lanes to pass, then traffic is likely going more slowly than a bicycle can easily travel. In any case, the OP hasn't chimed back in to answer my questions, so while maybe he was noodling down the street and just being an obstruction, from the initial description he was acting in, at very least, a legal manner, so I still think that people shouldn't be so quick to judge the guy.

[pll]

Let's agree to disagree on this one. Personally, I would rather avoid what my family used to call the 'German driver's epitaph': "But he had the right of way."

[jessmarimba]

Technically they weren't even two abreast if they were in separate lanes. (you don't think of cars in adjacent lanes as two abreast do you?)

If they are going the exact same speed and impeding traffic...yes. It isn't legal for cars to "pace." Now, it happens on occasion by accident, but it isn't legal for me to decide to deliberately match the speed of the person in the lane next to me and prevent the normal flow of traffic.