Hiro11

Actually, in the US by law cyclists have as much right to the entire lane as motorists. Common sense and courtesy dictates that it's not reasonable for cyclists to take the entire lane, but cyclists do have the legal right to be there. Also, I can attest to the fact that road shoulders are full of gravel, glass, cracks, potholes, shards of metal, accident debris, trash etc. Not a safe place to ride.

Regarding the very common "cyclists don't pay road tax" argument:
1. To be blunt: that's not how the law works. Don't like it, vote to get the law changed.
2. When compared to an average 4,000 pound vehicle, a bike causes very, very little damage to a road, takes up much less room and causes zero environmental damage. How much tax would make sense? Would this be any more that a symbolic gesture?
3. In the US, I'll bet (I have no proof, but it seems reasonable) that majority of serious cyclists who use the road also own a car and are in fact paying road tax. Anecdotally, every serious cyclist I've ever known (and I know a lot) in the suburbs owns a car.

Regarding the very common "why don't they just ride on a path" argument: I'd argue that it's totally impossible to do 21MPH+ (my typcal group ride pace) in a ten person paceline on a crowded bike path.

To head off any counter arguments, of course this works both ways. Cyclists should of course obey the law (stop at lights etc). Cyclists should avoid busy or narrow roads that are inappropriate for cycling as much as possible. Cyclists should avoid rush hours as much as possible. Cyclists should ride single file as much as possible. Cyclists will lose any argument that they have with a motorist and should ride with this in mind.

Answering the OP's question:
NYC was recently voted the best cycling city in the country by Bicycling Magazine. NYC is actually a great place to own and ride a bike. Chicago was #2. I ride 5,000+ miles a year here in Chicago and it's a great city to ride in.

Outside of the major cities, the best place I've ridden in the US is rural New England. Friendly locals, beautiful roads, varied terrain, healthy cycling culture, no traffic, wide shoulders.

FinnDiego

Like you can see from the replies it varies hugely. Here in San Diego many people still see cycling as a sport, i.e. something that you do on a carbon fiber bike with spandex kit on on the 101 early Saturday morning. However, go to North Park at night and you'll see plenty of bikes around with bike racks full, there are the occasional commuters, we routinely get 20-50 people on social rides, there's a surprisingly big track racing scene, and I've even had trouble finding bike parking at the grocery store. (granted that was Whole Foods, but still...)

Yes, cyclists are still a very small minority, especially ones that use a bicycle to get from A to B, the infrastructure is pretty limited and doesn't join up, you get the occasional asshat driver who just has to be in front of you (at the next red light) on the same lane (when there's another one), plenty of riders who don't seem to have the faintest idea on how to ride on the road (brakeless fixies or unlit beach cruisers going the wrong way through red lights), but even in the time I've been here I think I've seen things get better. With the weather we have down here San Diego should really be a world-class cycling city. Maybe in another 25 years!

Bob

Some areas are great, Concord, MA for instance....but some areas are just plain scary down here...plus most of it is grot in the winter, which is a big shame. They don't even bother clear the snow in the cycle tracks in the towns around me

scrubbedexpat091

Around my area except for the serious hard core cyclists going fast, everyone else for the most part uses the side walks.

It's technically illegal to do so, but the police don't enforce it since the town has so few bike lanes, the only place they have bike lanes is where there is no side walk, and on some roads they have signs directing bikes onto the side walk.

nun

Portland Oregon has the reputation of being the most bicycle friendly city in the US....it's full of hipsters.

But Boston is also doing really well. There are lots of new bike lanes and an expanding network of bike paths. There's also a very successful Hub Bike rental scheme that is being used by lots of people and in all the new development plans bikes are prominent in the transportation solutions.

My personal experience of riding in Boston is very good. I do all my shopping on my bike and rarely have problems with bad drivers.

jeepster

Bicycling - The Forest Preserve District of Cook County

Uncle_Bob

google maps is good for checking out the cycle routes & trails in any location. In the getting around menu is an option "bicycling".

sir_eccles

I hope you took your water wings with today.

loubiblu

Same in the UK. I've had many a 'discussion' on why I'm riding in Primary (lots of drivers think I should be in the gutter).

Is single file the norm in the US? I work for British Cycling for their programme to get more women into cycling and we advocate 2 abreast for group rides, not single file.

So looking forward to exploring new routes in and around Chicago. I've got my eye on a Surly Tourer.

I wasn't going to bring my mtb (is shipping 3 bikes overkill?). Maybe I'll just buy a new one stateside!

dunroving

Riding two abreast is allowed in the UK and US, but the expectation is generally to reduce to single file if you are holding up traffic or causing an unnecessary obstruction.

Think about it - two cyclists riding two abreast is like a car driving along at 15 mph ... OK on a quiet country road but not if there is a stream of car traffic.

Also, a group of 30 riders riding two abreast is like an artic driving at 15 mph - even worse! Insisting on your "right" to ride two abreast is unnecessarily provoking drivers (I say that as a driver and a cyclist).

loubiblu

There's a good image to illustrate why riding 2 abreast makes it safer for cars to pass. I don't know how to attach a thumbnail so I'm posting the entire article. If you're riding in a larger group (more than say, 6 riders), you should leave gaps for cars to overtake and slot in. Drivers need to see a group of riders in the same way as they would see any other vehicle. Obviously all this should assume that cyclists will lose any argument that they have with a motorist and should ride with this in mind (Thanks to Hiro11 for that quote, I'm going to use that with my riders)

UK Road Cycling Laws and Rules Explained: Cycling Two Abreast

BTW, I'm also a car driver (a 4x4 no less), but my driving habits have changed since I've started cycling.

Happy pedalling all, the roads are for everyone :-)

Bob

Because you will be knocked off your bike. Your chances of getting hit are big enough riding single file.

As for the over take thing, sure, in theory. Reality, cars will only move a few feet over and can glide past a single file line of bikes without breaking stride. Two abreast and now they've got to do a proper over take and depending on the area, that may or may not be possible for large chunks of road.

Plus you'll get lost in a pot hole if you venture far enough into the road :/

loubiblu

Back to my OP then re 3ft clearance in CA.

I can't back up my post with anything more than anecdotal evidence here in the UK, but you are more likely to get hit as a single file rider than riding in pairs as the driver thinks they can squeeze past one, but should have to perform a proper overtaking manoeuvre, ie as it would for any other vehicle when passing a pair or a group.

I'm sure we could go back and forth with this all day, but it remains there are some drivers who don't know (or don't want to know) the Highway Code for cyclists and I've certainly come across enough bad cyclists to give us all a bad name.

Let's hope the new CA rules don't antagonise drivers.

PS, Most pot holes on the roads I ride are towards the kerb/gutter so primary position when I'm on my own is even more relevant.

dunroving

Hmmm ... some of the roads where I live are narrow and windy, making it almost impossible to overtake riders who are two abreast. As I said, it's like a very slow-moving vehicle, and can result in a tailback of cars a half-mile long. THAT can result in drivers getting frustrated and taking unnecessary risks to get past.

Re: potholes on the near side - which is more dangerous, manoeuvring around it when you are in single file or when you have another rider to your outside?

BTW, in TN there also is a 3-ft law AFAIK.

Bob

You've got a verge in a lot of roads in the UK though, around towns and the like. Not so much down here, where I am at least. Plenty of room to get around a single file cyclist though, not so much when doubled...plus the level of driving and attention span, not so great...you don't want to add the risk as a cyclist of holding a car up here...you're already a target to get knocked off to begin with, sadly.

And pots holes, well can't speak for CA, but they're much worse here as it's usually just a layer of skinny and frost heave kills the whole road, not just the edge.

Oh and the 3ft rule, I think most states have it. It's completely meaningless though.