Originally Posted by
John Forester
This is more of Bek's convoluted and self-contradictory argument that the modern form of the law requiring cyclists to ride as far to the right as practicable (FTR) creates rights for cyclists. This law was first created by motorists to make motoring more convenient by shoving cyclists aside. That law did several things. It destroyed the right of cyclists to operate according to the normal rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. It made cyclists second-class roadway users subservient to motorists. That justified harassment by police whenever cyclists operated by the normal rules of the road. And and these things justified the public belief that cyclists were trespassers on the roadway created for motorists.
Obeying the original FTR law was dangerous because it contradicted the safe movement rules of the road. Therefore, in 1976, the FTR law was modified with exceptions that allowed cyclists to make some movements as required by the rules of the road. That is, the new FTR law returned to cyclists some of the rights that cyclists had had before the first FTR law, but still kept cyclists in the status of second-class roadway users subservient to motorists. This return to cyclists of some rights they had previously held as drivers of vehicles is what Bek now calls the creation of new rights for cyclists. Quite clearly, repeal of the FTR law would return to cyclists all the rights of drivers of vehicles that the original FTR law was thought to destroy. It would thereby destroy the legal justification for police harassment of cyclists for obeying the normal rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and, by removing that legal justification, would, over time, assist in reducing the extent of harassment by unofficial motorists.
Bek gives his opinion as that repeal of the FTR laws would increase harassment of cyclists by motorists. Of course, that is the argument that would appeal to any person, like Bek, who suffers from the prejudiced belief that cyclists should be kept in a second-class status subservient to motorists.
CABO also agrees with Bek and considers that the FTR laws give advantages to cyclists... They also agree with me with regard to the lack of knowledge of such laws by the general public...
With regard to the last statement CABO states...
Recent events in the news have illustrated the need for motorists and bicyclists to “share the road”. Yet often times both motorists and bicyclists are often unaware of bicyclists’ rights and duties. Therefore, this article takes a look at laws governing bicycling on roadways in California.
http://www.cabobike.org/articles/bic...alifornia-law/
The same article goes on to state:
21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a “substandard width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.
While this is similar to 21654, the key difference is that while it is sufficient to be anywhere in the right most lane to comply with 21654, a bicyclist must share the right most lane per 21202 unless certain conditions apply.
Note that the word “practicable” gives a cyclist more latitude than the word “possible”. One example is a road with on street parking – while it would be possible to ride close to the parked cars, it would not be practicable to do so due to the potential of being hit by a parked car door.
This was also the opinion of CABO in an earlier review of the laws...
6. “Practicable” is a Flexible Term Favorable to Bicyclists
Bicyclists need only ride “as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge.” There is no California case law interpreting this critical phrase in the slow bicycle rule, but there are several cases construing identical language in an identical context in the slow vehicle rule (including one applying the rule to a bicycle[55]). For internal consistency and harmony among the statutes, this language must be given the same meaning whether its subject is a bicyclist or a motorist.[56] These cases make it clear that “as close as practicable” is a highly flexible directive, varying widely according to conditions; that positions well away from the edge of the road can still be in compliance; and that there is no violation of the slow bicycle rule if traffic is free to overtake and pass.
http://www.cabobike.org/articles/bicycles-and-the-law/
Also what you call "discriminatory laws," CABO and others find as being favorable to cyclists... apparently your view is NOT widely held by cyclists. (Go figure)