Two lane roads do not have left hand lanes and right hand lanes for simultaneous travel in the same direction. the word or in SMV FRAP laws does not provide an option to not operate FRAP, it clearly refers to right hand lanes on multiple lane lane roads OR FRAP.
Vehicles are required to operate on the right half of roads in all states, thereby precluding any designation of the opposite half of a roadway as a left hand lane. the other half of a two lane road may be the left
half of a road compared to the authorized travel lane, but it is most assuredly not designated as a 'left lane' that would somehow, magically obviate slowly moving vehicles to facilitate passing on two lane roads when being overtaken.
"THERE'S A BUS COMING RIGHT FOR US IN THIS LEFT LANE YOU SAID WE COULD USE, LOU!"
what a flailing bluff!
john, you yourself stood behind a more reasonable interpretation, the ONLY reasonable interpretation of SMV FRAP laws, for near thirty years and in two printings of your books. This sudden break from agreeing with longstanding, reasonable standards of traffic law to lapse into such irrationality showcases a certain fringe element that is haplessly or duplicitously seeking to take away cyclists rights.
Originally Posted by john forester, EC 1st and 2nd editions
The drivers who must comply with the statute are given the choice of lateral position on the roadway, the two options being: "in the right-hand lane for traffic" or "as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb." It is reasonable to conclude that "the right-hand lane for traffic" means that two or more lanes are available for traffic in that direction (if this is not the assumption, the phrase would have no relevance). Therefore, while the cyclist has the choice, he is lawful if occupying the right-hand lane for traffic if there are two or more lanes for traffic in his direction, and is required, on road with only one lane for traffic in his direction, to ride as close as practicable to the right-hand edge.
john foresters newfangled notions about traffic laws would be considered irrelevant and unreasonable to john forester himself in his more reasonable days.
A man on a horse and a horse drawn cart do NOT have free reign to choose any lateral lane position on a two lane, 60 mph highway under CVC 21654, or the laws of any state. Suggesting that they do is ludicrous and unsupportable. There are sound reasons for laws regulating traffic.
There is a long standing, commonly held duty of road users (embodied in the model traffic ordinances of the UVC, and codified in the laws of every state) that Slowly Moving Vehicles should *shall* move right, as Far Right As Practicable, on two lane roads, to facilitate overtaking.
In California, a slowly driven vehicle on a two lane road is required to be operated as far to the right as practicable to facilitate passing traffic.
Why john unceasingly fritters away this forums bandwidth with such far fetched, unsupportable fictions about traffic laws affecting bicyclists is quite odious. Rank, fraudulent fictions about traffic laws are a detrimental and dangerous masquerade of cycling advocacy that aims to erode cyclists rights in this country.