This is part of a series of posts in which I try to set up an 'FAQ' of frequent anti-bike arguments that show up on blogs, news stories, etc. If you have factual changes or really good arguments, Feel free to post them in the comments and I'll then try to work them in. If you're just plain looney, I'll probably just delete it in order to keep the signal to noise ratio high. ; )
All of the 'Car' Arguments are pulled from actual people in forums (typos, grammar and all). All of the 'Bike' ones are mine. (or they're borrowed from someone better ;)
2 abreast is an irritation:
I like to bicycle myself, and I worry more about the bicyclists who ride in the canyons, than I do the ones that ride on the streets and use the bike lanes. They buy the clown suits, expensive bikes, and ride down the canyons like they are in the tour d'France. They think nothing of riding two abreast and racing down the canyons, swinging way out on the curves...those are the ones that give all bicyclists a bad name. I'd love to see more of a police presence on some of those roads.
The law says cyclists can ride two abreast while they're not impeding traffic flow, give them a chance to move over before you get too irritated.
As for the swinging wide on curves, the League recommends getting out into the lane on tight corners, because that is where you will be seen the soonest by overtaking traffic that may not know you are there. If you're hugging the right through those corners, a motorist coming up behind you (taking the corner fast themselves and concentrating on it) won't see you and has less time to react.
We know drivers don't wake up in the morning thinking they'd like to hit a cyclist. But it's the unseen cyclist that gets hit. So we do our best to make sure we are where you'll be looking.
(incidentally, that's also the reason for the 'clown suit'... so YOU can see us.)
