Based on the width of that road it's entirely likely that the motorist is breaking the law by trying to pass when the road is too narrow to do so. I agree with

Based on the width of that road it's entirely likely that the motorist is breaking the law by trying to pass when the road is too narrow to do so. I agree with you that having dedicated bike-only lanes are a far superior solution to the bike/car traffic interaction problem. Unfortunately in the scenarios described the driver is generally going to be at fault for doing something unsafe. I sympathize because doing the safe thing and waiting is not only inconvenient but also somewhere between frustrating and infuriating. But given the picture you linked to, the driver is at fault. Now in the situation where there's a 3ft shoulder and the cyclist is riding in it and goes down and falls into the road forcing a driver to make a horrible choice between a bunch of bad options then yes I'm very sympathetic to the points you make. But in that case the cyclist has 3ft to maneuver and probably doesn't hit the rock or the crack or veer or whatever. Furthermore a cyclist moving along at a decent clip is going to have a very hard time changing directions fast enough to get out into the road and under a car without giving the driver time to react. Bikes don't turn on a dime at 20mph. If you fall at 20mph you basically keep going in whatever direction you were headed, possibly with limbs flailing. Your center of mass can't just instantly move 3-5 feet perpendicular to the direction of travel. If the cyclist loses control due to some other circumstance then whatever happens is on him for not maintaining control of his vehicle. Perhaps he could be prosecuted for manslaughter or get sued for wrongful death. I don't have a problem with that; real life has consequences.