Peter Signorini wrote: > "Michael Warner" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected] > > On 6 Jan 2006 02:12:02 GMT, Zebee Johnstone wrote: > > > >> percentage wise, they are negligibly wider than roadbikes as far as > >> your average car is concerned. > > > > What is the relevance of the width of a car? The point is that I have > > to give them a significantly wider berth than road bikes. > > My off-road MTB has bars that are 64 cms wide, as opposed to the average > road bar at around 40 cms (they should be abbout the width of your > shoulders) so there's 24 cms difference. But wait, it's only the right side > of the bar that matters when passing, so it's 12 cms wider that you are > forced to ride. > > So because of a 12 cm passing difficulty you're proposing to relegate all > MTB riders to a lesser road system.? There is actually a significant difference between passing room requirements, as road bars are far less likely to clash and tangle than MTB bars - MTB bars usually stick out beyond a rider's elbows, and roady bars (typical wide 42 cm center to center, so effectively 46cm or so) are usually narrower than rider elbows. Elbows are ok to bump, bars not so. That's not really relevant to a "right to the road" debate, no matter what side you take, and riding that close to an unprepared rider is not wise anyway - be they on a roady or a flat bar bike. The main reason why you can ride closer to road bikes is that many road bike riders are used to riding in close proximity to other bikes and are less likely to be spooked by the experience. MTB riders don't tend to ride in densely packed bunches as much as roadies. 'course, it's not a good idea to assume that because a rider is on a roady, that they won't be spooked and swerve etc, but it's a safer* bet than if they're on a MTB or hybrid. * I'm not advocating gambling. Unless I have a very good idea that a rider I'm passing is competant, I give everyone a wide berth.