I think 11 feet is substandard. Think of it this way:
Edge of Lane
+12" (margin to vehicle)
+79.9" (width of Chevy Silverado - 1/2 ton, other vehicles are much bigger)
+36" (minimum safe distance for a car to pass)
+24" (width of bike)
+12" (margin from bike to edge of lane)

TOTAL = 163.9, or over 13.5 feet
Thus I think that 14 feet is the bare minimum for a safe lane width. As speeds increase, I would say that lanes need to be even wider.

We can go back and forth on this all day, but I leave when
a thread gets to this level. I was not allowed to make my case.
You dont have to believe it and I really dont care. Why is this
so far out of some peoples realm of thinking ?
The officer spoke, I was given about ten seconds to rebut and then
cut off abruptly. Thats was all there was to it. If I said any more,
it was 'contempt'.If you were truly given no more than 10 seconds to present your defense, then you can "motion to enter into the record" that you were not allowed to present an argument or arguments that are crucial to your defense. Then you have the grounds to appeal. Bob Mionske covers all this in his new book (http://www.velopress.com/cycling.php?id=245).

And you maybe have a contempt citation too (although I really don't think a contempt citation could be upheld for making a procedural motion to the court-- any lawyers want to weigh in on this?). :)

I think 11 feet is substandard. Think of it this way:
Edge of Lane
+12" (margin to vehicle)
+79.9" (width of Chevy Silverado - 1/2 ton, other vehicles are much bigger)
+36" (minimum safe distance for a car to pass)
+24" (width of bike)
+12" (margin from bike to edge of lane)

TOTAL = 163.9, or over 13.5 feet
Thus I think that 14 feet is the bare minimum for a safe lane width. As speeds increase, I would say that lanes need to be even wider.
And, indeed, 14 feet is often cited as the bare minimum width, but not for a "safe lane" in general, but specifically for one that is wide enough for a car and bike to safely share side-by-side. I.e, a Wide Outside Lane (WOL) or Wide Curb Lane (WCL).

It is not realistic to expect every road to accomodate side-by-side car/bike travel. On many roads, there just isn't enough room, and the outside lane is too narrow, so cyclists have to control the lane by riding centerish, even/especially when faster motor traffic is present. Recognizing when and where this is appropriate to do is key to learning how to ride safely and effectively in all kinds of traffic.

Care to show me my 'record' ?
Huh. I looked through your post history and picking one post at a time I could not find anything that clearly illustrated what I'm talking about. It is my impression however that you often say things that are, shall we say, a bit off the mark? Or maybe it's more about what you don't say. For example, where are the details about either of the two incidents that caused you do go to court? What actually happened? What did the cop claim happened? What did you say? Can you tell the story in a coherent/logical fashion such that others will understand? And more to the point, why haven't you?

Huh. I looked through your post history and picking one post at a time I could not find anything that clearly illustrated what I'm talking about.

This nonsense has derailed JJ's thread long enough.
The specifics of my experience dont warrant taking any more
space in this thread. My apologies to JJ for this ridiculousness.

This nonsense has derailed JJ's thread long enough.
The specifics of my experience dont warrant taking any more
space in this thread. My apologies to JJ for this ridiculousness.
Me too, sorry!

Who said anything cheerleading, pep rallies and demonstrating in traffic court? Have people actually done that (with negative results) or are you just fear mongering and putting up a straw man argument? So far you have not mentioned any examples that involve traffic court.

I’m not sure the best way to phrase this but with any crime it helps to have a witness (in this case meaning a bad out come for the cyclists.) JoeJack can go at this solo and get bad results and at the end of the day there will probably not be much he can do with it. But had a knowable friend that well help verify what transpired and at the end of the day there will be options on what can be done.

I believe the offer was to go a friend and not as someone who wishes to take over and use this for their own objectives.

I believe you should reread the post from your pal. How exactly did he plan to let "the law know that they are responsible for knowing the law," while in the Traffic Court? Without any more info I wouldn't want this do-gooder "supporting" me in Traffic Court.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5135161&postcount=120

Please publicize your day in court as I think it is every bicycle commuter's responsiblity to support you. I may just take a trip to Delaware just to the law know that they are responsible for knowing the law.

BTW: What credible options does having a verifying supporter provide if JJ does not like the outcome?

I believe you should reread the post from your pal. How exactly did he plan to let "the law know that they are responsible for knowing the law," while in the Traffic Court? Without any more info I wouldn't want this do-gooder "supporting" me in Traffic Court.

BTW: What credible options does having a verifying supporter provide if JJ does not like the outcome?
Let me relate something from my life: Early this year an MTA (bus) driver tried to run me off the road. I complained on my own and absolutely nothing happened. A couple months latter a pal of mine also had an MTA driver try to run him off the road this time my complaint got significant results.

It is hard to articulate but when you have someone else support your case it can get significant more attention then if you try and do it on your own.

Also there are short range vision and long range vision. You seem to imply that everyone is only interested in the short term outcome and that winning this case in court must be accomplished at all costs (by doing incredibly stupid things.) A longer range of vision will see that there are multiple options, a well written letter to the editor can have incredible results, a word to politician that cares, police training in awareness of cyclists’ rights and issues or a change in the wording of the law. These options become more viable if JJ loses in court and has someone else to help champion his cause.

So oversimplified there are two options, the police officer is out of step with the system or the system is out of step with cyclists rights and safety. If the court verifies the former then we are done if the later there is work to be done and the more (non-yahoo) people involved in that work the better chance something will take off.

I cannot answer what my friends’ intentions are but I could see that there might be the possibility he could be of some use at the hearing but that is more of a conversation between JJ, my friend and his lawyer.

When all is said and done there are only two options, “shut up and pay the ticket, you can’t change the system” or “by working together we can change the system.” All of us are free to pick which option we want.

or, you can ride safely in the RTO lanes on high speed roads with continuous right turn only lanes, where the rest of the cyclists joe's ever seen on that road find it reasonable to do so.

(And I'm NOT saying this is legally correct)

maybe the judge will be a cyclist who rides practicably and reasonably on that road in the RTO lanes. ;)

maybe, because of roads-y parks due dilligence, the municipality will change the rules for that road, right hand lane right turn only and bikes :)

Hire a lawyer for a $25 ticket?. . . .

If it were only about $25, of course a lawyer would not be worth it. But this is about the right in the road.

When all is said and done there are only two options, “shut up and pay the ticket, you can’t change the system” or “by working together we can change the system.” All of us are free to pick which option we want.
You forgot the third option. Make a lot of smoke and noise about changing the system by various "options" assisted by Traffic Court "witnesses" and Internet Lawyer wannabes if JJ has to pay a $25 ticket; feel good about yourselves; accomplish nothing. Traffic Court isn't Court TV.

I'll pay $1000 to a lawyer, before I pay $5 to a corrupt ticket.

You forgot the third option. Make a lot of smoke and noise about changing the system by various "options" assisted by Traffic Court "witnesses" and Internet Lawyer wannabes if JJ has to pay a $25 ticket; feel good about yourselves; accomplish nothing. Traffic Court isn't Court TV.
I am really curious if you have taken any courses on advocacy? I’ve looked at what the environmentalist and other successful advocacy campaigns have been doing and why they work. I have taken courses from one of the leading advocacy learning centers New Organizing Institute http://neworganizing.com/ and this stuff works, and no I am not talking about the inane way you think it works but a better more effective way to stage a campaign that few cycling advocates ever think about.

Maybe I should apologies because I am feeling a bit cocky after playing a critical role in doing the imposable in getting a hazardous RR crossing fixed but I am finding that you rarely have any good advice to offer or even helpful constructive criticism. It is people like you who are instrumental in defeating any and all advancement in cycling by making up terrifying stories of what would happen if cyclists would actually try and unite and help each other out.

Anyway I hope you enjoy the world you created and I’ll enjoy my bike rides with the Mayor and City Hall staff.

Yesterday on my way to work I got the oppurtunity to discuss road cycling with a state police officer...

...Comments?
Move to Atlanta. The worst treatment I've ever gotten was a polite, "Keep to the right, please," over the loudspeaker of an Atlanta city police cruiser when I was changing lanes erratically to avoid road construction in early dawn hours.

Just kidding. My best to you, JJ. :D Win it.

Maybe I should apologies because I am feeling a bit cocky after playing a critical role in doing the imposable in getting a hazardous RR crossing fixed but I am finding that you rarely have any good advice to offer or even helpful constructive criticism. It is people like you who are instrumental in defeating any and all advancement in cycling by making up terrifying stories of what would happen if cyclists would actually try and unite and help each other out.

Anyway I hope you enjoy the world you created and I’ll enjoy my bike rides with the Mayor and City Hall staff.

Save your cocky comments/apologies for after you bring your cocky advocacy to JJ's (or anybody else's) Traffic Court hearing. Then you can blame me because reality didn't meet your cocky expectations. Your version of "constructive criticism" is obviously defined by your cocky attitude that you have the only right answer.

... cocky ... cocky ... cocky ... cocky ...

Ya like that's real constructive. Care to give another round of constructive criticism cleverly disguised as an insult?

To help further ILTB argument against me here is someone's comment about me after I tried to help:
And, I say we all elect the HUMAN CAR president, he has been a huge help.
I guess I should just give it up as I obviously don't have any right answers.

OR maybe ILTB should keep his disgruntled old man comments to himself.

To help further ILTB argument against me here is someone's comment about me after I tried to help:

I guess I should just give it up as I obviously don't have any right answers.

OR maybe ILTB should keep his disgruntled old man comments to himself.

The ignore list does wonders to screen out garbage from any forum member whose signal to noise ratio is so tiny as to be undetectable. As the cliche goes, don't argue with the pig, you just get covered in mud.

A bud in Pennsylvania did a track stand at a red light once. Since he did not put a foot down the officer issued him a ticket for failing to stop at a red light. Points were added to his drivers license and his insurance cost was adjusted accordingly.

Judging from this experience--albeit in another state--if your ticket is a moving violation, then it is feasible that points could be issued.

Good luck JJ.

-G

I am confused by your story. Your 'bud' managed to ride into the intersection while the light was red or what? I can't imagine any cop citing a cyclist for running a light (or failing to stop for it) unless the cyclist actually ran the light (as in crossed the "stop" line or moved into the path of opposite traffic, etc.). Until you cross that "point", you are not required to stop for a light.

If you were relating this tale about an intersection controlled by stop signs, it would make some sense.

Otherwise, I have to believe that your bud effectively committed a violation of not stopping for a light because he performed his track stand beyond that point at which he is required to stop moving. Were you there to witness this, or is this his account.

It doesn't really add up to me.

Caruso

To help further ILTB argument against me here is someone's comment about me after I tried to help:

I guess I should just give it up as I obviously don't have any right answers.

OR maybe ILTB should keep his disgruntled old man comments to himself.

Here is a clue; again: What worked at city council/Mayor's office getting a city street repaired is not necessarily relevant for fixing a $25 ticket at Traffic Court. You and a few BF donkeys obviously do not like information that rains on your advocacy parade and wish it would go away or ignore it.

Your self proclaimed cockiness over your great victory getting a street repair notwithstanding, you have yet to indicate how your advocacy methods or presence in the Traffic Court (AKA "advocacy by cheer leading") could help fix this ticket or win an "appeal" of a negative verdict.

I am confused by your story... Were you there to witness this, or is this his account.

It doesn't really add up to me.

Good point. Some reports of "bad tickets" reported by BF posters might not sound so egregious when all the facts are reported by the police officer or a disinterested eye witness. You can be sure the LEO will have a different side of the story if he shows up in court. A few of our BF pals believe they possess the only version of the truth and there is never any need to question if there may be another side to the story.

I didn't read the whole thread - but i have to ask - did he try to ticket your DRIVERS liscense?? He shouldn't have been able to because you were not operating a motor vehicle. You do not need a drivers license to ride a bike and if I were you and the trooper wanted to issue me a citation, I would not have provided anything to him but my first and last name NOTHING else. If he was a real bad adititude case then I wouldn't have even provided him with that information.

I didn't read the whole thread - but i have to ask - did he try to ticket your DRIVERS liscense?? He shouldn't have been able to because you were not operating a motor vehicle. You do not need a drivers license to ride a bike and if I were you and the trooper wanted to issue me a citation, I would not have provided anything to him but my first and last name NOTHING else. If he was a real bad adititude case then I wouldn't have even provided him with that information.

Cops don't ticket a drivers license, they ticket a person. And if you play ID games with a cop, you might find yourself waiting in a holding cell while he verifies that you are who say you are. It's stupid to turn something minor into something big.

But as to your bigger argument, in Ohio, thanks to the Ohio Bike Federation, cyclists no longer can get points on their license for most traffic offenses. We still have to pay the fines and court costs, but the purpose of points is to protect the public from dangerous drivers, and cyclists just don't hurt that many people.

I didn't read the whole thread - but i have to ask - did he try to ticket your DRIVERS liscense?? He shouldn't have been able to because you were not operating a motor vehicle. You do not need a drivers license to ride a bike and if I were you and the trooper wanted to issue me a citation, I would not have provided anything to him but my first and last name NOTHING else. If he was a real bad adititude case then I wouldn't have even provided him with that information.

A law officer doesn't need to see a cyclist's driver's license to get driver's license info on the individual. It's all available from the handy-dandy computer in the patrol car or via police radio dispatcher; unless the cyclist refuse to provide his correct name. Then, as DC correctly posted, the cyclist can find himself in deeper doo-doo than just a simple traffic ticket.

I didn't read the whole thread - but i have to ask - did he try to ticket your DRIVERS liscense?? He shouldn't have been able to because you were not operating a motor vehicle. You do not need a drivers license to ride a bike and if I were you and the trooper wanted to issue me a citation, I would not have provided anything to him but my first and last name NOTHING else. If he was a real bad adititude case then I wouldn't have even provided him with that information.

As has been stated, the ticket was not written to my driver's license, but to me, much like a parking ticket. A driver's license number is just an easy way for the police to identify someone and something they are used to noting on traffic tickets. It's not relevant to the ticket but it was the only form of ID I had on me and was easier than confirming all of my information with the cop when he looked me up on the same onboard computer that he used to print out my ticket.

As I believe he was completely in the wrong the entire time, I wasn't looking to give him any reasons to find something wrong with me. Refusing to identify myself might have given him something.

As has been stated, the ticket was written to my driver's license, but to me, much like a parking ticket. A driver's license number is just an easy way for the police to identify someone and something they are used to noting on traffic tickets. It's not relevant to the ticket but it was the only form of ID I had on me and was easier than confirming all of my information with the cop when he looked me up on the same onboard computer that he used to print out my ticket.

As I believe he was completely in the wrong the entire time, I wasn't looking to give him any reasons to find something wrong with me. Refusing to identify myself might have given him something.

Joe,

You obviously have more sense than some of our BF Brand well meaning, but naive on-line would-be legal advisors/advocates/provocateurs.

I didn't read the whole thread - but i have to ask - did he try to ticket your DRIVERS liscense?? He shouldn't have been able to because you were not operating a motor vehicle. You do not need a drivers license to ride a bike and if I were you and the trooper wanted to issue me a citation, I would not have provided anything to him but my first and last name NOTHING else.Depends on state law-- if state law says you have to show state-issued I.D., that's what you will be required to do.

If he was a real bad adititude case then I wouldn't have even provided him with that information.Guys with "good attitudes" like yours aren't given citations and released. They're arrested and hauled off to jail where they sit until they can be identified and charges-- including failure to identify-- are pressed.

Good luck fighting all those bad attitudes out there.

Texas law says that you must give a LEO your name, age and current place of residence. You can be detained until that information is confirmed, but no one is required to provide any ID or further information if stopped while not operating a motor vehicle. It is a crime to give a false name or address to the LEO.

Obviously, voluntarily presenting ID would prevent verification delays.

If I had a drivers license, I would be concerned that any traffic stop on my bicycle would be applied to my motor vehicle record.

I started a thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=339978) to continue the ID discussion.

Yesterday on my way to work I got the oppurtunity to discuss road cycling with a state police officer after the pack of vehicles that he was driving in had to slow down to change lanes and pass me. He was second in line in the left lane and turned on his lights soon as he got near me and I pulled over.

Has the thought occurred that you might have just pissed this guy off by making him have to slow down while driving in his car, in fact you most likely pissed off a few of the other drivers during this situation as happens in most cases, however in this case this particular driver held a clear position of power over you and in his disgruntled state was exacting a subtle but none the less petty form of revenge upon you by giving you a ticket wither or not you were in violation of any law (the ordeal getting a ticket, paying and or refuting it being revenge enough) or notI corrected him about the shoulder... He came back out and finally admitted that I was right and that I am supposed to ride in the roadway?

He then went on to say that I had left him no choice but to ticket me because I was not cooperating. It sounds like what is commonly referred to as a power or ego trip. Maybe it would have been better to play dumb, suck-up and generally stoke his ego which from you description seems to be what he desires most from this whole interaction. I'm sorry to sound cynical but there is a whole other laying of fascinating psychological/sociological relations going on here that no one has touched upon. Now I sound like a dork...

Has the thought occurred that you might have just pissed this guy off by making him have to slow down while driving in his car, in fact you most likely pissed off a few of the other drivers during this situation as happens in most cases, however in this case this particular driver held a clear position of power over you and in his disgruntled state was exacting a subtle but none the less petty form of revenge upon you by giving you a ticket wither or not you were in violation of any law (the ordeal getting a ticket, paying and or refuting it being revenge enough) or not?

Of course the thought has occurred to me since taking a lane on this road often pisses people off who can't understand why I don't just ride off to the side like everyone else. I'm pretty sure I received the ticket because I wouldn't agree to this officer's original version of the law nor his revised version. By the third revision he had the ticket in hand. The officer had to be right so he ticketted me to prove that.

?

When I was originally pulled over, I was told that I should be riding in the bike path which was then revised to "as far right as practicable on the shoulder" when I told the officer that it wasn't a bike path. The law actually reads "as close as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway" hence my correction.

It sounds like what is commonly referred to as a power or ego trip. Maybe it would have been better to play dumb, suck-up and generally stoke his ego which from you description seems to be what he desires most from this whole interaction. I'm sorry to sound cynical but there is a whole other laying of fascinating psychological/sociological relations going on here that no one has touched upon. Now I sound like a dork...

Sure, I could have just followed his orders and moved into the right turn lane/shoulder area then gone back to doing what I've always done after he took off. But, I ride this road every day 9I live right off it)and it's very likely that this is not the last time I'll encounter a cop in the same situation (if anyone cares, I had another officer comment to me from his car about a week ago). I'd like to avoid this hassle in the future and the only way to really make my point is to do it officially. Since he wouldn't agree with me on the road side, I'm glad he gave me a ticket so that I can prove the point to him in court.

Good luck.

Any updates on the court case?

(I missed it if possibly posted earlier ..)

??

I am confused by your story. Your 'bud' managed to ride into the intersection while the light was red or what? I can't imagine any cop citing a cyclist for running a light (or failing to stop for it) unless the cyclist actually ran the light (as in crossed the "stop" line or moved into the path of opposite traffic, etc.). Until you cross that "point", you are not required to stop for a light.

If you were relating this tale about an intersection controlled by stop signs, it would make some sense.

Otherwise, I have to believe that your bud effectively committed a violation of not stopping for a light because he performed his track stand beyond that point at which he is required to stop moving. Were you there to witness this, or is this his account.

I was not there. From his account, the failure to put his foot down was the trigger for the ticket. I will ask again the next time I meet Rich.

-G

Any updates on the court case?

(I missed it if possibly posted earlier ..)

??

Court date is early October, during which time I may be overseas which means I'll probably have to postpone it for a little while (hopefully I can). I won't leave BF's hanging for too long after I hear the verdict :)

Dang. It all sounds so complicated.

Here in Atlanta, where the Devil has made sure cycling is Hellish, nobody (read, "Law Enforcement Officer") ever gives me the slightest bother. Oh, once I had an LEO try to scare me with fatherly advice (with a smile,) but they are too busy with more important matters around here to actually stop what they're doing for a mere cyclist.

They hate paperwork as much as I do. :D

(Joe, hang in there. Sucks, dude. That LEO should chase real bad guys.)

Dang. It all sounds so complicated.

Here in Atlanta, where the Devil has made sure cycling is Hellish, nobody (read, "Law Enforcement Officer") ever gives me the slightest bother. Oh, once I had an LEO try to scare me with fatherly advice (with a smile,) but they are too busy with more important matters around here to actually stop what they're doing for a mere cyclist.

They hate paperwork as much as I do. :D

(Joe, hang in there. Sucks, dude. That LEO should chase real bad guys.)

I wouldn't take this ticket as an indication of the overall cycling picture in and around where I live. On most roads, the cops treat cyclists exactly as they should and I've had one lucky experience where a motorist who was honking at me got pulled over for it when a cop coming the other direction saw it. I would, however, take this an indication of how cyclist behavior can affect how motorists' expectations of cyclists. As I've noted many times now, cyclists on this road stick to the shoulder and just go straight from all of the right turn only lanes (or ride the sidewalk). The expectation has been created that for the most part, cyclists will be out of the way. When a cyclist wants to operate lawfully which involves being in the way, suddenly he's the one who's breaking the law :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure I received the ticket because I wouldn't agree to this officer's original version of the law nor his revised version. By the third revision he had the ticket in hand. The officer had to be right so he ticketted me to prove that.

When I was originally pulled over, I was told that I should be riding in the bike path which was then revised to "as far right as practicable on the shoulder" when I told the officer that it wasn't a bike path. The law actually reads "as close as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway" hence my correction…Since he wouldn't agree with me on the road side, I'm glad he gave me a ticket so that I can prove the point to him in court.

I wouldn't take this ticket as an indication of the overall cycling picture in and around where I live… I would, however, take this an indication of how cyclist behavior can affect how motorists' expectations of cyclists. As I've noted many times now, cyclists on this road stick to the shoulder and just go straight from all of the right turn only lanes (or ride the sidewalk). The expectation has been created that for the most part, cyclists will be out of the way. When a cyclist wants to operate lawfully which involves being in the way, suddenly he's the one who's breaking the law :rolleyes:

So the bottom line is that you blame those other cyclists for your arguing with the policeman over the nits of the law in order to provoke him into writing a ticket?

I would take the issuing of this ticket to you as an indication of how cyclist behavior towards a law enforcement officer can convert a warning/suggestion into a traffic ticket. If that's what the cyclist wants, to prove a point in court, fine. But don't blame other cyclists for your own actions.

So the bottom line is that you blame those other cyclists for your arguing with the policeman over the nits of the law in order to provoke him into writing a ticket?

I would take the issuing of this ticket to you as an indication of how cyclist behavior towards a law enforcement officer can convert a warning/suggestion into a traffic ticket. If that's what the cyclist wants, to prove a point in court, fine. But don't blame other cyclists for your own actions.

You're right. The ticket is certainly not the fault of any cyclist but myself (as I know how I could have easily avoided it). I certainly did not mean to say that although that is what I wrote (I blame sleep deprivation :)). If you would allow me to revise what I said, I would say, "I wouldn't take this traffic stop as an indication of the overall cycling picture in and around where I live..."

You're right. The ticket is certainly not the fault of any cyclist but myself (as I know how I could have easily avoided it). I certainly did not mean to say that although that is what I wrote (I blame sleep deprivation :)). If you would allow me to revise what I said, I would say, "I wouldn't take this traffic stop as an indication of the overall cycling picture in and around where I live..."

Permission granted for your revision.;)

I really don't know, joe. If ALL the other bicyclists have figured out a way to traverse that road safely, without evoking the ire of drivers or LEO's, by riding as far right as practicable on the roadway- including the right hand turn lane- it sounds like the only bicyclist that hasn't figured out adaptive bicycling for that stretch of road is YOU.

I'm not making commentary as to the legality or illegality of your or the other bicyclists' riding styles, just the practicality of the rest of the bicyclists' methods versus yours.

do the cops go around ticketing bicyclists for riding in the right hand turn only lanes of high speed arterials where you live, joe?

I really don't know, joe. If ALL the other bicyclists have figured out a way to traverse that road safely, without evoking the ire of drivers or LEO's, by riding as far right as practicable on the roadway- including the right hand turn lane- it sounds like the only bicyclist that hasn't figured out adaptive bicycling for that stretch of road is YOU.

But the statement in red is debatable.

EDIT: The word I meant to emphasize is "safely".

If ALL the other bicyclists have figured out a way to traverse that road safely, without evoking the ire of drivers or LEO's, by riding as far right as practicable on the roadway- including the right hand turn lane-

There is a reason that the writers of laws say "practicable" instead of "possible." Practicable means possible, but also feasible. In a legal context, it is implicit that if something is "feasible" it is legal. So in order for something to be practicable it must be legal. If going straight through a right turn lane is not legal, riding there is not practicable.

Any prescriptive law using the phrase "as practical" is poorly drafted. You end up with a law that in essence says you must follow the law, which is a law that says nothing. For a real-world exampl, in 1983, in the case Columbus v. Truax, an Ohio court struck down a law saying that pedestrians must walk as far right "as practicable," finding that the law was unconstitutionally vague.

There is a fundamental problem with most keep-right laws, in that they don't really give any guidance about where exactly cyclists are supposed to ride. In our system, the general rule is that everything is legal unless there is a law specifically prohibiting it, and laws requiring certain behavior have to be specific about what they prohibit, or they're not valid.

But don't count on that in traffic court!

But the statement in red is debatable.

EDIT: The word I meant to emphasize is "safely".

OK, drop the other shoe and explain/debate how you determined that all the "other cyclists" in Joe's scenario are unable to properly analyze the situation and choose Joe's technique, and are therefore cycling less safely than Joe.

Yesterday on my way to work I got the oppurtunity to discuss road cycling with a state police officer after the pack of vehicles that he was driving in had to slow down to change lanes and pass me. He was second in line in the left lane and turned on his lights soon as he got near me and I pulled over. The conversation started off with him telling me that I should be riding "on the bike path" to my right (to my right was a series of six long right hand turn lanes that interupted the shoulder). I pointed this out to him and let him know that I am supposed to be riding in the roadway. He got his traffic code book out and showed me the far right law which he was read as "as far right as practical in the shoulder." I corrected him about the shoulder part at which point he asked for some ID and went back to his car. He came back out and finally admitted that I was right and that I am supposed to ride in the roadway but that I should be riding just to the left of the solid stripe. He then went on to say that I had left him no choice but to ticket me because I was not cooperating. He stated the obvious, "I guess I'll be seeing you in court," to which I replied, "Sure will."

Comments?
Getting back to what actually happened (assuming Joe has reported accurately,)
from Joe's version it looks like the officer flip-flopped, then decided to "win" by ticketing Joe for standing up for himself.

That doesn't mean Joe will win in court, but I sure hope so.

The rest of you can stretch out this thread like a piece of taffy.

There is a reason that the writers of laws say "practicable" instead of "possible." ...
There is a fundamental problem with most keep-right laws...

But don't count on that in traffic court!

Shhh! Don't say that! It might upset the tender feelings of BF club house lawyers who think playing Clarence Darrow/Johnie Cochran will win the day in Traffic Court.

Shhh! Don't say that! It might upset the tender feelings of BF club house lawyers who think playing Clarence Darrow/Johnie Cochran will win the day in Traffic Court.

I hope they don't want to play Clarence Darrow. We mostly remember him for the case that he lost!

OK, drop the other shoe and explain/debate how you determined that all the "other cyclists" in Joe's scenario are unable to properly analyze the situation and choose Joe's technique, and are therefore cycling less safely than Joe.

How many "other cyclists" are there? Do we need to explain the legions of other cyclists choosing an alternative strategy while Joe is by himself or is there a more equal distribution of choices?

Regardless, we seem to agree that there is a lack of quantifiable scientific evidence regarding the risk of various cycling strategies. However, there is a lot of descriptive evidence and general theories (with their own evidence) regarding human cognitive abilities, motorist behavior, and so on. According to whatever assumptions and interpretation of the evidence one finds particularly appealing, one can make an argument for why one strategy is superior to another. As I have written before, writing generally, I think that the VC strategy is internally consistent and would work quite well for a segment of the cycling population.

Moreover, I think that the notion of "safe" is dependent on the individual. Given that cycling is a relatively safe activity -- assume that we believe the following links http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html and http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm -- it could be that the absolute difference in risk between the two strategies is quite small. If we think that most people are "satisficing" instead of "optimizing", then it could be the case that a suboptimal strategy works well enough for most people. Joe could simply be different than most people and require a lower level of risk.

Lastly, my understanding is that humans are quite bad at optimizing behavior with small probabilistic events; the perceived probability of such an event is generally quite wrong and higher than the true probability. Although like many other things, knowledge, research and/or training can help compensate for this bias. This is a reason why I believe cycling needs better scientific evidence to discern what truly is "best." Anyway, if there were legions of cyclists choosing a different action from Joe, suboptimal behavior could be explained by such a bias. My own anecdotal experience is that most cyclists are unaware of the rough statistics that would help most people get a better bearing on the risk of certain behavior. Whether "most cyclists" in my sentence above accurately reflects the cyclists on Joe's road is another issue.

"Best" is in quotes since the qualitative aspects of cycling are valued differently across people. Hence, I would expect "best" to vary across people.

... got to get back to work.

The rest of you can stretch out this thread like a piece of taffy.

I like taffy.

I really don't know, joe. If ALL the other bicyclists have figured out a way to traverse that road safely, without evoking the ire of drivers or LEO's, by riding as far right as practicable on the roadway- including the right hand turn lane- it sounds like the only bicyclist that hasn't figured out adaptive bicycling for that stretch of road is YOU.

As I've already stated, I've cycled this road both ways. Both ways have their issues but at least the way I'm riding now is legal. If I were to get hit going straight from a right hand turn lane, I don't expect there'd be much of a chance of me not being at fault no matter what the other driver did. Keep in mind, I'm not interested in doing everything I can to make other road users happy if "everything" includes acting unpredictably and unlawfully. After all, I could just stay on the sidewalk, stop at every intersection, and remove any chance of interaction with other traffic. No thanks.

I'm not making commentary as to the legality or illegality of your or the other bicyclists' riding styles, just the practicality of the rest of the bicyclists' methods versus yours.

What's impractical about how I ride? I don't think one ignorant cop's original opinion (after all, his modified conclusion was that I should be in the right hand lane) makes where I'm riding impractical. To me, it's impractical to think that riding illegally to avoid a honk or two is the better way.

do the cops go around ticketing bicyclists for riding in the right hand turn only lanes of high speed arterials where you live, joe?

I've never heard of that happening and it never happened to me. I imagine they would ticket the cyclist if they were hit or hit someone while going straight from a right hand turn lane though.