View Single Post
Old 03-13-10, 08:31 AM
  #29  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 9 Posts
Originally Posted by dougmc
I concur there.

I think part of ChipSeal's problem is that the jurors were probably thinking of slow traffic moving to the shoulder to let people pass -- it's polite, and quite common in rural areas here. But it's not required by law.

(And it's also not normally done on four lane highways like he was on simply because it's not really needed. It's really only common on two lane roads.)
Never is too strong a word. If you're intentionally going 2 mph and it's not up a steep hill, then you're impeding traffic. But if you're going 10+ mph, no.
At it's base, Critical Mass is just a bunch of vehicles on the road. They may or may not break laws, traffic or other -- though with hundreds of cyclists, it often works better if you disregard certain laws. It's pretty much unrelated to this case -- I was just wrong about what charges he was being hit with.

As for Texas, as far as I know, there are NO laws that require a slow moving vehicle to move to the shoulder. In fact, the laws generally state that motor vehicles may not drive on the shoulder in most cases -- but one exception is that you can pull over to let somebody pass.

In some cases. But I think it's generally best for regulations to be vehicle-type agnostic as long as there's not a good reason for them not to be.
I strongly disagree that vehicle codes should be 'vehicle agnostic'. Removal of bike specificity in traffic codes can be a pathway leading to an erosion of bicyclists rights.

States should regulate operation of any motor driven device - motorized lawn mowers, electric golf carts and mini bikes, segways, etc. - separate from bicyclists, particularily for the purposes of clarifying 'impeding traffic' regulations.

Chipseal is in his predicament partially because texas traffic law DOES NOT CLEARLY DEFINE cyclists duties (in the presence of faster traffic) distinct from motor vehicles.

Operators of human powered vehicles should not be subject to impeding traffic laws like drivers of motor driven devices. the notion that a bicyclist can impede traffic is a de facto ban of practical travel by bicycle on many busy roads...

Last edited by Bekologist; 03-13-10 at 09:08 AM.
Bekologist is offline