Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 245
  1. #1
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,827
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    OK can anyone tell me why getting rid of FRAP is so important?

    I have read time and time again from some folks that the FRAP laws in their minds are the root cause of so much strife on cyclists. What I want to know is if FRAP is gone, how will both cyclists and motorists act differently on the roads? What about FRAP is the big issue (I have see folks post that the "exceptions" and they way they are written are a problem).

    How will life change for cyclists? Where on the road will cyclists ride if there are no FRAP laws? SMV laws will no doubt apply and these laws still put "slow moving vehicles" on the right side of the road... so how is this different from FRAP?

    Some have stated that changing the law will change the behavior of other road users... but if those other road users don't know the laws as they now exist and tend to simply believe that "slow means move right..." what is going to be different?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,547
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One problem with FRAP laws is that they are sometimes interpreted by drivers, law enforcement, and cyclists as requiring cyclists to always ride as close to the right of the road (not roadway) as possible. That is, it's fairly common for the laws to be understood as being much more restrictive than they are in fact.

    (Note that "road" includes the "roadway" (the travel lanes) and the shoulder.)

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,518
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I know we love our jargon, but you should start by explaining that FRAP means "far right as practical".

    My opinion: it's perfectly fine. Sure it can be misinterpreted, but on its face, and the way it's always worked for me (I've been riding in traffic since the early 70s), I've never had a problem riding safely nor being given hassle when I have to move left or take the lane. Well, except for the odd jerk who honks or yells, but that has nothig to do with FRAP.
    Last edited by Camilo; 05-22-12 at 12:21 PM. Reason: corrected "practical"

  4. #4
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,827
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    But how is getting rid of FRAP (far right as practicable) going to change how motorists treat us or how we ride... we will still be subject to SMV which is slow vehicles keep right? I see no difference... other than FRAP is specifically for bikes and SMV is for all vehicles... and the latter does not include "exceptions" such as "When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized."

  5. #5
    Senior Member kalliergo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    SF Bay
    My Bikes
    Trek Valencia+, Dutch cargo bike, Karate Monkey, etc.
    Posts
    708
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Camilo View Post
    I know we love our jargon, but you should start by explaining that FRAP means "far right as possible"
    Ah, but is that what it means? Or is it "practicable?" Check your state law and look up the difference in meaning.
    "What if we fail to stop the erosion of cities by automobiles?. . . In that case, we Americans will hardly need to ponder a mystery that has troubled men for millennia: What is the purpose of life? For us, the answer will be clear, established and for all practical purposes indisputable: The purpose of life is to produce and consume automobiles."

    ~Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities

  6. #6
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There's a very compelling reasons for BIKES-FRAP laws, genec - they allow riders to take the lane and position themselves a safe, considerate distance away from the edge of the roadway and avoid the right for many expressed reasons.

    Genec, states can't get rid of FRAP. Bicycle traffic will either be governed by SMV-FRAP law or BIKES-FRAP laws.

    BIKES-FRAP laws generally have more explicit reasons and more allowances for bicyclists to take the lane than SMV-FRAP laws.

    Riders in SMV-FRAP law states are generally required by their states' DMV and traffic laws to keep as far to the right as practicable at all times with limited explicit allowances to take the lane. Bicyclists in BIKES-FRAP states are usually allowed to control lanes too narrow to share, and to avoid the right for many more reasons than reiterated in states SMV-FRAP laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by camilo
    you should start by explaining that FRAP means "far right as possible".

    FRAP does NOT mean as far right as possible - it is only as far to the right as is practicable or safe.

    Bicyclists shouldn't fight to remove BIKES-FRAP laws from their states - these are usually the laws that allow riders to 'take the lane'. If Florida or California cyclists fought to remove BIKES-FRAP laws, they'd be left with NO explicit allowance to 'take the lane' when its unsafe to share, and would be regulated to ride FRAP with very limited allowance to take the lane.

    people that suggest bicyclists fight to remove FRAP allowances are likely in the pockets of the motoring establishment and proponents of the supremacy of the motor car like the American Dream Coalition.

    Bicyclists that suggest BIKES-FRAP laws statutorily prevent cycling according to the rules of the road are pushing a corrupt dogma that in no way correlates to the express allowances given to cyclists by BIKES-FRAP laws.



    Bicyclists enjoy many explicit allowances to take the lane in states with BIKES-FRAP laws- there's no sound reason to fight BIKES-FRAP laws, as that would leave cyclists in the undesirable position of riding subject to much more restrictive SMV-FRAP laws.

    And again, you can't "get rid of FRAP"
    Last edited by Bekologist; 05-22-12 at 11:19 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Harvest, AL
    My Bikes
    Trek 1000C, Raleigh M50
    Posts
    207
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    FRAP is not "far right as possible". In states with FRAP laws, it's "far right as practical", or "far right as practicable". Irate motorists and uninformed police officers often THINK it's "far right as possible", but that doesn't make it law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camilo View Post
    I know we love our jargon, but you should start by explaining that FRAP means "far right as possible".

    My opinion: it's perfectly fine. Sure it can be misinterpreted, but on its face, and the way it's always worked for me (I've been riding in traffic since the early 70s), I've never had a problem riding safely nor being given hassle when I have to move left or take the lane. Well, except for the odd jerk who honks or yells, but that has nothig to do with FRAP.

  8. #8
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,827
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    BEK I largely agree with you on this... I am trying to sort out the motivation behind "get rid of FRAP" as expressed by some here... and what it would really mean to us cyclists... and frankly I don't see any practical advantage to getting rid of FRAP. And no one has cited a practical advantage.

  9. #9
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    calls to repeal FRAP laws is corrupted dogma, a siren call put up by the overly auto-addled bicycling cotillion to muddle bicycling advocacy and the clear the roads of bicyclists as much as possible.

    Calls to subject riders to SMV-FRAP laws instead of BIKES-FRAP laws is the siren call to regulate riders further out of the lane under more circumstances and into an untenable, unable to control the traffic lane under the methodology of EC (Edge of the road Cycling) methods.

    you know, EC style- where bicyclists never take the lane if traffic is moving faster than the cyclist? the EC, Edge Cycling method. control the edge of the lane, ride to the right of traffic, ride like a road sneak, ride the lane lines to not delay faster traffic. EC, inferiority laden methodology of edge cycling.

    It is a far better legal position for riders to be allowed to control the lane under many circumstances reiterated in states' BIKES-FRAP laws.

    the best BIKES-FRAP law at present time is Colorado's. bicyclists moving slower than traffic legally regulated to the right hand lane, and to only share it if safe to do so.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  10. #10
    Senior Member kalliergo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    SF Bay
    My Bikes
    Trek Valencia+, Dutch cargo bike, Karate Monkey, etc.
    Posts
    708
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Bek: Do you have a problem with the Ohio laws, as revised in 2006?
    "What if we fail to stop the erosion of cities by automobiles?. . . In that case, we Americans will hardly need to ponder a mystery that has troubled men for millennia: What is the purpose of life? For us, the answer will be clear, established and for all practical purposes indisputable: The purpose of life is to produce and consume automobiles."

    ~Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,518
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sorry - everyone pointed out that I mis-typed "practical" as "possible". That was just a typo on my part, and I do understand the critical difference. I corrected it in my post above. Thanks for pointing it out because it is germane to the discussion.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    My Bikes
    Bianchi San Remo - set up as a utility bike, Peter Mooney Road bike, Peter Mooney commute bike,Dahon Folder,Schwinn Paramount Tandem
    Posts
    1,824
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In my mind, the problem with FRAP is that it is backwards. In many urban areas, the exceptions to FRAP rule more than the primary 'As Far Right as Practicable' portion, but when law enforcement, and drivers read the law, they will tend to read the primary portion and forget, or gloss over the exceptions. The result is that it is not uncommon for a LEO or motorist who sees a cyclist who is riding legally, but is not at the right edge of the pavement to assume that the cyclist is disobeying the law.

    Lets assume that we had a relatively simple tax law in which you had to pay 10% of your income in taxes unless you were a widow over 65 years of age and with more than three cats, in which case you had to pay 5%. This law could either be written as as I stated it above, or it could be written as all people must pay 5% with the exception of those who are under 65, those who are married to live people, those who have never married etc. The net effect of the law is the same either way, but by writing it with lots of exceptions, the impression at first reading is that the tax rate is 5% not 10%, and you could expect that a lot of people would underpay their taxes. FRAP is an example of a law which consists mostly of exceptions, and as such is confusing and poorly written.

    The purpose of the FRAP laws is to keep cyclists from impeding traffic when there is not a negative impact to their safety. In the state where I live (CA), and I believe in most states, there are already laws which cover impeding traffic, so a specific FRAP law, with a litany of exceptions serves no real purpose, and does have the negative impact of encouraging LEO and motorist actions which are contrary to the law.

  13. #13
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,827
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sauerwald View Post
    In my mind, the problem with FRAP is that it is backwards. In many urban areas, the exceptions to FRAP rule more than the primary 'As Far Right as Practicable' portion, but when law enforcement, and drivers read the law, they will tend to read the primary portion and forget, or gloss over the exceptions. The result is that it is not uncommon for a LEO or motorist who sees a cyclist who is riding legally, but is not at the right edge of the pavement to assume that the cyclist is disobeying the law.

    Lets assume that we had a relatively simple tax law in which you had to pay 10% of your income in taxes unless you were a widow over 65 years of age and with more than three cats, in which case you had to pay 5%. This law could either be written as as I stated it above, or it could be written as all people must pay 5% with the exception of those who are under 65, those who are married to live people, those who have never married etc. The net effect of the law is the same either way, but by writing it with lots of exceptions, the impression at first reading is that the tax rate is 5% not 10%, and you could expect that a lot of people would underpay their taxes. FRAP is an example of a law which consists mostly of exceptions, and as such is confusing and poorly written.

    The purpose of the FRAP laws is to keep cyclists from impeding traffic when there is not a negative impact to their safety. In the state where I live (CA), and I believe in most states, there are already laws which cover impeding traffic, so a specific FRAP law, with a litany of exceptions serves no real purpose, and does have the negative impact of encouraging LEO and motorist actions which are contrary to the law.
    There may be issues with LEOs and Judges... who need to be better educated on these cycling laws... But I contend that the motoring public generally could not cite one iota of biking specific law, and in their minds we cyclists are simply slow obstructions that need to get out of the way... and to those motorists FRAP is non existent.

    So again no one can offer a practical difference between FRAP and SMV.

  14. #14
    You gonna eat that? Doohickie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas Church of Hopeful Uncertainty
    My Bikes
    1966 Raleigh DL-1 Tourist, 1973 Schwinn Varsity, 1983 Raleigh Marathon, 1994 Nishiki Sport XRS
    Posts
    14,013
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sauerwald View Post
    In my mind, the problem with FRAP is that it is backwards. In many urban areas, the exceptions to FRAP rule more than the primary 'As Far Right as Practicable' portion, but when law enforcement, and drivers read the law, they will tend to read the primary portion and forget, or gloss over the exceptions.
    I will agree with that.

    Frankly, I doubt most motorists are even aware of FRAP for cyclists. If the law changed, their reaction would be the same: "&*%$@* bike is in my way!"
    I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.



    Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."

  15. #15
    Senior Member kalliergo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    SF Bay
    My Bikes
    Trek Valencia+, Dutch cargo bike, Karate Monkey, etc.
    Posts
    708
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sauerwald View Post
    The purpose of the FRAP laws is to keep cyclists from impeding traffic when there is not a negative impact to their safety. In the state where I live (CA), and I believe in most states, there are already laws which cover impeding traffic, so a specific FRAP law, with a litany of exceptions serves no real purpose, and does have the negative impact of encouraging LEO and motorist actions which are contrary to the law.
    +1. On-target and well-written.

    I would only point out that, where I generally ride (SF and Marin), the LEO's seem to mostly understand the exceptions (or, in the City, have little interest in traffic enforcement of any kind) and aren't a problem. Motorists are getting better, slowly, but are still largely clueless, as are the vast majority of cyclists.
    "What if we fail to stop the erosion of cities by automobiles?. . . In that case, we Americans will hardly need to ponder a mystery that has troubled men for millennia: What is the purpose of life? For us, the answer will be clear, established and for all practical purposes indisputable: The purpose of life is to produce and consume automobiles."

    ~Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    My Bikes
    Sun EZ-Speedster SX, Volae Expedition
    Posts
    447
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    SMV laws will no doubt apply and these laws still put "slow moving vehicles" on the right side of the road... so how is this different from FRAP?
    Most SMV laws go like this:

    "any vehicle proceeding at less
    than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the
    conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then
    available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb
    or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another
    vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left
    turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway."

    See the OR in there? Any vehicle in the right hand lane then available for traffic is meeting the law. If you're on a two lane road (one lane in each direction) and you're in the lane you're fine.

    Some have stated that changing the law will change the behavior of other road users... but if those other road users don't know the laws as they now exist and tend to simply believe that "slow means move right..." what is going to be different?
    If the law was changed, the DMV driver's manuals would have to be changed, and test answers would have to be changed, etc... Finding bicyclists in the lane would be expected.

    I think some FRAP laws are better than the SMV law (like Colorado's) but not others (like NY's.)

    For example, here is the NY State Driver's Manual talking about where to find bicyclists on the road:

    Bicyclists and in-line skaters must:

    Ride in a bicycle lane, if a usable one is available. Where there is none, the bicyclist must ride near the right curb or edge of the road, or on a usable right shoulder of the road, to avoid undue interference with other traffic. The rule of staying to the right does not apply when a bicyclist or in-line skater is preparing for a left turn or must move left to avoid hazards.

    Come to a full stop before entering a roadway from a driveway, alley or over a curb.

    Never travel with more than two abreast in a single lane.

    Never ride on a sidewalk if local laws prohibit it.
    The FRAP exception for narrow lanes is summarized here as 'must move left to avoid hazards.' When I'm taking the lane on a narrow road a driver who studied the manual is not going to expect me to stay there legally. If the NY FRAP law were gotten rid of then the NY slow moving vehicle law quoted above would hold and the Driver's Manual would have to be re-written.

  17. #17
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,827
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by benjdm View Post
    Most SMV laws go like this:

    "any vehicle proceeding at less
    than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the
    conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then
    available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb
    or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another
    vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left
    turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway."

    See the OR in there? Any vehicle in the right hand lane then available for traffic is meeting the law. If you're on a two lane road (one lane in each direction) and you're in the lane you're fine.



    If the law was changed, the DMV driver's manuals would have to be changed, and test answers would have to be changed, etc... Finding bicyclists in the lane would be expected.

    I think some FRAP laws are better than the SMV law (like Colorado's) but not others (like NY's.)

    For example, here is the NY State Driver's Manual talking about where to find bicyclists on the road:



    The FRAP exception for narrow lanes is summarized here as 'must move left to avoid hazards.' When I'm taking the lane on a narrow road a driver who studied the manual is not going to expect me to stay there legally. If the NY FRAP law were gotten rid of then the NY slow moving vehicle law quoted above would hold and the Driver's Manual would have to be re-written.
    Thanks... that OR is a powerful thing... and yes, I can see that could make a difference... Although honestly I and others like me probably take the right lane anyway in most instances due to the exceptions of FRAP. So while I salute you in providing something of an answer... I have to believe there is no real practical difference between FRAP and SMV.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,547
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    Thanks... that OR is a powerful thing... and yes, I can see that could make a difference... Although honestly I and others like me probably take the right lane anyway in most instances due to the exceptions of FRAP. So while I salute you in providing something of an answer... I have to believe there is no real practical difference between FRAP and SMV.
    any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway,
    If there are two (or more) same-direction lanes, you can take the right hand lane (you are not required to ride FRAP) (you aren't really holding up traffic because the other lane makes it easy to pass). If there aren't two (or more) same-direction lanes, then you have to keep to the right of the lane (you are required to ride FRAP).

  19. #19
    Senior Member bandit1990's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    122
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    Thanks... that OR is a powerful thing... and yes, I can see that could make a difference... Although honestly I and others like me probably take the right lane anyway in most instances due to the exceptions of FRAP. So while I salute you in providing something of an answer... I have to believe there is no real practical difference between FRAP and SMV.
    Genec,
    I'm missing your point here (probably from my ignorance). Here in CA, we ar goverened by both FRAP and SMV while on a bicycle. CA VC 21202 allows bikes to take the lane for various conditions (like other states), but it is a subset of VC 21656, which directs slow moving vehicles to pull over and let others pass. So for all intents and purposes, FRAP and SMV are one in the same (at least here). Guess I've made a circular argument. I'll go back to the sidelines now.

  20. #20
    Senior Member kalliergo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    SF Bay
    My Bikes
    Trek Valencia+, Dutch cargo bike, Karate Monkey, etc.
    Posts
    708
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bandit1990 View Post
    Genec,
    I'm missing your point here (probably from my ignorance). Here in CA, we ar goverened by both FRAP and SMV while on a bicycle. CA VC 21202 allows bikes to take the lane for various conditions (like other states), but it is a subset of VC 21656, which directs slow moving vehicles to pull over and let others pass. So for all intents and purposes, FRAP and SMV are one in the same (at least here). Guess I've made a circular argument. I'll go back to the sidelines now.
    No, bandit, you've misunderstood the CVC. Section 21656 is entirely separate from the FRAP provisions. It does apply to bicycles, but only under very specific circumstances:

    CVC 21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.
    "What if we fail to stop the erosion of cities by automobiles?. . . In that case, we Americans will hardly need to ponder a mystery that has troubled men for millennia: What is the purpose of life? For us, the answer will be clear, established and for all practical purposes indisputable: The purpose of life is to produce and consume automobiles."

    ~Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities

  21. #21
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by benjdm View Post
    Most SMV laws go like this:

    "any vehicle proceeding at less
    than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the
    conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then
    available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb
    or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another
    vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left
    turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway."

    See the OR in there? Any vehicle in the right hand lane then available for traffic is meeting the law. If you're on a two lane road (one lane in each direction) and you're in the lane you're fine.
    SMV-FRAP laws don't intend for a vehicle on a two lane road to simply be in the lane and everything's fine! That is a glaring overreach of SMV-FRAP laws.

    The long standing intent of SMV-FRAP laws are - slower traffic keep right. Slow moving traffic on two lane roads, keep right to facilitate overtaking by faster traffic. Slow moving narrow vehicles, keep right to facilitate passing.

    the OR clearly intends that slow moving vehicles that can keep right shall to share the road shall do so, not that the entire lane of a two lane road is an allowed lane position by a slow moving vehicle.

    It is a glaring misrepresentation of SMV-FRAP laws to suggest they somehow intend to mean slow moving vehicles are okay using any section of the lane on a two lane road
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  22. #22
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,827
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    If there are two (or more) same-direction lanes, you can take the right hand lane (you are not required to ride FRAP) (you aren't really holding up traffic because the other lane makes it easy to pass). If there aren't two (or more) same-direction lanes, then you have to keep to the right of the lane (you are required to ride FRAP).
    My question is why some folks want to repeal FRAP... when SMV basically would offer no advantages to cyclists... If FRAP is repealed, how do cyclists ride differently... and with the exception of the OR that may be in some state laws, there really is no difference... at least in how cyclists would ride.

    At least no one has offered a difference.

  23. #23
    Randomhead
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    12,652
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I probably would ride what I consider to be far to the right as practicable without frap laws, I just don't think something that open to interpretation should be a law. Officer Joe Bagadonuts is not qualified to properly interpret what is practicable for me to do or not. I think it's just an excuse for the occasional road-rager in blue to work out his frustrations. My interests are that motorists pass me safely, but as expeditiously as possible. I really don't want them to be fuming behind me

    Pennsylvania does not have a bike specific frap law, but they do have a SMV frap law, so there is no difference. For whatever reason, the SMV law doesn't ever seem to be enforced except against bicycles
    Last edited by unterhausen; 05-22-12 at 02:07 PM.

  24. #24
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kalliergo View Post
    No, bandit, you've misunderstood the CVC. Section 21656 is entirely separate from the FRAP provisions. It does apply to bicycles, but only under very specific circumstances:
    It's not section 21656 that california cyclists would have to be concerned about, but 21654 California cyclists would be governed under if BIKES-FRAP CVC 21202 were repealed.

    I strongly caution bicyclists to read CVC 21654 very, very carefully. If you were riding under the provisions of this statute, and were cited for violating it, there would be prima facie evidence you were breaking the law.


    It's a terribly onerous law with admission of guilt built in for failing to operate to the right!

    Quote Originally Posted by cvc 21654
    (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

    (b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time, and is not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute prima facie evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation of subdivision (a) of this section.


    This would be a terribly onerous riding standard. Anyone suggesting California riders fight CVC 21202 to ride under CVC 21654 needs their head examined. Calls to repeal California's BIKES-FRAP law is sabotage. Talk about giving away bicyclists' right to take the lane!

    CVC 21654 would not be interpreted by the courts as allowing riders to take any lane position on a two lane or even multiple lane road, the historically clear intent of CVC 21654 and other SMV-FRAP laws of its kind are to regulate slow vehicles to the right to facilitate overtaking.

    simply riding in the lane and getting cited would be an admission of guilt in California if the 'repeal FRAP' fanatics had their way.

    BIKES-FRAP repeal is very dangerous bicycling advocacy and a platform that needs to be strongly rejected in California and every other state. I consider it a very furtive effort by the motoring lobby that have duped certain cynical bicycling rights fringers to get bicyclists to abdicate our right to the road under the false peal of 'equal rights'.

    Genec- what's the difference if riders were regulated under SMV-FRAP laws in California instead of the BIKES FRAP law?

    Riders would have very limited cause to 'take the lane' (only when passing vehicles or making left turns) and the added burden of admission of guilt under the 'prima facie' terms of CA's SMV-FRAP laws.

    the difference is SMV-FRAP laws would be much worse for California cyclists than BIKES-FRAP laws. A fundamental and very important difference. Getting rid of FRAP isn't important, preserving cyclists right to take the lane under FRAP is important!
    Last edited by Bekologist; 05-22-12 at 02:19 PM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    I have read time and time again from some folks that the FRAP laws in their minds are the root cause of so much strife on cyclists. What I want to know is if FRAP is gone, how will both cyclists and motorists act differently on the roads? What about FRAP is the big issue (I have see folks post that the "exceptions" and they way they are written are a problem).

    How will life change for cyclists? Where on the road will cyclists ride if there are no FRAP laws? SMV laws will no doubt apply and these laws still put "slow moving vehicles" on the right side of the road... so how is this different from FRAP?

    Some have stated that changing the law will change the behavior of other road users... but if those other road users don't know the laws as they now exist and tend to simply believe that "slow means move right..." what is going to be different?
    Genec's argument is erroneous in at least three points.

    1: Most generally, he ignores the effect on government and on motoring society of having a law that makes cyclists second-class roadway users. Genec considers only the immediate effect on motorists when driving.

    2: Genec bases his argument on his assumption that motorists don't know that there is a law requiring cyclists to ride far right. That's plain absurd, because for many motorists that's all they know about law as it applies to cyclists. That's why they feel justified in treating cyclists as trespassers or intruders.

    3: Genec has erroneous opinions about the law for vehicles moving slower than other traffic. Wherever there is a right-hand lane for traffic such vehicles are to be driven in that lane. That's what the law says. In short, it is only on roads without lanes that slowly moving vehicles are to be driven as close as practicable to the edge of the roadway. Bek is the source of lies about this. He maintains, to suit his own cyclist-inferiority ideology, that vehicles moving slowly are entitled to use a lane of traffic only on multi-lane roads. Despite months of his digging, he has failed to find any court case in which a slowly-moving driver on a laned road was prosecuted for failing to drive as far right as practicable instead of for not using the right-hand lane. If a prosecuting attorney was dumb enough to so word his accusation, the judge would take one look at the word "or" between the two requirements of the statute and throw the case out. With or, satisfying either one satisfies the requirement of the statute.

    Now consider the longer-term effect on motorists of repealing the FTR laws. We have all noticed, or should have, the gradual improvement in governmental statements about cyclists' rights as drivers of vehicles. However, government is hindered in making such statements forcefully because the FTR laws deny most of those rights, that is, except when they maybe give some back for exceptional circumstances. By repealing the FTR laws, government will have no problem in teaching that cyclists have all the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. Over the long term, that understanding will sink into the minds of the population.

    Now consider the effect on the highway and police authorities. Whatever they do about cycling would have to be done with full recognition of cyclists' right to use the roadway in the same way as all other drivers of vehicles. No different treatment, which, as we have seen, almost always produces words results. No more forgetting the list of exceptions to FTR, and producing improper enforcement and prosecution; there won't be a list of exceptions because there would not be a FTR law, so that all drivers get treated the same.

    How about for cyclists, which consideration Genec does mention? No further worry about police action for obeying the same laws as other drivers do. No worry about the exact contents of the list of FTR exceptions and whether one or more of them will be respected by the police and, possibly, the judge.

    And think of the wider aspects of repealing the FTR laws. If we want to encourage bicycle transportation, we should not place it under limits and lowered status created by motorists to make motoring more convenient. That's shooting yourself in the foot at the start of a running race.

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •