John Forester

Bek's argument is that the FRAP law with its exceptions create rights for cyclists that do not exist under the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The FRAP law removes rights, but its exceptions give back more than is taken. Bek has presented this argument without any legal support and with only his own dramatic verbal argument. The right that Bek claims to be created for the cyclist, over and above the rights granted by the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, by the FRAP exceptions, is the right to occupy the full width of a lane that is too narrow to share. However, this right exists in the standard rules; drivers of vehicles are assumed to occupy a lane, where lanes are marked. The only exception is the FRAP law, which holds that cyclists are not entitled to occupy a lane, but to use only the practicable right-hand edge of the right-hand lane and become second-class road users. Think about it: no FRAP law means no FRAP legal requirement.

Bek claims that the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles generally require cyclists to ride FRAP. The law that he so claims is the California slow-moving vehicle law (CVC 21654) , which requires drivers moving slowly to use "the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge." Obviously, on roads which have no lanes the FRAP requirement applies; these are low-traffic, low-speed residential urban roads and a few very low-traffic rural roads. These really are not significant when considering general traffic operations. Bek claims that two-lane roads do not possess a "right-lane for traffic", and, therefore, that CVC 21654 requires cyclists on two-lane roads to ride FRAP. The definition of a laned roadway includes two-lane roadways "A road is a "laned roadway" when it is divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for vehicular traffic. (UVC 1-133)" Obviously, when looking or traveling along the roadway, one lane is the right-hand lane and the other is the left-hand lane. Without a shred of evidence, Bek claims that this is not so, that only multi-lane roads can have a right-hand lane.

Bek's claim that two-lane roads do not have a right-hand lane enables him to argue that the CVC 21654 requires cyclists to always ride FRAP on two-lane roads (we are ignoring the few two-lane roads with wide lanes) while the exceptions to the FRAP law allow cyclists to occupy the right-hand lane. Bek's argument depends completely on the claim that two-lane roads do not have right-hand lanes, which is, I offer, rather absurd. It is not in keeping with the words themselves, while it would have been easy to use the appropriate phrasing if Bek's limited definition had been intended.

In short, Bek's defends the FRAP law, which was created by motorists, and also the bikeways which were created by motorists to enforce FRAP. Throughout, his defenses are no more than saying that what the motorists created for bicycle traffic is wonderful for cyclists. In short, no substantive evidence, only praise for governments' carrying out of motorists' desires. Oh, yes, the general public has the same beliefs in these matters as do motorists, if for no other reason than that most of the voting public are also motorists. The only opposition comes from those cyclists who have discovered that "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles."

That's not the total explanation. Bek is obviously one of those who believe that doing what the public desires about bicycle transportation is the most effective way to persuade motorists to take up bicycle transportation. Therefore, opposing the public desire about bicycle transportation is expressing opposition to the powerfully emotional dream of converting from an automobile-dominated system to a bicycle-dominated system. That's why Bek, and others of similar opinion, are so strongly opposed to cyclists claiming their rights as drivers of vehicles by working for repeal of the FRAP and bikeway laws.