As an aside, I'd like to object to this rhetorical technique. "You haven't found the thing that proves me right, therefore I am right" should not be permitted in arguments.

For the record, I don't think your intent was malicious, just calling attention to something I see a bit and don't like.

21202 and 21654 explicitly list restrictions that must be followed when traveling at "less than the normal speed of traffic". This suggests to me that doing so is legal. By the way, 21202 is exactly what I quoted to you, so it's kind of funny that you would repeat it back to me.

22400 deals with impeding traffic, "unless it's necessary for the safe operation" of the vehicle. I don't know who determines what is necessary for safe operation, but travelling at a speed achievable by humans is certainly necessary for the operation of bicycles, and bicycles are explicitly granted permission to use roads.

I certainly don't see any clear legal requirements in general to maintain any specific minimum speed limit.

By contrast in Korea, they're not supposed to use roads at all and you'll find everything from bikes to scooters sharing sidewalks with people on foot. But bikes aren't real common here anyways with the small apartments and all.

edit actually I was curious and looked it up for Korea. Turns out according to Article 2(17)(a) of the 도로교통법 (road laws), bikes are classified as motor vehicles and have all the same rights and responsibilities as a motor vehicle.

Weird because I almost never see them out in traffic, but usually up on sidewalks or on "bike-only" roads.

looking up the conversation, recursive and you seem kind of hung up on this wording "unless it's necessary for the safe operation" which I would interpret as meaning not just speed but actual safety. Of course it's not safe (or possible) to operate a bike at 100 kph. But I personally also don't feel safe clinging to the right most bit of a lane with a dropoff inches away while vehicles whizz around me.

I try not to ride on roads with poor bike safety without having to consult the law, but it seems like that phrase basically enshrines what I already do. If it's a fast road with no shoulder, I really try hard no find a path that doesn't take me on it. Yeah, sometimes you can't avoid it. But I'm not going to get upset with somebody who would rather not be driving their car in the same lane as me. I don't want to be in the lane with them either!

Right, I have no compunction taking the lane when the shoulder gets dangerous. Safety is always the concern. Note, for instance, that one of the specific times you're told you don't have to stay right (21202a4 - https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.html) is when a car might try to make a right turn through you (a frequent way for cyclists to get hit).

http://www.mva.maryland.gov/safety/mhso/program-bicycle-safe...

> This ride-to-the-right provision does not apply when operating in a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle to travel safely side-by-side with another vehicle within the lane.

> A bicyclist riding at the speed of traffic can operate in any lane, just as any other vehicle can..Where there is not a bike lane, a bicyclist may also use the shoulder of the roadway.

> Bicycles may not be ridden in the travel lanes of any roadway where the posted maximum speed limit is more than 50 miles an hour; however, bicycles may be operated on the shoulder of these roadways.

So it seems to me that if I ever go back to MD, I can take over the entire lane if I'm keeping up with traffic (which for me means speeds < 20mph at full blast). Between about 20mph and 50 I can also take it over if there's no safe shoulder or other place for me to ride. Above 50 I can only ride on an available shoulder, if there's no shoulder I can't go on the road at all.

Maybe that's what I was thinking of. Either way I don't like to get out in front of cars, except maybe in the local neighborhood on residential streets where they're not supposed to be exceeding 15mph anyways.