Originally Posted by
John Forester
NJ doesn't understand the application of SMV laws to cyclists. Some people argued that that meant persuading SMV operators to ally themselves with cyclists. As I explained, that is false.
So, it appears we agree about that.
Originally Posted by
John Forester
But then NJ argues, as if in disbelief, that applying the anti-cyclist to SMVs would be bizarre. Of course it would be; that's the point of the argument. Because trying to apply the anti-cyclist bias to SMVs would be seen as bizarre, then it could not be applied to cyclists under the SMV law.
From this, then, the following (asked earlier) is
bizarre.
Originally Posted by
John Forester
No? Would you risk applying the anti-cyclist bias in enforcement to the operators of slow-moving vehicles? These people do have political power because their livelihoods depend on their machines.
No, of course not (it's a bizarre question).
Originally Posted by
John Forester
Since the SMV laws apply to drivers of vehicles (cyclists being members of this class), then all drivers of vehicles must be treated similarly, and it is unlawful to single out cyclists for different treatment than tractor drivers.
SMV laws apply to drivers of slow moving vehicles (ones that cannot travel at "normal" speed). Motorcycle laws apply to operators of motorcycles. NEV (neighborhood electric vehicles) laws apply to operators of those vehicles. Tractor trailer laws apply to operators of those. Motor vehicle operators are required to have licenses and liability insurance.
Originally Posted by
John Forester
I don't know whether NJ accepts that the typical SMV law allows the choice of use of the right-hand lane or as close as practicable to the curb or right-hand edge of the roadway. By quoting the SD example, which is pure FRAP, he has not stated his belief about the typical SMV law.
There must be
two John Foresters, each contributing to the different threads!
If you "don't know whether", then your ability to reply to what I said in the other thread is very remarkable (since you are implying that you haven't read or understood or remember what you are replying to!).
Anyway, the following is a reasonable reiteration of what I "accept" what the typical SMV law says. While you no longer hold the following position (your prerogative), it's
odd that you "don't know" it!
Originally Posted by john forester 1st thru 6th editions Effective Cycling
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.