Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-09-14, 11:53 AM   #1
hotbike
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
hotbike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Long Island, New York
Bikes: a lowrider BMX, a mountain bike, a faired recumbent, and a loaded touring bike
Posts: 2,859
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
New FRAP Law in West Virginia

New Law in W.V.?

New law aims to make bicycle riders safer » Latest Updates » Bluefield Daily Telegraph, Bluefield, WV

"The Bicycle Safety Bill (HB-4304) requires bicycles to generally travel in bicycle lanes or as close as practical to the right edge of the roadway. "

Sounds like a FRAP Law, what was the Law before?
hotbike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-14, 12:21 PM   #2
mr_bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Bikes:
Posts: 1,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
NOBODY is adding FRAP - it's getting eliminated or watered down, including in WV. Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. WV is a better place today than it was.


Bottom line - WV *WAS* one of the worst FRAP states - no exceptions, must use path.
The original bill would have gone to Massachusetts style - NO FRAP!
Sadly, it was amended in committee to be FRAP with exceptions.

The safe passing (3 foot) passage didn't get touched by committee, nor did the must use path DELETE! This is the good.


This version of the bill shows the strikethroughs and additions.
Final updated sections of law.
The original bill.


(And sorry to say, beware byline-free reporting. Lack of ad revenue cuts reporting which reduces readers which cuts ad revenue...)

-mr. bill

Last edited by mr_bill; 06-09-14 at 12:28 PM.
mr_bill is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-14, 01:18 PM   #3
hotbike
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
hotbike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Long Island, New York
Bikes: a lowrider BMX, a mountain bike, a faired recumbent, and a loaded touring bike
Posts: 2,859
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_bill View Post
NOBODY is adding FRAP - it's getting eliminated or watered down, including in WV. Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. WV is a better place today than it was.


Bottom line - WV *WAS* one of the worst FRAP states - no exceptions, must use path.
The original bill would have gone to Massachusetts style - NO FRAP!
Sadly, it was amended in committee to be FRAP with exceptions.

The safe passing (3 foot) passage didn't get touched by committee, nor did the must use path DELETE! This is the good.


This version of the bill shows the strikethroughs and additions.
Final updated sections of law.
The original bill.


(And sorry to say, beware byline-free reporting. Lack of ad revenue cuts reporting which reduces readers which cuts ad revenue...)

-mr. bill
Thank you for that update.

(And I must give credit to the Bluefield Daily Telegraph for that article.)
hotbike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-14, 01:41 PM   #4
B. Carfree
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Bikes:
Posts: 6,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
The new law isn't horrific, but it isn't good either. Motorists aren't very good at reading the fine print and round off such laws (in their minds) to mean that cyclists always have to ride as gutter-huggers. When a cyclist refuses to ride in a door-zone bike lane, a noticeable subset of motorists are pretty quick engage in harassment.

It would have been far better to remove the mandatory use and FRAP laws or at least to specify them as the exceptions rather than making movements away from the gutter the exceptions. Still, it's better in some respects than Oregon (mandatory use of side paths), although we have a better, if ignored, passing law.
B. Carfree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-14, 01:50 PM   #5
mr_bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Bikes:
Posts: 1,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by B. Carfree View Post
The new law isn't horrific, but it isn't good either. Motorists aren't very good at reading the fine print and round off such laws (in their minds) to mean that cyclists always have to ride as gutter-huggers. When a cyclist refuses to ride in a door-zone bike lane, a noticeable subset of motorists are pretty quick engage in harassment.
It is better than status quo.

Sadly, there will always be a noticeable subset of motorists. (We are FRAP-free here in Massachusetts, but we have buzzkills too....)

-mr. bill
mr_bill is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-14, 02:20 PM   #6
howsteepisit
Senior Member
 
howsteepisit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Eugene, OR
Bikes: Mecian
Posts: 3,670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Noting that the bill also requires that autos give an audible signal when passing, let the horn honking begin. I think that will become a tool for honking harassment.
howsteepisit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-14, 03:15 PM   #7
FBinNY 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
Posts: 29,660
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 217 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by howsteepisit View Post
Noting that the bill also requires that autos give an audible signal when passing, let the horn honking begin. I think that will become a tool for honking harassment.
I don't mind polite audible signals, and around here most of the ones who do honk do so politely (the public bus company requires thir drivers to tap the horn a few seconds behind the bicyclist.

But a mandatory honk for all passing all the time is simply nuts. I guess the WV legislature feels that their state is just too quiet and needs to liven things up.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site

An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.

“Never argue with an idiot. He will only bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.”, George Carlin

“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN

WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FBinNY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-14, 03:35 PM   #8
mr_bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Bikes:
Posts: 1,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FBinNY View Post
I don't mind polite audible signals, and around here most of the ones who do honk do so politely (the public bus company requires thir drivers to tap the horn a few seconds behind the bicyclist.

But a mandatory honk for all passing all the time is simply nuts. I guess the WV legislature feels that their state is just too quiet and needs to liven things up.
The archaic audible warning provision is left untouched. It was abandoned by the UVC in 1934. Some states still have those archaic provisions. WV included. (The legislation doesn't change the status quo here.)

-mr. bill
mr_bill is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-14, 07:04 PM   #9
Chris516
24-Speed Machine
 
Chris516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike
Posts: 6,054
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
In the 1990's, I actually wanted to move to Berkley, WV. Now I am glad, I never did.
Chris516 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-14, 09:12 AM   #10
ItsJustMe
Señior Member
 
ItsJustMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Bikes: Windsor Fens, Giant Seek 0 (2014, Alfine 8 + discs)
Posts: 13,028
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by howsteepisit View Post
Noting that the bill also requires that autos give an audible signal when passing, let the horn honking begin. I think that will become a tool for honking harassment.
It's unbelievable to me that people think that honking before passing is a good idea. Even when polite, it's distracting at best, scary at worst. I think that when a bill like this is being discussed in legislature, we should be allowed to blow a hand held air horn when approaching a lawmaker in the hallway. You know, just as a warning that we're overtaking. After a few of them jump out of their skin, we'll see if they realize that horns are FRICKING loud when you aren't inside a car, and think about whether it's a good idea to startle people riding in traffic.

I rarely have people honk here. I use a mirror and I know when cars are approaching, but even when I know they're there, it's startling to have a car horn go off 20 feet away.
__________________
Work: the 8 hours that separates bike rides.
ItsJustMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-14, 09:47 AM   #11
Chris516
24-Speed Machine
 
Chris516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike
Posts: 6,054
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsJustMe View Post
It's unbelievable to me that people think that honking before passing is a good idea. Even when polite, it's distracting at best, scary at worst. I think that when a bill like this is being discussed in legislature, we should be allowed to blow a hand held air horn when approaching a lawmaker in the hallway. You know, just as a warning that we're overtaking. After a few of them jump out of their skin, we'll see if they realize that horns are FRICKING loud when you aren't inside a car, and think about whether it's a good idea to startle people riding in traffic.

I rarely have people honk here. I use a mirror and I know when cars are approaching, but even when I know they're there, it's startling to have a car horn go off 20 feet away.
I agree!!
Chris516 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-14, 12:00 PM   #12
spivonious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Lancaster, PA, USA
Bikes: 2012 Trek Allant, 2016 Bianchi Volpe Disc
Posts: 1,857
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I like the change, especially the "traveling...at less than the normal speed of traffic" provision. Hopefully other states adopt similar language.
spivonious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-14, 03:52 PM   #13
atbman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Leeds UK
Bikes:
Posts: 1,976
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
From what I've read on this side of the pond, the wording seems pretty much standard across most states. And again, from what I've read, most drivers stop reading at "shall ride as far to the right as practicable" and miss the bit about passing parked vehicles, avoiding poor road surfaces and objects in the road, etc., etc.

so not much new there, then
atbman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-14, 07:01 PM   #14
dpeters11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Bikes: 2010 Trek FX 7.5, 2011 Trek 2.1
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_bill View Post
The archaic audible warning provision is left untouched. It was abandoned by the UVC in 1934. Some states still have those archaic provisions. WV included. (The legislation doesn't change the status quo here.)

-mr. bill
Ohio has the same audible warning law. The only time it comes into play is taking the written test to get a license.
dpeters11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-14, 10:04 PM   #15
kickstart 
Senior Member
 
kickstart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Posts: 4,712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by atbman View Post
From what I've read on this side of the pond, the wording seems pretty much standard across most states. And again, from what I've read, most drivers stop reading at "shall ride as far to the right as practicable" and miss the bit about passing parked vehicles, avoiding poor road surfaces and objects in the road, etc., etc.

so not much new there, then
Problem is some on both sides of the fence stop reading at "shall ride as far to the right as practicable". If everybody did what they are supposed to do it wouldn't be an issue.
Too many people selectively choose the rules and laws that justify their actions, when in reality the rules and laws in their entirety are only intended to define what our duties are.

Last edited by kickstart; 06-11-14 at 08:10 AM.
kickstart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-14, 09:31 AM   #16
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstart View Post
Problem is some on both sides of the fence stop reading at "shall ride as far to the right as practicable". If everybody did what they are supposed to do it wouldn't be an issue.
Too many people selectively choose the rules and laws that justify their actions, when in reality the rules and laws in their entirety are only intended to define what our duties are.
Unfortunately, you are wrong there. The specific law to which you refer, the cyclist Far-to-the-Right law, was deliberately designed to retain motorists' proclamation that cyclists' prime duty is to stay out of the way of motorists, just so far as it was possible to enact this according to legal principles. There was no evidence supporting motorists' desire, but there was plenty of evidence that FTR endangered cyclists. The proper act would have been to repeal the FTR law, but motorists demanded their legal superiority. Enacting a traffic law that endangered cyclists to suit motorists would have been reversed by the courts as exceeding the police power. Therefore, the law that got written proclaimed that cyclists' prime duty was to clear the way for motorists except under one of the then-recognized situations in which FTR endangered cyclists. As all of us recognize, I expect, the public and the police recognize the requirement that cyclists stay out of the way of motorists without bothering to learn the exceptions or the reason for the exceptions. Real life is more complicated than Kickstart thinks.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-14, 10:31 AM   #17
kickstart 
Senior Member
 
kickstart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Posts: 4,712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Unfortunately, you are wrong there. The specific law to which you refer, the cyclist Far-to-the-Right law, was deliberately designed to retain motorists' proclamation that cyclists' prime duty is to stay out of the way of motorists, just so far as it was possible to enact this according to legal principles. There was no evidence supporting motorists' desire, but there was plenty of evidence that FTR endangered cyclists. The proper act would have been to repeal the FTR law, but motorists demanded their legal superiority. Enacting a traffic law that endangered cyclists to suit motorists would have been reversed by the courts as exceeding the police power. Therefore, the law that got written proclaimed that cyclists' prime duty was to clear the way for motorists except under one of the then-recognized situations in which FTR endangered cyclists. As all of us recognize, I expect, the public and the police recognize the requirement that cyclists stay out of the way of motorists without bothering to learn the exceptions or the reason for the exceptions. Real life is more complicated than Kickstart thinks.
Once again John shows us that he can't differentiate between his personal textbook theories, and common sense rules of the road for different types of vehicles.
kickstart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-14, 11:55 AM   #18
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Originally Posted by John Forester
Unfortunately, you are wrong there. The specific law to which you refer, the cyclist Far-to-the-Right law, was deliberately designed to retain motorists' proclamation that cyclists' prime duty is to stay out of the way of motorists, just so far as it was possible to enact this according to legal principles. There was no evidence supporting motorists' desire, but there was plenty of evidence that FTR endangered cyclists. The proper act would have been to repeal the FTR law, but motorists demanded their legal superiority. Enacting a traffic law that endangered cyclists to suit motorists would have been reversed by the courts as exceeding the police power. Therefore, the law that got written proclaimed that cyclists' prime duty was to clear the way for motorists except under one of the then-recognized situations in which FTR endangered cyclists. As all of us recognize, I expect, the public and the police recognize the requirement that cyclists stay out of the way of motorists without bothering to learn the exceptions or the reason for the exceptions. Real life is more complicated than Kickstart thinks.



Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstart View Post
Once again John shows us that he can't differentiate between his personal textbook theories, and common sense rules of the road for different types of vehicles.
This is not textbook theory; these events occurred as the modern FTR law was being written. Kickstart apparently has little facility in explaining his position. He supports the meaningless argument that there should be: "common sense rules of the road for different types of vehicles." The statement is meaningless because common sense has no fixed meaning but means only one's own prejudices. In this discussion about the laws applicable to cyclists but not to motorists, the FTR laws, Kickstart's statement means that he supports these laws which make cyclists subservient to motorists. Since that is the view indicated by his statements, he should openly express it rather than trying to hide it in meaningless verbiage.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-14, 12:27 PM   #19
kickstart 
Senior Member
 
kickstart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Posts: 4,712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
If someone is incapable of reading the laws pertaining to FRAP/S and understanding how to apply its requirments as a cyclist, or its exceptions as a motorist, that's the failure of the individual, not the law. Willful ignorance falls under the same category.

Motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians are all "subservient" to each other depending on time, place, and conditions. There isn't and shouldn't be a one size fits all exclusion of responsibility to others for any user group.
kickstart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-14, 01:23 PM   #20
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstart View Post
If someone is incapable of reading the laws pertaining to FRAP/S and understanding how to apply its requirments as a cyclist, or its exceptions as a motorist, that's the failure of the individual, not the law. Willful ignorance falls under the same category.

Motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians are all "subservient" to each other depending on time, place, and conditions. There isn't and shouldn't be a one size fits all exclusion of responsibility to others for any user group.
Kickstart is again wrong, twice.

First, Kickstart argues that motorists, cyclists, and pedestrian are "all 'subservient' to each other, depending on time, place, and conditions." I have to suppose that Kickstart is referring to the right-of-way rules, but his statement is not correct for those. The right-of-way rules specifying which person yields to another, depending on the time, place, and conditions but not to the character of the user. The right-of-way rules make safe the conflicts that naturally arise between drivers, no matter what type of vehicle they are driving. The subservience exercised by the FTR laws discriminate against one type of driver, cyclists, in favor of all other types of driver, at all times and in all places, just because the cyclist is riding a bicycle.

Pedestrians are a bit different, because they have such a different operating mode that they don't fit with drivers, but cyclists are drivers of vehicles, just as are motorists.

Next, traffic laws have to be understandable by the general public, because it is the general public who have to carry out their duties. Neither the general public, nor the traffic police (who should have a higher degree of understanding) understand the cyclist FTR laws. But that's not the only thing about America's traffic laws for cyclists that is not understandable. There is a first law that grants cyclists the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. That's right and proper. All drivers using the roadway should operate according to the same rules; otherwise they will steer into collisions with each other. Next there is a contrary law that prohibits cyclists from exercising the rights of drivers, the old form of the FTR law and the first part of the newer FTR law. This law makes cyclists subservient to motorists by requiring them to stay out of motorists' way, not sometimes but generally, at all times and places. Then there is a third law, the exceptions listed in the FTR law that say that sometimes, in some places, under some conditions, maybe, cyclists don't have to be subservient to motorists but have the normal rights of drivers. Nobody really knows how traffic laws apply to cyclists; the issue is made needlessly complicated. And the complications, which are in the first part of the FTR law and the second part of the FTR law, were all enacted by motorists for the purpose of making motoring more convenient by shoving cyclists aside.

The evidence is clear that this is how American traffic law for cyclists works. The evidence is also clear that Kickstart approves of this system.

But the only evidence that Kickstart has provided to support his opinion is his view of common sense, which means nothing more than his own prejudices. Well, Kickstart, have you anything more to offer than your own prejudices? Maybe the claim that the general public has similar prejudices? Well, appealing to other peoples' prejudices is not a reasonable argument.

On what basis, beyond your own prejudices, Kickstart, do you justify your support for the cyclist FTR laws?
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-14, 01:35 PM   #21
kickstart 
Senior Member
 
kickstart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Posts: 4,712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
The Washington state laws are clear, concise, equitable, and speak for themselves to any reasonable, rational person without a special interest agenda. I have nothing to add.
kickstart is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:47 PM.