This. If a lane is too narrow for a bike and car to share in addition to the 3-foot buffer, where the bike is in the lane is irrelevant other than to assuage the anger of motorists who want to be able to pass dangerously without being inconvenienced.
But you have incorrectly assumed that it is illegal for a vehicle to depart their lane to pass an obstruction. Here is a link explaining with regard to Florida vehicle code.
Essentially a vehicle operator can depart their lane (even crossing double yellow) to pass under reasonable conditions. I would even go further to say that a driver is expected to depart their lane due to the geometric constraints you mention.
In response to my prior post I now see the point that is being made.
I leave up the original reply including the link for reference.
I can think of several municipalities on popular cycling routes that have a single file ordinance. Most serious riders know that they can get away with riding two across, but youāll still be open to getting pulled over by a small town cop, one who already has chip on their shoulder.
Thatās so sad. Thankfully in the UK we donāt have that law. Our guide says "you should never ride more than two abreast ". Unfortunately some people treat that as you canāt ride two abreast, and ignore the āmore thanā bit. Every so often governments organisations and other places will spell out that itās easier/faster to overtake a short compact group at the correct time than a long strung out one. They also point out that a two abreast group is more visible to people which helps everyone too. That however, seems to get ignored by some (probably mostly the same some) too 
Reads like the so many other stories that lead people to believe there are some groups that are more privileged than othersā¦
āTeen with college aspiration with no criminal intendā
āCops interview him at the scene, no tickets issuedā
Classic
They should charge the kid with using a chemical weapon, on top of the other normal charges. That would stop this BS.
Iāve gone through the whole thread but thereās no explanation of the term āroll coalā. Obviously in common usage in the US but Iāve never heard it here in the UK - Iām no petrol head so donāt hang around in motoring circles where it may be used.
You change the tune of a diesel engine to dump extra fuel in the cylinders under heavy load so that it doesnāt burn all the way. They also remove particulate filters, modify the exhaust, etc. The result is large black clouds of smog out of the exhaust. Peopleās Reasons for doing it range from thinking it looks cool to pure anti-environmentalism.
As expected, it seems the kid might be connected in the county
What I donāt understand about this case is when the coal rolling was happening. Itās not logical to hit the cyclists from the rear while coal rolling them. Normally they zoom by and hit the gas as they are passing to create the cloud of smoke.
In the past, every time Iāve heard of a group of cyclists getting plowed from behind, itās been a case of DUI, mental illness, asleep at the wheel, meth, or a combination of several of those things.
This case is just odd or details have not come to light yet.
The fact the cops didnāt give a shit about the cyclists should tell you anything you need to know about the what happenedā¦
Read the legal representation of the 6 cyclist that i just postedā¦
What? Youāve never heard of cyclists being intentionally ābrushed backā and the driver misjudging distances? Never heard of distracted drivers using their phones or paying attention to their radios and not the road?
Seems pretty clear this kid was trying to scare the cyclists and things went horribly wrong.
His ādefenseā is he was reaching for his cellphone to call his dadā¦
Iāve been road cycling for 4 decades and Iāve seen/heard about many of these cases but no, Iāve never of a case where a whole group of cyclists was mowed down by someone trying to buzz them and scare them.
There is more to this case that we havenāt heard.
As I read the situation, I think the most likely scenario is that the driver wanted to scare the cyclists, but misjudged the relative speed and collided with them without intending to. The latter doesnāt change that the driver is solely responsible for that.
Even if things went āas intended, I can also imagine being startled by the howling engine, being engulfed in dark smoke (that makes it harder to breathe, too). Even then if one or more of the cyclists had crashed into one another in the peloton as a consequence, this would have been 100 % on the driver.
Like what?
Some of things I mentioned. There was a witness in the truck with him. He must have a story. Drugs could be involved. All we read is ārolling coalā as the newspaper headline and we see a whole group of cyclists plowed into. It doesnāt match up. Thatās all Iām saying.
If he had clipped them with his side mirror, then ok, Iād believe the story that has been presented so far.
No kidding. Iām not trying to suggest that the driver isnāt at fault. Iām saying that the story so far sounds like BS. It doesnāt align.
You are right that we donāt know the full story, and probably we will never will know what the driver truly intended to do.
The victims likewise probably wonāt have a full grasp of what transpired ā not only because they donāt have eyes in the back of their heads and things must have happened in a split second, but because thatās what shock does to you. (Iām not dinging them, thatās just the nature of things.) Nor would I take the passengerās testimony at face value.
The question, though, is whether this is relevant for the legal case at all. I canāt say, I am not a lawyer. However, I canāt see a scenario where this crash wouldnāt have been 100 % the drivers fault and where the driver at the very least accepted risking the lives or the cyclists.
What worries me, though, is the cavalier attitude of law enforcement, and I reckon this attitude continues in at least parts of the judiciary system.