Someone driving a car that slow and obstructing traffic could get a ticket, why not these riders?
Why would they? What law are they be breaking?
I hate 'em. If a vehicle doesn’t see a cyclist, or if he’s relatively inexperienced, it’s way too easy to have an accident. Right of way doesn’t matter when someone ends up injured or dead.
That said, the municipalities need to cough up the cash for clearly defined, paved bicycle paths. There are roads (mine, for instance) where people bicycle all the time. The posted speed is 45, but people do 50-55 all the time. It’s hilly, curvy, and the shoulder is gravel. I don’t even like walking on it! Yet you will see tons of cyclists haulin’ ass along this road every day. I’m sure the local government knows this. What are they waiting for? A paved shoulder or a bicycle path is needed. Freekin’ put one in before someone gets hurt!
My understanding is that one can get a ticket for driving too slow.
Since scr4 is one of those who believes the burden of proof is on others, I’ll be happy to further expand on the Illinois Vehicle Code, specifically Section 5/11-606 which addresses minimum speed regulation, since you believe there is no law against it:
"No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation of his vehicle or in compliance with law."
Since they weren’t actually in a motor vehicle, I suppose you’d still argue on their behalf, except that Section 5/11-1505.1, which I’ve already cited, states the following for bicyclists:
"Riding two abreast is permitted as long as the normal and reasonable movement of traffic is not impeded. Riding more than two abreast is prohibited except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles."
This essentially translates into the violation of two laws, for those still in doubt as to what the cyclists were doing wrong. In simpler terms, it doesn’t really matter what mode of transportation you use if you’re going less than half the posted speed limit and blocking the lane without authorization to do so (i.e. police, maintenance, construction vehicles, etc.) I hope this clears things up for you, scr4. If you’d like to cite a provision which invalidates the ones I’ve given, please feel free. And FYI, both the minimum speed regulations and the bicycle code sections I’ve cited are more or less universally identical (sometimes verbatim) in every state … and yes, that includes Alabama.
That does not mean that a bicyclist cycling by himself in the traffic lane, where he is permitted by the vehicle code to be, is required to be traveling the speed of the motor vehicles.
It does imply it, though. It doesn’t make a lot of sense for it to be legal to “impede the normal flow of traffic” if you’re alone, but not if you’ve got a buddy.
Of coure, no one ever said laws had to make sense.
Clearly this does not apply to any bicyclist, unless you claim (and can prove) that bicycles are classified as motor vehicles.
However, I stand corrected on my assertion that a car driver doing the same cannot be ticketed; thank you for the correction.
In that case, I agree that the two cyclists mentioned in the OP were violating the law. (But not two laws, as you claim.) I don’t believe I said otherwise; I only defended the practice of taking the lane.
Where did you get this from? The “minimum speed regulations” you quoted obviously only applies to motor vehicles.
No, riding two abreast is legal in some states including Alabama.
Actually I’m not 100% sure the “riding two abreat” law was broken by those cyclists. Was the traffic impeded because they were riding two abreast? I don’t think that was the case; had they been riding in single file, cars would still have had to change lanes to pass.
Oh, it does not imply it. In case you haven’t noticed, a bicycle is not a motorized vehicle. On the other hand, it is a vehicle.
The cyclists were not by themselves, and as stated in the vehicle code, they are not permitted to be riding abreast in a traffic lane if it inhibits the flow of traffic.
The cyclists are on a 50mph road with a shoulder … a shoulder which many cyclists, including myself, ride on frequently. These two, however, are side-by-side in a traffic lane, going 20mph, perhaps less. This is what you’d call impeding traffic. The vehicle code states in no uncertain terms that this IS illegal. The only conditions under which the code states that entering a traffic lane as being permissible are if a cyclist is turning, overtaking another vehicle or cyclist, avoiding an obstruction, or travelling down a one-way highway. None of these four conditions were the case here. The Alabama code says riding two abreast is permissible (b), but it also says that the riders will stay as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable while exercising due care for motor vehicle traffic (a). It also says that whenever possible, the cyclists will ride on a usable path when one is provided adjacent to a roadway (c). The cyclists from my story were nowhere near the right side of the roadway, nor were they excersing due care for the traffic honking at them, nor were they using the shoulder, so even by the Alabama code, they were violating all three clauses.
Since this is all so vague, here’s a diagram of the scenario that they caused:
| C ¦B B|S
| ¦ |S
| C ¦ C |S
| ¦ C |S
| C ¦ C |S
| ¦ C |S
| C ¦ C |S
| ¦ |S
B = Bicycle
C = Car
S = Shoulder
Now, for those debating rhetorical, hypothetical, legal loophole doublespeak about what constitutes a violation of the vehicle code … please explain to me again how what they did was not illegal?
What road was this for those of us fortunate enough to know the area? Sounds like Willow Rd. or Waukegan to me, both of which have nice wide smooth sidewalks along them.
You nailed it, Mike … northbound Waukegan Road, just north of Willow Road. Finally, a testimony to prove there are shoulders. Thanks. 
If the lane was so narrow as to prohibit the safe passing of the cyclists within that lane then they weren’t holding up traffic any more than if they had been one-abreast and thereby not behaving illegally.
IF it were narrow …
IF they’d been one-abreast … (I assume you mean single file?)
First you quote my request for a non-hypothetical response to how this wasn’t illegal, and then you preface yours with a hypothetical scenario. 
This isn’t a “what if” situation. I wrote out the diagram to put an end to any “what if” conjecture. It doesn’t matter how wide or narrow the traffic lane is if there is a shoulder for cyclists to the side of the road.
I wasn’t aiming to interpret alternative scenarios here, the fact is that these cyclists were way out of line and I’ve never seen this done on that road, or other roads just like it, even after living in the area for 15 years. It’s just plain stupid. The signs that say “Share The Road” with a picture of a bicycle aren’t meant to be taken literally on a 50mph road. They mean “be courteous to bikers on the shoulder”, and if you can’t ride on the shoulder provided just like everyone else, then maybe you shouldn’t be biking. But no, these guys would rather break the law and risk their lives just to put themselves on display in a manner I’ve never witnessed before. Why? To be self-entitled assholes? To prove a point? To just start shit with people?
That isn’t the idea behind biking.
I’m sorry, by should I thought you meant sidewalk or other discontinuous part of the road surface. If it’s a clean and rideable shoulder, yes these men were being inexcusable jackasses.
I was addressing Miller’s assertion that the cyclist would be impeding traffic alone because the cyclist wasn’t going the same speed as the motorized vehicel and that would thus be illegal. Feel free to add all the other stuff in there, but that’s all I was addressing.
I was refering to the second quoted law:
“Riding two abreast is permitted as long as the normal and reasonable movement of traffic is not impeded. Riding more than two abreast is prohibited except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.”
Emphasis mine. If two bicyclists are not allowed to impede the normal movement on traffic, it seems odd that one bicyclist should be allowed to.
Wow - they are just obstinate self-righteous pricks, then. Especially with all the construction going on right there, they’re almost begging some already-frustrated driver to knock them into a ditch.
A bike is obligated to stay as close as it safely can to the curb so that a car can pass in the same lane (the car will surely slow to pass, but still you end up with much better traffic flow. Besides, the point is, it’s illegal for the bike to be in the middle of the lane if it’s safe to be close to the side).