why do you think the right hand turn lane is not considered part of the roadway?

fight the good fight, roadsy parks. you'll figure out adaptive bicycling someday. Again, I fail to see how, if the rest of the bicyclists you see can traverse that stretch of road safely, you couldn't do so without receiving a ticket for your lane position.

And remember, joe, I'm out claiming the lane when and where I deem necessary, and its' a lot more often and a lot further out than many other bicyclists I see, too....

why do you think the right hand turn lane is not considered part of the roadway?

fight the good fight, roadsy parks. you'll figure out adaptive bicycling someday. Again, I fail to see how, if the rest of the bicyclists you see can traverse that stretch of road safely, you couldn't do so without receiving a ticket for your lane position.

And remember, joe, I'm out claiming the lane when and where I deem necessary, and its' a lot more often and a lot further out than many other bicyclists I see, too....

The right hand turn lane is part of the roadway marked off for use by turning vehicles only. I'm as far right as practicable for my destination when I'm in the right hand lane. You might as well tell me to get on the sidewalk if you are going to disagree with me for my lane position.

I see cyclists put themselves in awkward positions by acting unpredictably at intersections by going straight from a position where everyone else is turning. Motorists have to yield to these cyclists in ways that they are not used to which causes confusion. I'm not interested in taking part in that.

interesting take on it. you sometimes call it a right hand turn lane, and sometimes a shoulder, and all the other bicyclists you see ride there safely.

the 'legal' place to ride is not always the most practical place to pilot a bicycle, joe. I bet you are bright enough of a guy to be able to figure out safe, defensive, visible bicycling road position to include the shoulder/right hand turn lane on high speed roads like you show in your google space shots, joe. moving left as you approach intersections and being in a visible, safe, pragmatic road position.

the cars, they go 50-60 MPH on this road, yes? and there's a continuous, 12 foot wide, shoulder/ right hand turn lane, yes?

the 'legal' place to ride is not always the most practical place to pilot a bicycle, joe.

That may be true, but he was not ticketed for riding impractically, but for riding illegally. There's a difference.

interesting take on it. you sometimes call it a right hand turn lane, and sometimes a shoulder, and all the other bicyclists you see ride there safely.

the 'legal' place to ride is not always the most practical place to pilot a bicycle, joe. I bet you are bright enough of a guy to be able to figure out safe, defensive, visible bicycling road position to include the shoulder/right hand turn lane on high speed roads like you show in your google space shots, joe. moving left as you approach intersections and being in a visible, safe, pragmatic road position.

the cars, they go 50-60 MPH on this road, yes? and there's a continuous, 12 foot wide, shoulder/ right hand turn lane, yes?

Where I was pulled over, it was a turn lane. At every intersection except for some residential driveways and a few parking lots, there is a right hand turn lane. Where there is not a turn lane, it is striped as a shoulder. The turn lanes are long enough to be used as decelleration lanes and most people do pull into them at full speed (40-60mph).

I'm bright enough to realize that I'm not going to let a few honking drivers and a cop dictate how I'm going to ride on a road. If you used this road during heavy traffic times, you might understand how it's easier for me to use the right hand lane than it would be to try and use the shoulder/right turn lane.

Yes, traffic generally goes between 50-60mph on this road. The space to the right (I think it's between 10 and 11 feet, still need to measure) is continuous except for a few intersections where it's narrowed down for concrete islands that direct traffic. There is a short stretch east of where I was pulled over where the shoulder disappears altogether between a few neighborhoods.

heavy traffic going 50-60 miles an hour, a clear, 11 foot shoulder, and you think it's easier to use a heavily travelled right hand lane? interesting, joe.

again, you'll figure out appropriate road position and adaptive bicycling someday, joe. getting your feet wet in traffic cycling imitating HH's technique he spouts here appears to have gotten you in badly with the local law enforcement.

And hey, i agree you have the right to the travel lane, but riding there as a political statement of 'vehiculariness' when every other rider you see rides the shoulder/ right hand turn lane is very telling, joe.

good luck fighting the ticket. it'll get dropped.

The right hand turn lane is part of the roadway marked off for use by turning vehicles only. I'm as far right as practicable for my destination when I'm in the right hand lane. You might as well tell me to get on the sidewalk if you are going to disagree with me for my lane position.

I see cyclists put themselves in awkward positions by acting unpredictably at intersections by going straight from a position where everyone else is turning. Motorists have to yield to these cyclists in ways that they are not used to which causes confusion. I'm not interested in taking part in that.

And you don't think a 50-60MPH motorist yielding to you in the through lane has any confusion attached to it?

I was all for your use of the straight through lane, but some recent experience on a similar fast road has given me pause for cause... taking a decidedly left position in a right turn lane may convey the meaning you want vis a vis your wanting to go straight, and leaving room for passing.

I hope you win on principle, but I can see the use of the other lane on practicality.

... taking a decidedly left position in a right turn lane may convey the meaning you want vis a vis your wanting to go straight, and leaving room for passing.

Good point.

heavy traffic going 50-60 miles an hour, a clear, 11 foot shoulder, and you think it's easier to use a heavily travelled right hand lane? interesting, joe.

again, you'll figure out appropriate road position and adaptive bicycling someday, joe. getting your feet wet in traffic cycling imitating HH's technique he spouts here appears to have gotten you in badly with the local law enforcement.

And hey, i agree you have the right to the travel lane, but riding there as a political statement of 'vehiculariness' when every other rider you see rides the shoulder/ right hand turn lane is very telling, joe.

good luck fighting the ticket. it'll get dropped.

I've been out of town for a while (and actually out of the country too for the past week) so sorry for the slow reply here.

In regards to my comment about using the right hand lane being easier, yes it is much easier to be destination positioned in the the right hand thru lane when going straight. It might be annoying for other drivers to have to slow down/change lanes for me but that doesn't make it more difficult for me to use the right lane. Using the right turn lane means not only have to pay attention for anyone who decides to leave the 50mph convoy of vehicles to make a right turn but also watching for vehicles entering the roadway from my left who no doubt are not looking in the gore area for traffic. At many of the intersections, there's cross traffic as well. I find it to be hardly a political statement to use the correct lane for where I want to go. It's telling that you do, however, Bek.

And please for the sake of others reading this forum, try to refer to the areas of the road properly. You go back and forth between calling the area where I was pulled over a right turn lane and a shoulder when I have repeatedly made it clear that it was a right turn lane at the time.

And you don't think a 50-60MPH motorist yielding to you in the through lane has any confusion attached to it?

I was all for your use of the straight through lane, but some recent experience on a similar fast road has given me pause for cause... taking a decidedly left position in a right turn lane may convey the meaning you want vis a vis your wanting to go straight, and leaving room for passing.

I hope you win on principle, but I can see the use of the other lane on practicality.

Yielding to me in the thru lane is no different than yielding to one of the many large, slow trucks that use this road. No one has been so confused yet that they didn't know to either slow or change lanes to pass.

It would be practical (and practicable) to use the right side of the road with fast traffic present assuming everyone is just going straight and no one is about to cross my path. As that's almost always not the case, I see no lack of practicality of being where I should be. Leaving more room for passing is hardly a concern of mine at intersections, especially when there's another whole lane for passing.

It would be practical (and practicable) to use the right side of the road with fast traffic present assuming everyone is just going straight and no one is about to cross my path. As that's almost always not the case, I see no lack of practicality of being where I should be. Leaving more room for passing is hardly a concern of mine at intersections, especially when there's another whole lane for passing.

But Gene does have a point that if you are on the left-hand side of the right-turn lane, you are communicating your intentions well and leaving space for a right-turner to pass you on the right.

A) You might suffer from lower visibility by opposite traffic making a left.

B) You would probably avoid more negligent driving and/or aggressive behavior from the rear.

Guess it depends on your perception of the greater risk(s).

Regarding your case, good luck Joe.

-G

But Gene does have a point that if you are on the left-hand side of the right-turn lane, you are communicating your intentions well and leaving space for a right-turner to pass you on the right.
Maybe. Or maybe he would then be inviting unsafe close passes on one or both sides. Depends on the width of the lanes. Joe (welcome back!), have you gotten out there with measuring tape (and a camera!) yet? Get on it this weekend!

Maybe. Or maybe he would then be inviting unsafe close passes on one or both sides. Depends on the width of the lanes. Joe (welcome back!), have you gotten out there with measuring tape (and a camera!) yet? Get on it this weekend!

True. I forget the details from earlier in the thread. Although one would think that the traffic on the right would be considerably slower than the traffic on the left.

But you could be right.

But Gene does have a point that if you are on the left-hand side of the right-turn lane, you are communicating your intentions well and leaving space for a right-turner to pass you on the right.

If I used the left hand side of the turn lane, traffic could not pass me on the right. Even riding on the lane line results in uncomfortably close passes on either side given the lane width and traffic speeds. Due to the length of the turn lanes, traffic often enters them at full speed before beginning to slow. If there was a position that I could use that made it clear that I was going straight yet left room for both right turning and straight traffic to comfortably pass, then I'd be using it.

Maybe. Or maybe he would then be inviting unsafe close passes on one or both sides. Depends on the width of the lanes. Joe (welcome back!), have you gotten out there with measuring tape (and a camera!) yet? Get on it this weekend!

Haven't gotten to measuring yet and won't for another week still as I'll be in Shanghai until next Friday. My whole schedule for doing anything got messed up after having to spend a week in Florida for work, followed by one day at home, then flying to Taipei last week, and then onto to China. I really need to get a folding bike.

If I used the left hand side of the turn lane, traffic could not pass me on the right. Even riding on the lane line results in uncomfortably close passes on either side given the lane width and traffic speeds. Due to the length of the turn lanes, traffic often enters them at full speed before beginning to slow. If there was a position that I could use that made it clear that I was going straight yet left room for both right turning and straight traffic to comfortably pass, then I'd be using it.


In a case like that, then indeed your only choice is to take the straight through lane.


Haven't gotten to measuring yet and won't for another week still as I'll be in Shanghai until next Friday. My whole schedule for doing anything got messed up after having to spend a week in Florida for work, followed by one day at home, then flying to Taipei last week, and then onto to China. I really need to get a folding bike.

Hey you need to report back what you see on your China trip... especially the "organic" traffic situation on the streets there.

Had you seen my reports from Finland? Take a look: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=343260

It was nothing like cycling in America, totally different.

If I used the left hand side of the turn lane, traffic could not pass me on the right. Even riding on the lane line results in uncomfortably close passes on either side given the lane width and traffic speeds. Due to the length of the turn lanes, traffic often enters them at full speed before beginning to slow. If there was a position that I could use that made it clear that I was going straight yet left room for both right turning and straight traffic to comfortably pass, then I'd be using it.

That's called a 'bikelane' joe.:D

too bad your road doesn't have one, your positioning difficulties and ticketing impetus of jhonny law along this high speed road would be largly rended inert.

Firstly, I'll admit to not having read the entire thread as after the third page it seems to get a little repetitious on certain points and arguments.

However, there are a few things that the OP should consider doing as part of the court case.

1) The officer said to you that he anticipated that you would challenge this ticket in a court of law. If you can get them to admit to this version of events then you are in a position to move on to an argument that the officer was aware that the application of the ticket might be open to a challenge based on an interpretation in law.
2) The officer had to make reference to the official ordinance on road law. If you can get them to admit to this version of events, you can move on to the argument that the officer was not fully familiar with the appropriate regulations and that the officers ability to enforce the law lacks credibility.

Both of these points are designed to undermine the officer's competence on road law vs. you as a citizen who is familiar with the law and requires no reference.

3) The officer stated that they were issuing the ticket because you were not co-operating. This may be worth mentioning in court. If you think it is, you should argue that you co-operated where you felt it was appropriate, such as following directions, giving information etc. However, there should be some form of ordinance or law local to your area that allows a civilian to object to the directions of a uniformed officer or their prosecution/interpretation of the law if you feel that the officer is wrong or unreasonable in doing so. It's a standard clause on most statute books designed to prevent an abuse of law by a serving officer. I think that one poster upthread has indicated that they are a serving officer so they might be able to assist you with finding this piece of ordinance.

4) Given the circumstances of this ticket, it might be worth making the judge aware that ruling in the favour of the officer may set a precedent that directly contradicts the law. As a rule, judges dislike setting precedents as any future cases that argue against this precedent can demand further justification on their part, if not a judicial review.

Personally I think that provided that the OP wears a suit to court and speaks in a calm, educated and civil manner then any judge will consider the case on it's merits rather than automatically siding with the police side of the case, which in my mind puts the balance of probabilities in favour of the OP. Unless of course the judge dislikes cyclists or people who argue traffic tickets.

This link is to a very similar case, Maryland vs. McCutcheon: http://www.crankmail.com/Fred/Rt2Road.html#McCutcheon

Unfortunately the link to the brief is dead, because it basically lays out what your legal strategy should be.

Firstly, I'll admit to not having read the entire thread as after the third page it seems to get a little repetitious on certain points and arguments.

However, there are a few things that the OP should consider doing as part of the court case.

1) The officer said to you that he anticipated that you would challenge this ticket in a court of law. If you can get them to admit to this version of events then you are in a position to move on to an argument that the officer was aware that the application of the ticket might be open to a challenge based on an interpretation in law.
2) The officer had to make reference to the official ordinance on road law. If you can get them to admit to this version of events, you can move on to the argument that the officer was not fully familiar with the appropriate regulations and that the officers ability to enforce the law lacks credibility.

Both of these points are designed to undermine the officer's competence on road law vs. you as a citizen who is familiar with the law and requires no reference.

3) The officer stated that they were issuing the ticket because you were not co-operating. This may be worth mentioning in court.Only if the officer admits to it in court. If Joejack makes the point himelf, the officer will probably deny it. Then it's Joejack's word against the officer's and Joejack loses that argument.


If you think it is, you should argue that you co-operated where you felt it was appropriate, such as following directions, giving information etc. However, there should be some form of ordinance or law local to your area that allows a civilian to object to the directions of a uniformed officer or their prosecution/interpretation of the law if you feel that the officer is wrong or unreasonable in doing so. It's a standard clause on most statute books designed to prevent an abuse of law by a serving officer. I think that one poster upthread has indicated that they are a serving officer so they might be able to assist you with finding this piece of ordinance.

4) Given the circumstances of this ticket, it might be worth making the judge aware that ruling in the favour of the officer may set a precedent that directly contradicts the law. As a rule, judges dislike setting precedents as any future cases that argue against this precedent can demand further justification on their part, if not a judicial review.Trial courts don't make precedent. Whatever happens at Joejack's trial won't be precedential. Precedent is only established on new questions of law at the appellate level.

Personally I think that provided that the OP wears a suit to court and speaks in a calm, educated and civil manner then any judge will consider the case on it's merits rather than automatically siding with the police side of the case, which in my mind puts the balance of probabilities in favour of the OP. Unless of course the judge dislikes cyclists or people who argue traffic tickets.The officer will still have more weight given to his testimony where it conflicts with Joejack's testimony. However, you're absolutely right, Joejack must appear appropriately groomed and attired, and speak in a calm, educated, and civil manner. That will go a long way toward dispelling any prejudice against Joejack that otherwise might influence the outcome of his trial.

The only way to overcome the officer's testimony advantage is to have the officer testify to facts that support Joejack's argument, and then to have Joejack make his argument. That way, the officer is agreeing with Joejack about the circumstances surrounding the citation; this is where the judge will give more creedence to the officer's testimony (for example, if the officer says "I saw the defendant run a red light," and the defendant says "No, I didn't," the court will believe the officer. If both the officer and Joejack agree about where Joejack was riding in the roadway, and about road conditions and other relevcant information, then Joejack has effectively overcome the officer's advantage.). Then when Joejack makes his argument about interpretation of the law, he won't be undermined by contradictory testimony about the circumstances; he will only be arguing his interpretation of the law, and on that point, the court should agree with the correct interpretation of the law.

The only way to overcome the officer's testimony advantage is ...

I'm still trying to figure out what the officer could say in his testimony that would make JoeJack guilty of violating the law he was cited for violating, especially if JoeJack has photos showing the width of the outermost through lane being less than 14 feet wide (presumably taken on a hopefully quiet early weekend morning), documentation explaining why lanes less than 14 feet are too narrow to be safely shared side-by-side, and is able to establish that the rightmost lane is for right turns only (to which he should be able to get the officer to admit, but having backup photos establishing this fact couldn't hurt).

I'm still trying to figure out what the officer could say in his testimony that would make JoeJack guilty of violating the law he was cited for violating, especially if JoeJack has photos showing the width of the outermost through lane being less than 14 feet wide (presumably taken on a hopefully quiet early weekend morning), documentation explaining why lanes less than 14 feet are too narrow to be safely shared side-by-side, and is able to establish that the rightmost lane is for right turns only (to which he should be able to get the officer to admit, but having backup photos establishing this fact couldn't hurt).You're misunderstanding what I wrote. The court gives more weight to an officer's tesimony about questions of facts. For example, if the officer says you ran a stop sign, and your only defense is "no I didn't," you will lose. To overcome that testimony advantage, you have to either get the officer to agree with you about what happened, or alternatively, establish that the officer's testimony may not be accurate. For example, suppose that you didn't actually run the stop sign, but get ticketed for it. If the officer says you ran a stop sign, you have the officer testify as to where he was when you allegedly ran the stop sign, then establish evidence proving that he could not possibly have seen you from that position (e.g., there's something wrong with the line of sight).

In Joejack's example, he needs to have the officer establish facts that bolster Joejack's legal argument. E.g., the lane is narrow, Joejack was taking the lane, etc.

On questions of law, the officer should not have a testimony advantage-- both the officer and Joejack are entitled to make their legal arguments, and the court should make a judgment based on the correct interpretation of the law. For example, if the officer testifies that the law does not allow Joejack to take a lane that is too narrow to safely share, the court should not give that wrong interpretation of the law more weight than Joejack's correct interpretation of the law. Instead, the court should decide which legal argument is correct based on the merits of the argument.

...documentation explaining why lanes less than 14 feet are too narrow to be safely shared side-by-side...

What sort of definitive documentation is available for this argument?

You're misunderstanding what I wrote. The court gives more weight to an officer's tesimony about questions of facts. For example, if the officer says you ran a stop sign, and your only defense is "no I didn't," you will lose. To overcome that testimony advantage, you have to either get the officer to agree with you about what happened, or alternatively, establish that the officer's testimony may not be accurate. For example, suppose that you didn't actually run the stop sign, but get ticketed for it. If the officer says you ran a stop sign, you have the officer testify as to where he was when you allegedly ran the stop sign, then establish evidence proving that he could not possibly have seen you from that position (e.g., there's something wrong with the line of sight).

In Joejack's example, he needs to have the officer establish facts that bolster Joejack's legal argument. E.g., the lane is narrow, Joejack was taking the lane, etc.

On questions of law, the officer should not have a testimony advantage-- both the officer and Joejack are entitled to make their legal arguments, and the court should make a judgment based on the correct interpretation of the law. For example, if the officer testifies that the law does not allow Joejack to take a lane that is too narrow to safely share, the court should not give that wrong interpretation of the law more weight than Joejack's correct interpretation of the law. Instead, the court should decide which legal argument is correct based on the merits of the argument.
I understand (and understood) what you wrote.

I'm still trying to figure out what the officer could say in his testimony that might make the judge find JoeJack to be guilty of violating the law he was cited for violating.

What sort of definitive documentation is available for this argument?One way to establish that the lane is too narrow to safely share is to measure the lane, and then subtract for the standard width of a vehicle, a safe margin from the center line, the width of the bike at the handlebars, and a safe margin from the curb. The difference left will be the distance between the standard width vehicle and the bicycle, and that is probably too narrow to allow for a safe pass, from the perspective of the "reasonable person" who is riding a bike and is being passed.

I understand (and understood) what you wrote.

I'm still trying to figure out what the officer could say in his testimony that might make the judge find JoeJack to be guilty of violating the law he was cited for violating.If Joejack handles his argument badly, or if he draws a bad judge, he can lose.

Suppose, for example, Joejack asks the officer if, in his opinion, the lane is too narrow to safely share. The officer says "no, there's plenty of room." Joejack says "I disagree." The court would likely find in favor of the officer in that situation.

One lesson to learn from that is to never, ever, ask the officer his opinion, or his interpretation of the law. He'll offer that anyway, but Joejack should only ask the officer to establish facts, and not ask the officer for his opinion or his interpretation of the law. Ask the officer to establish facts that support your legal argument, then make your legal argument.

It's up to Joejack to make a convincing legal argument, supported by facts, and how the judge rules may well depend upon how convincing Joejack is.

Now suppose the officer says that while it's technically true that Joejack is entitled to take the lane when it's too narrow to safely share, in the officer's opinion it is too unsafe for cyclists to take the lane on that particular road. Now Joejack has to come up with a legal argument to counter that opinion...

What sort of definitive documentation is available for this argument?
What is "definitive"?

Any book that addresses this topic can be used to show this, as well as papers like these:

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/wol_width.pdf
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/EffectiveAdvocacy/blvswol.htm

Finally, it's simply math.

Vehicles can be up to 8.5' wide.
Cyclists are approximately 2' wide.

Assuming you need 2' on each side (2' to the left of the car, 2' to the right of the car), and 3' in between, you have 2 + 8.5 + 3 + 2 + 2 = 17.5'.

Even with a 5.5' wide car you have: 2 + 5.5 + 3 + 2 + 2 = 14.5'

To get under 14' you have to start compromising safety buffer space to below 2' on the outsides, and/or less than 3' between the car and bike.

With 12 foot lanes you end up with something like 1 + 5.5 + 2.5 + 2 + 1 = 12, which can put the cyclist only 1' from someone biased at the left edge of the lane adjacent to the right. And if a wider vehicle comes along while you're in a "far right, yes, please, share this lane with me position", it gets dicey, especially at high speed differentials. Better to make it clear in no uncertain terms that the lane is not safely shareable, so that they notice, and can plan for it, sooner rather than later.

What is "definitive"?


I would say anything from an approved agency that might be recognized by the Judge as having authority... such as the MUTCD (which is just for markings).

The info you supplied is not from a recognized "authority."

Now maybe the quoted AASHTO... might be the ticket...

The quoted AASHTO? What are you referring to?

Anyway, it's simple math. And all the 3' foot minimum passing laws in various states can be used as evidence of 3' being a reasonable minimum buffer to expect to maintain.

The quoted AASHTO? What are you referring to?

Anyway, it's simple math. And all the 3' foot minimum passing laws in various states can be used as evidence of 3' being a reasonable minimum buffer to expect to maintain.

The AASHTO was quoted in the first document you offered... It probably has far more strength than anything one might offer from pro-cycling web sites.

Yeah, simple math is one thing, a court of law is another. Good luck with "simple math."

If Joejack handles his argument badly, or if he draws a bad judge, he can lose.

Suppose, for example, Joejack asks the officer if, in his opinion, the lane is too narrow to safely share. The officer says "no, there's plenty of room." Joejack says "I disagree." The court would likely find in favor of the officer in that situation.
Okay, so if the officer testifies that the lane is certainly wide enough to share then that would work against JJ, but I think this is highly unlikely since his intent seemed to be to get JJ out of that lane, period.


Now suppose the officer says that while it's technically true that Joejack is entitled to take the lane when it's too narrow to safely share, in the officer's opinion it is too unsafe for cyclists to take the lane on that particular road. Now Joejack has to come up with a legal argument to counter that opinion...
Why? What does whether it's "too unsafe for cyclists to take the lane on that particular road" have to do with whether JJ was in violation of Section 4196 of the DE vehicle code?



§ 4196. Position on roadway.

(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway except under any of the following circumstances:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction;

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand edge of roadway. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a 1-way highway with 2 or more marked traffic lanes and a posted speed limit of less than 30 miles per hour may ride as near the left-hand edge of such roadway as practicable.

(c) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than 2 abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding 2 abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane. (21 Del. C. 1953, § 4194; 54 Del. Laws, c. 160, § 1; 66 Del. Laws, c. 167, § 2.)

http://delcode.delaware.gov/title21/c041/sc12/index.shtml#TopOfPage

The AASHTO was quoted in the first document you offered... It probably has far more strength than anything one might offer from pro-cycling web sites.

Yeah, simple math is one thing, a court of law is another. Good luck with "simple math."
The law (see previous post) clearly states an exception is when the cyclist is in a "lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane".

Whether the lane JJ was in "is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane" then becomes a legitimate question for the court to address.

JJ can then offer evidence of the width of the lane, the typical widths of vehicles, a copy of the statute that specifies the max width of a vehicle, the 3' minimum argument, and with simple math show that "travel safely side by side within the lane" is physically impossible. I don't understand the cynicism about the success of using simple logical argument in court.

I don't understand the cynicism about the success of using simple logical argument in court.

Ever been to court? Ever served as a juror? :D Sometimes the obvious just gets right past the court.

While your suggestions would seem to have merit, the open issues are still subject to dispute and opinion... for instance citing a 3 foot law may not mean squat in a state that has no such law.

I could see it now:

JJ: Officer Doe, could you please read the section of the vehicle code for which you cited me?
OD: 4196.
JJ: Thank you. Is this a copy of that section? (hand him a section)
OD: Yes.
JJ: Would you mind reading to the court the highlighted section?
OD:

§ 4196. Position on roadway.

(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway except under any of the following circumstances:

...


JJ: Thank you. Did you say "except under any of the following circumstances"?
OD: Yes.
JJ: Thank you. Now, Would you mind reading the highlighted parts in the following section, please?

OD:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction;

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand edge of roadway. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a 1-way highway with 2 or more marked traffic lanes and a posted speed limit of less than 30 miles per hour may ride as near the left-hand edge of such roadway as practicable.

(c) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than 2 abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding 2 abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane. (21 Del. C. 1953, § 4194; 54 Del. Laws, c. 160, § 1; 66 Del. Laws, c. 167, § 2.)


JJ: Thank you. Do I understand correctly that if "a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane", then a cyclist is exempted from complying with the Section 4196 obligation to "ride as close as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway"?

OD: (clears throat)
JJ: Officer?
OD: (meekly) Yeah.

Ever been to court? Ever served as a juror? :D Sometimes the obvious just gets right past the court.

While your suggestions would seem to have merit, the open issues are still subject to dispute and opinion... for instance citing a 3 foot law may not mean squat in a state that has no such law.
Yes, I've had to fight tickets and I've been on two juries (both criminal and civil).

Let's just say that logic and reason seem to be much more effective with a judge than their use is on this forum.

With juries, yeah, logic and reason are about as (in)effective as on this forum. But with judges it works great.

Okay, so if the officer testifies that the lane is certainly wide enough to share then that would work against JJ, but I think this is highly unlikely since his intent seemed to be to get JJ out of that lane, period.It only works against JJ if JJ doesn't introduce evidence to contradict the officer's unsupported opinion. I.e., JJ needs to prove taht the lane is NOT wide enough to safely share.


Why? What does whether it's "too unsafe for cyclists to take the lane on that particular road" have to do with whether JJ was in violation of Section 4196 of the DE vehicle code?Absolutely nothing. But he would have to be prepared to argue that it has absolutely nothing to do with Section 4196. Don't assume that officer will be using "logic."

what makes you guys think the judge isn't going to interpret 'the right edge of the roadway' to include to right hand turn lane as well?

what makes you guys think the judge isn't going to interpret 'the right edge of the roadway' to include to right hand turn lane as well?
Because that would be disobeying a Traffic Control Device.

I'm still trying to figure out what the officer could say in his testimony that might make the judge find JoeJack to be guilty of violating the law he was cited for violating.

The problem is that the judge is most likely not an A&S regular, and if he did he would have to recuse himself...

In all seriousness, you have to understand that the judge is human. He's an expert on the law, that's how he got to be a judge, but bicycle law is so arcane that almost certainly he is unfamiliar with it. Almost certainly he is also a motorist, and like most motorists -- and the cop in this story -- he probably has never really given any thought to bicycles on the road, but has some vague idea that cyclists have to stay out of the way of cars. The statute in question is written in a very confusing way; even we who study it like the Talmud can't agree on what exactly the words mean. It is human nature to interpret things in a way that reinforces your preconceived notions, so it would be very easy for the judge to interpret the law to say the opposite of what it actually says. It would also be very easy for the judge to conclude that while JoeJack wasn't actually violating this particular section, he "obviously" shouldn't have been riding a bike in the middle of a busy highway. He was breaking the law, the cop just cited him under the wrong section of the code, and he's going to split the difference and find him guilty anyway. Stuff like that happens in low-level courts all the time.

So you can't count on the judge just to read the law and make the right call. What you need to do is educate the judge about the essentials of bicycle law. This is a very challenging thing to do. You have to convince him that you know more about this particular law than he does; someone whose whole professional life -- whose whole sense of worth -- revolves around being an expert in the law. You have to get him to discard his preconceived notions, and avoid creating any defensiveness that will cause him to close his mind. You have to do this in a short period of time, in a charged environment. You run the real risk of coming off as some ten-speed riding hippy with his own legal theories about how the world would be better off as a human-powered utopia.

I think your best bet is to hope the cop doesn't bother showing for a $25 ticket.

what makes you guys think the judge isn't going to interpret 'the right edge of the roadway' to include to right hand turn lane as well?

There's no question that the right turn lane is part of the roadway. The question is whether it is practicable to ride there, and the argument is that it is not practicable because it is not legal to travel there unless you are in fact turning right, and practicable assumes legal.

Here is a counter-argument: most states have a law that says bicycles basically have to follow the same laws as other vehicles, except where a bicycle-specific law exists. I'm not going to do the research to look the specific law for JoeJack, but here is what my local law says:

Every person who propels a vehicle by human power or who rides a bicycle on a highway shall have the same duties as any other vehicle operator under this title, except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, and except for those duties imposed by this title which, by their nature or wording, can have no reasonable application to a bicycle operator.


The key part about this is the part, "except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter." What that means is that if there is a bicycle-specific law, that trumps any general vehicle law. The argument is that the keep-right law for bicycles trumps the right-turn-only law, because the keep-right law is bicycle-specific.

It's a little thin as an argument, but it gives the judge something to hang a decision on.

I thought I would point out a couple of national safety groups and their stance on this issue which agrees with JoeJack.

LAB:

Ride in the right-most lane that goes in the direction that you are traveling
Obey all stop signs, traffic lights and lane markings
http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/better/commuters.php

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdrrxIpQpt4

Now suppose the officer says that while it's technically true that Joejack is entitled to take the lane when it's too narrow to safely share, in the officer's opinion it is too unsafe for cyclists to take the lane on that particular road. Now Joejack has to come up with a legal argument to counter that opinion...
Oh boy, how does JJ handle that if it comes up? Like this attorney did in the Trotwood v. Selz appeal in Ohio?

http://www.crankmail.com/Fred/Rt2Road.html#Selz

Magas quoted a statement by the judge that reveals her ignorance of cycling: "I certainly understand the impassioned defense on this case because I do believe that bicyclists need a place to ride and it is not safe a lot of times to ride it on the streets on 49. I don’t think I’d ride there at 2:00 am, just because of the traffic. I don’t think it’s safe." Then Magas added: "Again, this is precisely the sort of 'parens patriae' approach that caused cyclists to fight for being included as 'vehicle operators' under state law. With all due respect to the court’s opinion, it really does not matter whether the court, the prosecutor or the arresting officer 'feels' it is safe. The legislature has already determined that cyclists have the right to use the roadways."

Magas ended by defining "Parens patriae": "Curiously, 'Parens patriae' originates from the English common law where the King had a royal prerogative to act as guardian to persons with legal disabilities such as infants, idiots and lunacy. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., 1003. It is submitted that this 'prerogative' does not exist today to give police officers the authority to ban legal behavior they feel contains some element of danger."

There's no question that the right turn lane is part of the roadway. The question is whether it is practicable to ride there, and the argument is that it is not practicable because it is not legal to travel there unless you are in fact turning right, and practicable assumes legal.

Here is a counter-argument: most states have a law that says bicycles basically have to follow the same laws as other vehicles, except where a bicycle-specific law exists. I'm not going to do the research to look the specific law for JoeJack, but here is what my local law says:


The key part about this is the part, "except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter." What that means is that if there is a bicycle-specific law, that trumps any general vehicle law. The argument is that the keep-right law for bicycles trumps the right-turn-only law, because the keep-right law is bicycle-specific.

It's a little thin as an argument, but it gives the judge something to hang a decision on.

Yes it does.

as well as the judges' experience as a motorist interacting with cyclists out 'obstructing' traffic on high speed roadways.

Now, Joe, you know this is not how I feel about the "legality" of your scenario.

Monday, group of 5 of us rode 50 miles, some on high speed, busy, multi laned roads- used the right hand turn lanes for a fair bit of those high speed roads. it sure was nice, and remarkably easy to stay both safe and out of the way of faster traffic, turning traffic, and cross traffic...... at the same time, approaching bridge overpasses, and touchy intersections with jersey barriers, etc, took the lanes with an eye behind.....

JJ: Thank you. Do I understand correctly that if "a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane", then a cyclist is exempted from complying with the Section 4196 obligation to "ride as close as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway"?

OD: (clears throat)
JJ: Officer?
OD: (meekly) Yeah.
That's a great little fantasy, except for the fact that it's based on the argument that "Assuming you need 2' on each side (2' to the left of the car, 2' to the right of the car), and 3' in between, you have 2 + 8.5 + 3 + 2 + 2 = 17.5'."

So it boils down to the claim that a cyclist needs to interfere with traffic on any lane narrower than 18 feet. This is liable to draw laughter from anyone present in the courtroom, judge included.

I think a reasonable minimum width is:

1'+9'+3'+2'+1' = 15'

Note this assumes a 9' wide motor vehicles. There are wider vehicles I encouter regularly on the road.

Al

He's an expert on the law, that's how he got to be a judge, but bicycle law is so arcane that almost certainly he is unfamiliar with it.

Don't you guys vote for your judges? Wouldn't that mean that any idiot who's popular enough could be a judge?

I think a reasonable minimum width is:

1'+9'+3'+2'+1' = 15'
And I think that any argument which holds that bicyclists, for their own safety, need to block traffic on lanes of average width will, when presented to any "reasonable" person, be laughed at.

BTW, since coming to A&S and learning about "Vehicular Cycling", I have seen proponents thereof post threads about getting honked at, yelled at, involved in physical confrontations, buzzed by motorists, and ticketed, all while practicing VC. This is hardly persuasive.

Don't you guys vote for your judges? Wouldn't that mean that any idiot who's popular enough could be a judge?

An idiot doesn't even have to be popular to pontificate on BF as an Expert on Bicycling Law.

And I think that any argument which holds that bicyclists, for their own safety, need to block traffic on lanes of average width will, when presented to any "reasonable" person, be laughed at.

I don't let motorists share narrow lanes with me but I also don't share them with them. When there are lines of slow/stopped vehicles in a narrow lane I wait behind the line. If I don't feel comfortable/safe passing them using the same lane, why should I let them pass me in the same lane.

Al

And I think that any argument which holds that bicyclists, for their own safety, need to block traffic on lanes of average width will, when presented to any "reasonable" person, be laughed at.

BTW, since coming to A&S and learning about "Vehicular Cycling", I have seen proponents thereof post threads about getting honked at, yelled at, involved in physical confrontations, buzzed by motorists, and ticketed, all while practicing VC. This is hardly persuasive.
SJ, please look at the two clips in this video:

http://cyclistview.com/inclusivepdintro/slide22.htm

Do you agree the lane in that clip is of "average width"?

Which lane position do you think is more likely to cause the cyclist to get "honked at, yelled at, involved in physical confrontations, and buzzed by motorists"?

If you think the position depicted in the clip on the right is more likely to cause the cyclist to get a (unjustified) ticket, I won't argue with that. But I know the likelihood is extremely low, and the benefits of reducing the incidence of honking, yelling, confrontations and buzzing makes it worth it. YMMV.