Times Op-Ed:

A good point: many people wrongly assume cyclists have no rights (including some cyclists). To clarify, cyclists do have a right to occupy a full lane even if they are moving slower than motorized traffic, as long as it is unsafe to share the lane with a car, or if there is damage to the outside of a lane that would make it dangerous to ride to the right. It can be argued that one of these two conditions apply to a majority of streets in L.A.

It's no wonder that utility cycling is on the rise; it's far cheaper than owning and maintaining a car, and has the potential to accommodate many more people using already existing road space. If given a modicum of support with improved infrastructure and policy, it can easily help solve some of our city's transportation problems.

KPCC:

To say that cyclists are "difficult to avoid" when they claim a traffic lane is nonsensical, unless, like Dr. Thompson, your intent is to "accidentally" run them down. Cyclists that ride in the gutter are far more likely to be hit by a motorist who doesn't see them.

When a cyclist takes a traffic lane, it is either because the lane width is insufficient to safely share with a car or there is damage in the right half of the lane that makes riding there dangerous. It is not an attempt to be "rude" and slow down or block motorized traffic.

It is apparent that certain drivers misinterpret this behavior as arrogance. It is not. As a utilitarian cyclist, I have learned through experience that if I am overly considerate on the road and neglect to ride in a safe position, I could be sideswiped by a driver who can't be bothered to slow down and pass me with adequate space, or possibly slammed by a driver-side door, thrown open into my path by someone in a parked car.

If I have to make a choice between appearing arrogant and being killed or crippled, I will side with arrogance.