4 ms·

I’m afraid not. > https://www.bicycling.com/rides/a20026266/bicycle-safety-do-you-legally-have-to-ride-single-file/ https://www.bicycling.com/rides/a20026266/b

I’m afraid not. > https://www.bicycling.com/rides/a20026266/bicycle-safety-do-you-legally-have-to-ride-single-file/ https://www.bicycling.com/rides/a20026266/bicycle-safety-do-... > https://www.zifflaw.com/ny-bike-accident/bike-accident-attorney-addresses-rules-for-cycling-side-by-side-in-ny-state/ https://www.zifflaw.com/ny-bike-accident/bike-accident-attor... And this is assuming, again, that the municipality is silent on the matter. That is, some areas and roads can and do insist on single file. Or for that matter, that cyclists in twos aren’t forcing drivers to cross into the opposing traffic lane.

Dylan16807 5y ago
> I’m afraid not. I have no idea which part of my post that's a response to. Especially because the first sentence of your second link is "Only three states allow bicyclists to ride side by side but require them to ride single file when being overtaken by a vehicle. New York is one of those states." allow bicyclists to ride side by side... Because, just to be extra clear again, the scenario you laid out earlier was complaining that they were side by side before any attempt at overtaking was happening.
- nobodyandproud 5y ago
  Then that’s your misunderstanding. To quote myself: > It’s for their safety and courtesy, telling them that a car is passing because they (the cyclists) aren’t following the rules and interfering with the flow of traffic. To be extra clear: I’m already overtaking a duo/trio and I’m doing so because they still haven’t yielded or gone single file.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    To quote you more: > I’m talking about duos and trios just riding in sync having a conversation. > This happens way too frequently in some areas of where I cycle. Nobody calls them out on it either, except honking drivers. This post sure sounds like you think they already aren't following the rules by hanging out side to side, having a conversation for an extended period of time. If that's not what you meant, that you're only talking about when someone tries to pass, then okay I guess we're not in disagreement here. And let's not forget that you also said: > Cyclists going side-by-side in a single-lane (per-direction) is violating the rules. Which is only true on certain shapes of road, and the core of the rule is staying out of lanes when possible, even when they're already single-file. So I think any misunderstanding on my part is understandable and not purely my fault.
- nobodyandproud 5y ago
  HN isn’t letting me reply, so using this one. > This post sure sounds like you think they already aren't following the rules by hanging out side to side, having a conversation for an extended period of time. If that's not what you meant, that you're only talking about when someone tries to pass, then okay I guess we're not in disagreement here. I wonder what you think “overtaking” means, in the context of not impeding traffic. >And let's not forget that you also said: >> Cyclists going side-by-side in a single-lane (per-direction) is violating the rules. Which is only true on certain shapes of road, You mean like “….why are groups of cyclists going in rows of two or three in a *narrow service road* (40 to 50 mph speed limit).” > So I think any misunderstanding on my part is understandable and not purely my fault. Oh, it’s absolutely your fault. Context is everything.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > I wonder what you think “overtaking” means, in the context of not impeding traffic. Someone has to be trying to pass before it counts as overtaking and possibly impeding. The law definitely doesn't say to stay in single file at all times just in case someone might want to overtake at some point. > You mean like “….why are groups of cyclists going in rows of two or three in a narrow service road (40 to 50 mph speed limit).” No, not at all! They only have to leave the lane if there is a big enough shoulder. A narrow service road is exactly where bikes are permitted to use the lane!! You cut the most important part of my sentence which is "the core of the rule is staying out of lanes when possible, even when they're already single-file." If the road forces them to be in the lane anyway, then they don't have to be single file as a general rule, only when someone is overtaking. The only reason not to be side by side, other than overtakers, is when one bike could fit in the shoulder but the second bike would have to be in the lane. If both bikes can fit in the shoulder, then side by side is no worse so it's allowed. If zero bikes can fit in the shoulder, then side by side is no worse so it's allowed.
    - nobodyandproud 5y ago
      > Someone has to be trying to pass before it counts as overtaking and possibly impeding. So are you saying cars need to slow down to bicycle speeds, wait for the cyclists to go to single file (assuming they do at all), then go back to normal speeds? > No, not at all! They only have to leave the lane if there is a big enough shoulder. A narrow service road is exactly where bikes are permitted to use the lane!! Nope. Again, you failed to understand the context. The service road is narrow—just two lanes, but one for each direction—but the shoulder is well-paved, clean, and nearly the width of a full lane. I make this extremely clear in my discussion elsewhere. New York insists that cyclists stay on that righthand shoulder.

Dylan16807 5y ago

> I’m afraid not. I have no idea which part of my post that's a response to. Especially because the first sentence of your second link is "Only three states allow bicyclists to ride side by side but require them to ride single file when being overtaken by a vehicle. New York is one of those states." allow bicyclists to ride side by side... Because, just to be extra clear again, the scenario you laid out earlier was complaining that they were side by side before any attempt at overtaking was happening.

nobodyandproud 5y ago
Then that’s your misunderstanding. To quote myself: > It’s for their safety and courtesy, telling them that a car is passing because they (the cyclists) aren’t following the rules and interfering with the flow of traffic. To be extra clear: I’m already overtaking a duo/trio and I’m doing so because they still haven’t yielded or gone single file.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  To quote you more: > I’m talking about duos and trios just riding in sync having a conversation. > This happens way too frequently in some areas of where I cycle. Nobody calls them out on it either, except honking drivers. This post sure sounds like you think they already aren't following the rules by hanging out side to side, having a conversation for an extended period of time. If that's not what you meant, that you're only talking about when someone tries to pass, then okay I guess we're not in disagreement here. And let's not forget that you also said: > Cyclists going side-by-side in a single-lane (per-direction) is violating the rules. Which is only true on certain shapes of road, and the core of the rule is staying out of lanes when possible, even when they're already single-file. So I think any misunderstanding on my part is understandable and not purely my fault.
nobodyandproud 5y ago
HN isn’t letting me reply, so using this one. > This post sure sounds like you think they already aren't following the rules by hanging out side to side, having a conversation for an extended period of time. If that's not what you meant, that you're only talking about when someone tries to pass, then okay I guess we're not in disagreement here. I wonder what you think “overtaking” means, in the context of not impeding traffic. >And let's not forget that you also said: >> Cyclists going side-by-side in a single-lane (per-direction) is violating the rules. Which is only true on certain shapes of road, You mean like “….why are groups of cyclists going in rows of two or three in a *narrow service road* (40 to 50 mph speed limit).” > So I think any misunderstanding on my part is understandable and not purely my fault. Oh, it’s absolutely your fault. Context is everything.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > I wonder what you think “overtaking” means, in the context of not impeding traffic. Someone has to be trying to pass before it counts as overtaking and possibly impeding. The law definitely doesn't say to stay in single file at all times just in case someone might want to overtake at some point. > You mean like “….why are groups of cyclists going in rows of two or three in a narrow service road (40 to 50 mph speed limit).” No, not at all! They only have to leave the lane if there is a big enough shoulder. A narrow service road is exactly where bikes are permitted to use the lane!! You cut the most important part of my sentence which is "the core of the rule is staying out of lanes when possible, even when they're already single-file." If the road forces them to be in the lane anyway, then they don't have to be single file as a general rule, only when someone is overtaking. The only reason not to be side by side, other than overtakers, is when one bike could fit in the shoulder but the second bike would have to be in the lane. If both bikes can fit in the shoulder, then side by side is no worse so it's allowed. If zero bikes can fit in the shoulder, then side by side is no worse so it's allowed.
  - nobodyandproud 5y ago
    > Someone has to be trying to pass before it counts as overtaking and possibly impeding. So are you saying cars need to slow down to bicycle speeds, wait for the cyclists to go to single file (assuming they do at all), then go back to normal speeds? > No, not at all! They only have to leave the lane if there is a big enough shoulder. A narrow service road is exactly where bikes are permitted to use the lane!! Nope. Again, you failed to understand the context. The service road is narrow—just two lanes, but one for each direction—but the shoulder is well-paved, clean, and nearly the width of a full lane. I make this extremely clear in my discussion elsewhere. New York insists that cyclists stay on that righthand shoulder.