Originally Posted by Paul Barnard

Center of my lane. Does 3 lane Airline Highway look like any 20 MPH residential road you have ever seen?

Originally Posted by nomadmax

and a cyclist has no way to effectively protect against it.

Originally Posted by GamblerGORD53

There's NO reason for you to hog the lane for ONE car.

Originally Posted by spclark

Should be, yeah. But passing another motor vehicle in such a situation as the OP's described then making a right turn in front of said vehicle is patently illegal pretty much everywhere to my knowledge. Pulling out to pass, taking up the oncoming traffic's lane to do so, is also illegal.

I routinely find myself trying to cross a multi-lane hiway in town. I'm at a stop sign, sometimes far to the right, some other times in the middle of the single lane (I'm a vehicle, right? Not a pedestrian?) in the cross street. Inevitably there are vehicles in the cross-traffic who choose to stop in their respective lanes so as to 'yield right of way' for me to cross!

NOT GONNA HAPPEN. I make it a practice to LOOK AWAY from traffic coming from my LEFT (be first to hit me if I proceed) so I can measure the presence of traffic coming from the RIGHT (that has the right of way at such intersections) yet traffic coming from the LEFT inevitably has a driver or two who take it upon themselves to block traffic so as to make it possible for me to cross.

Even though I'm patiently waiting, at a stop sign, one or both feet planted on the pavement, for traffic to clear the intersection so I can cross when it's safe to do so.

Happens a lot.

Drivers uniformly don't understand the rules of the road. Cyclists must if they're going to survive mixing with motor traffic.

But they're still at a considerable disadvantage in view of their exposure, their lack of protection, the relative speed difference between themselves and motor traffic and the general inattentiveness of a great majority of private motor vehicle drivers who don't acknowledge the rights of cyclists as legitimate vehicular traffic.

Originally Posted by Paul Barnard

I certainly did.

Originally Posted by 1989Pre

​​​​​​​You can wax poetic all you want. A sense of order on the roads is important. Slow traffic stay right.

Originally Posted by DonkeyShow

They went around you successfully (nobody died). What's the problem here? Lanes are for chumps use your brain instead.

Originally Posted by Paul Barnard

Nobody died is certainly the bar we want to set for our interactions.

Originally Posted by Iride01

Isn't it the passing vehicles responsibility to ensure they have a safe distance on the vehicle they just passed before moving back over or turning in front of the vehicle they just passed?

Originally Posted by 1989Pre

Okay, this guy pulled up to the left of you? That's a little bizarre. I've never had that happen, but when I notice erratic or questionable behavior from a nearby motorist, I bail out. I would have gotten off the bike, walked it to the side of the road and waited for him to leave. We can't be surprised when we see illogical decisions being actuated. You asked him what he was doing. This is good. He replied that he is "taking a right". That is just koo koo. This sounds like he was showing his objection to you in the middle of the road, and wanted to keep you to his right. It's not that that makes any sense to me logically, but it may be a description of his thought process. If you had stayed to the right, he may not have behaved in such an exaggerated manner, but with the extremity of his action, I don't think there would be any guarantees. Again, I am not defending this behavior, but riders who "take the lane" when they do not need to confuses and provokes some drivers. This is just the way things are.

Originally Posted by njkayaker

It doesn't seem that this driver doing the "koo koo" thing should be relied upon not to do something "koo koo" even with riding the way you think the OP should have.

Originally Posted by njkayaker

Sure, obviously,. But the actual question is what to do when they don't (like in the situation described by the OP). I doubt you put full trust in drivers doing what they are supposed to.

Originally Posted by Iride01

You seem to not realize the post you quoted wasn't even addressed for the situation the OP described. It was a reply to another member that was offering opinion on another situation described in this thread by another member.

Originally Posted by Iride01

Isn't it the passing vehicles responsibility to ensure they have a safe distance on the vehicle they just passed before moving back over or turning in front of the vehicle they just passed?

Originally Posted by njkayaker

No. The person you replied to was talking about what the cyclist should be doing. You seemed to think he was talking about legal responsibility.

Originally Posted by 1989Pre

RCMoeur, I can accept that you believe what you have been taught. Nevertheless, there are good reasons that bicycles ride on the far right, while faster traffic uses the travel (motorist) lane, and those vehicles traveling at an even-greater rate-of-speed use the passing lane(s), if-any. This is the system we have adopted long-ago, and it works well. Cyclists are even taught to defer to pedestrians by shifting left, to allow the opposing runner(s) their lane. This is the system, and changing it causes confusion to motorists, and often, when people feel confused, they feel vulnerable, and when they feel vulnerable, they react with discord. Again, when I made my original comment, I did not know that O.P. meant "opposing lane" when he said "wrong lane". I had imagined the car being on his right-hand side. The motorist's actions were bizarre, and while the cyclist's position reflects his style and approach, I would disagree with it's necessity or even usefulness.

Originally Posted by jon c.

Absolutely correct. There are a small contingent of posters who don't really seem to like the idea of bicycles on the road at all. I do wonder sometimes if they are actually even cyclists. Their "recommendations" would be downright dangerous and seem to revolve around always being wholly subservient to automobiles.

Originally Posted by Iride01

So essentially you are saying the victim is at fault because they failed to properly realize the potential for a mishap. Geesh, I think that's a ludicrous position to take.

You seem to advocate survival of the fittest.

Originally Posted by Iride01

The OP did what was needed.

Originally Posted by mschwett

the only possible argument i can see here from a legal standpoint is the FRAP law in louisiana - the exceptions to which are paraphrased here "Bike Law Louisiana said bike riders may need to move from the edge of the road because of edge hazards, door risks, narrow lanes where a car and bike cannot safely fit side by side, and other reasons." i'm pretty sure a road that narrow would qualify as "where a car and bike cannot safely fit side by side." if he was further right, and a less-self-righteous but inattentive motorist tried to go around him to make a right turn, they'd almost certainly be over the center line, at which point a car turning right from airline (who would have a green!) would possibly hit them.

i had a similar incident in my neighborhood, a block or two from home on a 25mph, stop light/sign every block street, where a guy pulled completely into the opposite lane honking and yelling at us (me and two kids) to "ride further over where it's safe," to which i said, at the next light (he was fully next to us at this point, as with OPs experience) that the safest place was center right of the lane since it was not a safe place to pass, at which point he went on a tirade about being an off duty officer in another jurisdiction and he wanted to keep my kids and i safe on the streets. ironically a car DID approach in the oncoming lane, but we were already moving on and not involved in the honking and maneuvering that followed.