That’s just it: it’s not a race, or a sanctioned event. And as you say, the law that allows a cyclist to take up as much of the lane as they require deals with each cycle as an individual, not as a group. If cars crowded en masse the way cycling clubs tend to, and there is an accident, everyone driving in that manner would be cited for reckless driving, reckless endangerment, or worse.

Also, the issue as written is not restricted to the rose bowl area, that is just the example given. Cyclists behaving in the same irresponsible manner are all over the streets of Pasadena every day. Some of the other laws I’ve seen ignored include hand signals (cyclists are required to use hand signals when entering main lanes of traffic, but a good many of the ones I have seen are behaving as if they are racing, and don’t take their hands from the handlebars - they should be cited for that because they can cause accidents); blocking cross lanes of traffic (see my original example) and generally abusing the priviledge of using a public shared environment.

Perhaps it would belay the more negative outcome you are worried about if the cyclists did organize the regular Rose Bowl rides as a workout, practice, or race, and specifically request that they be allowed to cordone off a lane for that use. Then the problem is addressed, and the measure as presented falls to the wayside (that is until the next time some group of cyclists abuses some other section of road).

Unfortunately government works like your third grade teacher. If one kid made noise the whole class got punished. I have to agree with Vorischt: If you are so concerned about the freedom to cycle as you would choose, then organize the cyclists involved in peloton style rides to obey rules that they help to make, otherwise government will do what they deem is best for the majority, and the cyclists will be SOL.

On the two occasions when I was stuck behind ‘em, they were moving well below the speed limit, the width of the group was frequently overflowing into the opposing traffic lane, and a number of the riders were acting like jerks toward the pileup of motorists behind them — which eventually degenerated into a chorus of honking horns, chancy passing on opposite side of the street by a couple of the cars, and an unsafe situation for everyone involved.

You can cite the fine points of California law (intended to protect bicyclists from mean motorists, not vice-versa) — but you’ve seen what the City Council almost did. The political reality is that, if the peloton-ers keep being obnoxious, the council members will act to get their constituents off their backs. As I suggested earlier, it would probably be better for all involved if the peloton riders embraced the “share the road” concept a little more firmly and thus avoided city rulemaking they’re bound to dislike.

A voluntary effort to limit the width of the group to three or four abreast, leaving enough room on the left for a car to pass safely, and a little common courtesy, would likely solve the problem.

Vorsicht: Automotive traffic doesn’t need to pass the peloton at the Rose Bowl. The peloton moves at the speed limit. It’s a legal right for cyclists in the state of California to take up as much of the lane as they feel they require. There’s nothing that states that they need to allow room for vehicles to pass. The Rose Bowl has one lane per direction, and two-wheeled traffic has equal rights to those lanes.

I think it’s fantastic that you ride.

I can confirm that those among your fellow velocipedists who militantly ride shoulder to shoulder far enough out to prevent cars from passing, act rude, say bad words, signal with their middle fingers, etc., don’t earn any public relations points for the peloton. Maybe you could bring your skills in that area to bear, work with the participants, encourage the bad actors to behave in a more marketable manner, and we could all live happily ever after.

The two-abreast restriction evidently didn’t turn y’all on much. What do you think the city council will come up with next? As a certain federal government agency is known to say, “Either you can fix the problem, or we’ll fix it for you; you may not like our solution.”

I would like to iterate that there is more than one side to this argument. While it is completely boneheaded of local government to pass such an ordinance right after approving the pro level race to come to town, it is only boneheaded so much as it makes them look contradictory.

WCSN network broadcasts out of the studio where I work, and covers professional road cycle racing extensively. Both domestically and internationally, these races are on either closed sections of roadways, or have extensive safety precautions taken to insure their integration with other vehicles and pedestrians.

Even the RAAM (Race Across America) has “a crew vehicle fitted with flashing lights is required to follow closely behind the rider at all times to ensure they are visible.” [excerpt from wikipedia]

As stated in the ordinance request, the peloton is not outlawed by the law, but merely needs to have a permit system implimented. As with any nonstandard use of a public roadway (parade, street fair) the permit allows for a section to be shut down or cordoned in a way that is safest for everyone involved, and doesn’t provide special privilege to any group of people who are required to obey the rules of the road like anyone else.

Also as worded, the document is not a proaction but a reaction to cyclists abusing their privilege (not right, mind you) to use the road and ignoring the safety of pedestrians and other vehicles.

In my own experience I have found this to not be uncommon, including one time where I have personally seen a lead cyclist stop in an intersection to block cross traffic to let the peloton through. Putting aside the complete audacity (and sheer stupidity) of the individual, this is highly illegal, as the intersection was a 4 way stop, and cycles are individual vehicles, not given status as a group.

The ordinance is actually not required, because as the existing law is written in the state of California, the peloton on public roadways is already illegal (see the sections mentioned: 21100 and 21202 and subsections). This is really just a request to see an exsting law enforced.

Put another way, you would not want nitro burning tuner set streetracers screaming up and down your streets recklessly, and this, while not as severe, can cause damage and bodily harm if the participants are not following existing laws and guidelines.

As such, how can you stand against it?

PS: I’ll be heading back to city hall again tonight.

Sorry girl!