"If, for instance, you are behind a cyclist and approaching a stop, passing the cyclist likely will gain you nothing. In fact, you may end up passing the cyclist twice: once before the intersection, a second time after. Which, let’s face it, is going to annoy you."
Speaking as a cyclist, I hope not -- that means the cyclist has advanced past a car in front of him in the lane, which is a stupid thing to do. Either own the lane and be a vehicle, or get off the bike and on the sidewalk.
Actually that doesn't work that way. In many states sharing the lane is legitimate, and biking no the sidewalk as well.
But that means, you're fine with all bikes claiming the complete lane right? That means you can't pass them at the stop, and you can't pass them as long as the left lane is not 100% free (just like passing a car).
When I do claim the lane when I bike (it happens that I need to, if there's no bike lane and it's a dangerous part of the road), I don't pass cars at the stop. But again, most of the time, I don't, and can't, claim the lane. This means I'd rather be in front of the cars at the stop (= they see me) than next to the cars 3 cars behind the stop (= whoever turn right, won't see me, and since they rarely use the signalization lights, or perform another stop before turning right, it means its horribly dangerous)
In the UK, many traffic lights have a space for cyclists at the front and centre, so cyclists can skip to the front and maneuver the junction more safely.
This leads to many cases where a driver will have to pass a cyclist twice.
Speaking as a cyclist, I hope not -- that means the cyclist has advanced past a car in front of him in the lane, which is a stupid thing to do. Either own the lane and be a vehicle, or get off the bike and on the sidewalk.