From this website: http://www.massbike.org/bikelaw/statelaws.htm

Here's California's law pertaining to bicycles:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file=21200-21212

21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed
less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction
at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand
curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following
situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but
not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles,
pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes)
that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge,
subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this
section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for
a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the
lane.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway,
which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or
more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or
edge of that roadway as practicable.


Very similar to Alberta and Manitoba law.

Helmut, get on your bike and go riding, please.

Back on topic, just as the law says (varies by location), you're required to move over if you're blocking 5 or more cars . . . . ..

Does anyone know where this is a law? It's a new one on me.

Does anyone know where this is a law? It's a new one on me.

According to the California Vehicle code, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file=21650-21664

21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of
traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving
vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more
vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the
nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the
authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever
sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the
vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a
slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed
less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and
place.

But somehow I don't think that applies to bicycles. The Californian law pertaining to bicycles is as I posted a couple posts above.

That's law in Alaska. I forget the exact bit of traffic code. But the Alaska State Troopers have an ad campaign on television every year to tell people about it.

Oh, and generally "vehicle" includes a bicycle. It's only when you see "motor vehicle" that you can ignore it.

According to the California Vehicle code, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file=21650-21664

21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of
traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving
vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more
vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the
nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the
authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever
sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the
vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a
slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed
less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and
place.

But somehow I don't think that applies to bicycles. The Californian law pertaining to bicycles is as I posted a couple posts above.

Of course the key to the whole thing is the first sentence... "On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions"

So this law is null and void if more than one lane exists going in the same direction.

I don't care how long they have to wait, but I attempt to be reasonable. I'll hold the lane as long as necessary to ensure my safety.

It applies to bikes.

21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed
less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction
at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand
curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following
situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but
not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles,
pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes)
that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge,
subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this
section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for
a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the
lane.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway,
which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or
more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or
edge of that roadway as practicable.

Ah, right ... but only in situations when it is necessary to avoid the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) there. If you've got a clear road (no obstructions, debris, etc. etc.), you've got to be over to the right, you can't be cycling down the middle of the lane.

This is not pointed at you specifically... this is dealing with expectations of motorists...

That "pull over place" that you deem safe may not be the first place that a motorist deems safe... Therein lies one issue. A motorist may feel that you can pull over in the first empty parking spot along the side of the road, and technically we could. But the problem with that is you are now stuck in that spot and wanting to merge back into the flow, which may not be quite accommodating. So the real question is how to manage the expectations of motorists who might expect you to pull over in the first available opening in a line of parked cars, when in fact this would really screw you traffic wise? Personally I don't do it... and I don't consider that I am "holding up a line of cars" no matter how many are behind me... if another lane exists.

This issue of the lack of common expectations between motorists and cyclists is a really big one for me. I tend to expect motorists to know how wide their car is and proceed around me. Few seem willing to do this on 2 lane roads, even when the lanes are a full 14 feet wide and I am on the white line. Many of our more popular cycling roads here in Mich DO NOT have much shoulder and in some areas none! So while I am not taking the lane, the driver feels the need to stay behind me. Am I doing anything to hold them up? Not IMHO! But that driver may feel that I am, and I can't help that. But then should I give up my 10 inches of the road centered on the white line and already rougher than the main channel, for this sort of driver. Some of my bikes don't really have the directional stability to easily remain in such a narrow track.

In Michigan it is legal to move into the lane if it is not practicable to ride far to the right. The laws do not define "practicable," which to me means the cyclist must decide when it is or isn't practicable. If there are two lanes in the same direction, you may occupy the right lane, even though in heavy traffic this would not be wise.

Road Fan

From this website: http://www.massbike.org/bikelaw/statelaws.htm

Here's California's law pertaining to bicycles:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file=21200-21212

21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed
less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction
at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand
curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following
situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but
not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles,
pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes)
that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge,
subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this
section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for
a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the
lane.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway,
which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or
more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or
edge of that roadway as practicable.


Very similar to Alberta and Manitoba law.
I am quite familar with the California law, and maybe the words look similar, but the practical implications are totally different.

The Alberta law is very simple: A person who is operating a bicycle on a highway shall ride as near as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway.

There are no exceptions. There are no caveats. The mandate is to "ride as near as practicable to the right", period.

The California law has one major caveat even before getting to the myriad list of exceptions. That caveat is at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time. What that means is that the whole "ride as close as practicable to the right" thing does not even apply if you are riding at the same speed as other traffic, or, of course, if there is no other traffic.

If we incorporate that caveat with the exceptions, in my favorite order, we see that the law essentially states the mandate to keep as far right as practicable does not apply any time any one of the following conditions is true.
There is no other same direction traffic present.
The cyclist is moving no slower than other same direction traffic.
The lane is too narrow to be safely shared by a bike and a vehicle (which legally can be up to 8.5' wide) traveling side-by-side within the lane. Assuming the vehicle is max width and requires one foot on the left and 3 feet to the 2 foot wide cyclist who requires an additional 3 feet to the curb, that means the lane arguably has to be at least 1 + 8.5 + 3 + 2 + 3 = 17.5' wide before the 21202 "keep as far right as practicable" mandate applies. You can quibble with those numbers, but even if you remove the 1' buffer on the left, assume an average width vehicle of 6' and reduce the cyclist buffer on the right to 1', you still have 0 + 6 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 12' for an arguably absolute minimum width where 21202 applies. Many urban lanes are 11 and even 10' wide, or sometimes a bit narrower...
When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized. Note that junctions with driveways, alleys and mall entrances, and of course intersections with streets, are all places "where a right turn is authorized". In most urban and suburban settings, you're "approaching a place where a right turn is authorized" much of the time.
When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions ... This clause is totally wide open. The narrow lane exception is actually embedded inside it, but I like to pull it out (as #3 in this list) to give it the emphasis it deserves. But the point is that there are many other "conditions" which justify NOT "riding as far right as practicable", some but not all of which are enumerated in the law.
When passing others. Of course.
When preparing for a left turn. Of course. It's important this is specified, however, because it makes it clear that cyclists are not required to keep right until they reach the intersection, cross it, and then cross again like a pedestrian. Cyclists are allowed to prepare for a vehicular left turn, which implies starting to do so as is reasonably necessary to do it safely and efficiently.In the end, the Alberta and California laws are totally different. The Alberta law is very clear and specific; the requirement to keep right applies everywhere. The California law has so many loop holes you could, well, ride a bike through them. In practice, rarely are you ever in a situation where none of the exceptions apply, and, so, rarely are you required by law to ride as far right as practicable.

An interesting side note: John Forester has written many times that a subcommittee for the California legislature that eventually wrote 21202 was considering making a much simpler version, similar to what Alberta has, I'm sure. But they asked for reviews, and Forester and a colleague pointed out all the reasons they should not have the law. But what he did not realize was that as they cited all the reasons (passing, turning left, narrow lanes, other obstacles), they were taking notes, and ended up listing these in the now famous list of exceptions. Other states followed suit.

The California law has one major caveat even before getting to the myriad list of exceptions. That caveat is at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time. What that means is that the whole "ride as close as practicable to the right" thing does not even apply if you are riding at the same speed as other traffic, or, of course, if there is no other traffic.

If we incorporate that caveat with the exceptions, in my favorite order, we see that the law essentially states the mandate to keep as far right as practicable does not apply any time any one of the following exceptions applies.[LIST=1]
There is no other same direction traffic present.


I read it over again, and I'm afraid I don't see where it says, "if there is no other same direction traffic present."

But even if it did, aren't we talking about whether or not we should [legally] be holding up traffic or not?

Ah, right ... but only in situations when it is necessary to avoid the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) there. If you've got a clear road (no obstructions, debris, etc. etc.), you've got to be over to the right, you can't be cycling down the middle of the lane.

This is how I follow the Michigan law. While I think it's legal to take the right lane if there's a second lane in my direction, such action does not build healthy relations with motorists.

Road Fan

I make it a point to inconvenience (i.e: get in the way of) motorists as little as possible. It's a survival thing - you just don't know what they're going to do.

That's how I see it, too.

My answer to the question would be something like, "As far as it is to the red light at the end of the block." Fortunately, when it comes time to take the lane, everyone else is usually slow enough that I can keep up. ;)

Ah, right ... but only in situations when it is necessary to avoid the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) there. If you've got a clear road (no obstructions, debris, etc. etc.), you've got to be over to the right, you can't be cycling down the middle of the lane.
You've probably seen my explanatory post by now, but that list is MUCH longer than merely having a clear road in order to be prohibited from cycling down the middle of the lane.

Another way to look at it is that ALL of the following has to be true for you to be prohibited from cycling down the middle of the lane in CA:

There is other same-direction traffic present.
The other same-direction traffic that is present is moving faster than you.
The lane is wide enough to be safely shared side-by-side by vehicle and bike both fully within the lane (i.e., at least 12' wide but arguably 14' wide or wider).
You are not approaching a driveway, alley, mall entrance, street intersection or any place where right turns are authorized.
You are not passing anyone else.
You are not preparing to turn left.
The road is clear of any obstacles that would prevent you from riding "as far right as practicable".So, yes, IF (and that's a big IF) all of the above conditions are true, then you are prohibited from cycling down the middle of the lane. But seriously, how often are all of those conditions simultaneously true?

And as far as where it says "if there is no other same direction traffic present", it doesn't say that explicitly. But it is clearly implicitly intended. Compare the words in the Alberta statute:

"person who is operating a bicycle on a highway shall ride as near as practicable to the right"

with the CA words:

"person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right"

In particular, note the bolded words in the CA version. The intent is obvious: cyclists should keep to the right if not doing so would be slowing someone down (which obviously can't happen if they are moving the same speed as other traffic, or if the other traffic is not there).

In other words, a cyclist is obviously not operating "at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time" if there is no other traffic moving in the same direction at that time.

I read it over again, and I'm afraid I don't see where it says, "if there is no other same direction traffic present."

But even if it did, aren't we talking about whether or not we should [legally] be holding up traffic or not?
Yes, we are specifically talking about whether we should be holding up traffic or not. But the discussion has expanded to cover all the conditions/situations under which we could legally take the lane, whether that would hold up others or not, largely because you pointed out that the law in Alberta, for example, mandates keeping "as far right as practicable" without any caveats or exceptions.

It's really about flowing according to the situation. I assert my place in the road, but I care about the people I may be slowing down.

But I'm not afraid anyone's going to run me over.

There is a balance between holding your rightful place in the lane, and being conscious of a dozen people behind you who are driving at 15 mph.

You just have to learn to strike that balance for yourself. Usually, it's not difficult.

If you can't move over safely, don't. If the lane's too narrow, don't move over.
Learn to judge: if you think you are holding up traffic unnecessarily, don't move out of the way unless you have a safe place to do so. Take charge, move over only when there is a place you can safely leave the lane. Don't put yourself in danger just because you don't want to delay someone.

So where in the vehicle code does it say that motorists, when confronted with a slow-moving cyclist, must veer into oncoming traffic hell bent for leather and pass at all costs? That is the true outcome of any lane-taking activities, unless there's plenty of room in another lane, then the true outcome is honking and "lesson-teaching".

So where in the vehicle code does it say that motorists, when confronted with a slow-moving cyclist, must veer into oncoming traffic hell bent for leather and pass at all costs? That is the true outcome of any lane-taking activities, unless there's plenty of room in another lane, then the true outcome is honking and "lesson-teaching".
Again, each person must learn to judge his/her own situations according to their experience. We are not "in control" of other road users. We depend upon others to exercise good judgement.

We can't control drivers by hogging the lane. Neither can we control drivers by squeezing over in hopes they will pass with enough room to spare.

The only thing we can do is to judge how much pavement we need, like everyone else.

In other words, a cyclist is obviously not operating "at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time" if there is no other traffic moving in the same direction at that time.

I for one would like to see this somewhat unique interpretation tested in court. Personally, I think it's a bit of a stretch. Semantically correct, in it's way, but I daresay that it isn't an interpretation that's shared by the police or the courts.

The 'normal speed of traffic' for a road doesn't rely on actual traffic to be present. It is the speed any traffic that is on the road would be travelling when they get to you (and they always do, eventually), IOW, in the absence of any actual traffic nearby, the 'normal' speed is the speed limit for that road.

Again, each person must learn to judge his/her own situations according to their experience. We are not "in control" of other road users. We depend upon others to exercise good judgement.

We can't control drivers by hogging the lane. Neither can we control drivers by squeezing over in hopes they will pass with enough room to spare.

The only thing we can do is to judge how much pavement we need, like everyone else.
While we cannot control the behavior of others, we have much more influence on the behavior of drivers than most cyclists seem to realize. Well, I've learned that I can influence their behavior much more than I ever realized before I studied Forester, Franklin, adjusted my riding accordingly, and got a mirror in order to establish and maintain rearward situational awareness. It truly is amazing.

Yes, we are specifically talking about whether we should be holding up traffic or not. But the discussion has expanded to cover all the conditions/situations under which we could legally take the lane, whether that would hold up others or not...

Funny how that always happens whenever you join a thread. :rolleyes:

In other words, a cyclist is obviously not operating "at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time" if there is no other traffic moving in the same direction at that time.
I for one would like to see this somewhat unique interpretation tested in court. Personally, I think it's a bit of a stretch. Semantically correct, in it's way, but I daresay that it isn't an interpretation that's shared by the police or the courts.

The 'normal speed of traffic' for a road doesn't rely on actual traffic to be present. It is the speed any traffic that is on the road would be travelling if they were there, IOW, in the absence of any actual traffic, the 'normal' speed is the speed limit for that road.
I've been saying this for years, and you're the first one to challenge this interpretation, if I recall correctly. So, congratulations.

I've been wondering this myself, and I'd like to see it tested too. But no other interpretation makes sense to me.

Say the posted speed limit is 35 mph, and the "normal speed of traffic" is 40 mph. But, traffic is congested and the actual speed is 15 mph "at that time"? In that situation, what is the "normal speed of traffic at that time"? 35? 40? 15? The only answer that makes sense to me is 15. Otherwise, what's the point of using the words "at that time"?

It could mean at that time [of day], rather than at that [point in] time. But, then, why wouldn't they write at that time of day, and, what would they even mean by that? if the normal speed of traffic at 3pm is 15 mph on a Friday, what if it's Sunday?

The only reasonable interpretation that I can see is "at that time" means "at that point in time".

Now, say the posted speed limit is 35 and there is no traffic. Is the "normal speed of traffic at that time" 40 mph? How is the cyclist supposed to know that? Is it 35 because, as you say, that's the posted speed limit on the road? But, then, why don't they say that. There is at least one state that has that wording in their statute, and we had a pretty long discussion about it some time ago.

In the end, the only interpretation of the "normal speed of traffic at that time" means the speed of any traffic not including the cyclist, and, so, if there is no other traffic, then the "normal speed of traffic at that time" is 0 mph. This is consistent with the understanding that the whole point of such laws is to get cyclists out of the way of faster same direction motorists as much as possible. Thus, it is logical to assume that these laws only apply when faster motorists are actually present.

What law makes it illegal to take the lane when faster same-direction traffic is not present? Citation please.

I'm pretty sure there is no such law (there certainly isn't in California and in most if not all other U.S. states), which means it is legal to take the lane when faster same direction traffic is not present, even if there is no reason whatsoever to do it, much less a "very good reason".


Ummm, she said it is illegal to take the lane "and hold up traffic". That is very hard to do if there is not faster same-direction traffic present, isn't it?????????

so now lanes need to be at least 17 and a half feet wide before helmie will share the lane. flipping rich.

And that california statue helemt head rallys so ardently towards in defense of his 'take the lane' position is that there isn't same direction traffic on the same roadway at the present time- I wonder what the legal definition of 'roadway' is and how long that would be? line of sight? the complete length of the roadway? between traffic signals or habedashery? the arbitrary length of one mile, ten miles? or is it like helmet's argument hinges, just the road immediately to the side of bicyclist no longer than the bicycle?

I'd bet Roadway is defined in California statutes. someone check the legal 'definitions' section of the california code.

I personally feel that bicycles, as part of expected and reasonable traffic on the roads, are never considered to be impeding traffic in any situation because they ARE traffic but that's my opinion.

I'm still keen to see this kind of riding in action. C'mon Serge, those Oregon Scientific cameras are a bit cheap and cheerful, but they work well enough, and won't burst your budget.

I can always use a laugh.

I recently asked to see HH's riding in action myself. I don't understand why you think you would see anything funny though.

Very, very true. Often if I'm riding where there is light, yet steady traffic, I ride centerish in the lane so that I KNOW the drivers see me. As they get closer- say maybe 20 or 30 yards behind me, but before they swing left to pass - I move towards the edge of the road. I think it conveys the message that I know they're there and I'm being accomodating. Either that or they think I'm drunk and weaving all over. At any rate they seem to be much more respectful when I act like that, often giving me the entire lane (if possible), or waiting until it's safe to pass. I can't explain it, but when they do have to wait, it seems they're much more patient about it.
See, Allister, I'm not the only one.

I want to see Head's commute TOO! And no holding the camera out of your car and pretending!

In the end, the only interpretation of the "normal speed of traffic at that time" means the speed of any traffic not including the cyclist, and, so, if there is no other traffic, then the "normal speed of traffic at that time" is 0 mph. This is consistent with the understanding that the whole point of such laws is to get cyclists out of the way of faster same direction motorists as much as possible. Thus, it is logical to assume that these laws only apply when faster motorists are actually present.

It is very rare for there to be no traffic on a road at any one time. They may not be in your vicinity for a time, but they're coming. Your interpretation relies on the the normal traffic for a road being none, but only over they length of that road you can see behind you, which can be a wildly varying value. I don't think that's the spirit of the law, but I agree the wording is ambiguous. I think it's best to take the 'normal' speed as being whatever those cars that do pass you are doing, which should be the speed limit if they're obeying the rules, no matter how wide the gaps between them.

My main problem with your interpretation is that you're always going to be on the lookout for cars coming behind you, and possibly needing to adjust laterally depending on what they do, resulting in far more lateral shifts that would ever be necessary by defaulting to the sharing position. As long as you don't go too close to the kerb, you'll be just as safe, but can maintain a steady line and can spend less time looking in the rear view mirror and more looking in front of you where you actually need to be looking.

You shouldn't actually need to use a mirror for anything other than lane changes and turns across lanes - basically any time you're going to move into the path of another road user. If you need to keep a lookout in your mirror on a regular straight stretch of road where you're not changing lanes or turning, you're doing something wrong. Any technique that's going to be universally useful should be achievable without a mirror - not everyone wants to use one. The only thing that changed in my riding when I started to use a mirror was that I could see how long people were waiting before they could pass me when I was claiming narrow lanes. Interesting information, but it in no way affected where I ride. Mirrors are a useful addition, but by no means essential.

It is very rare for there to be no traffic on a road at any one time. They may not be in your vicinity for a time, but they're coming. Your interpretation relies on the the normal traffic for a road being none, but only over they length of that road you can see behind you, which can be a wildly varying value. I don't think that's the spirit of the law, but I agree the wording is ambiguous. I think it's best to take the 'normal' speed as being whatever those cars that do pass you are doing, which should be the speed limit if they're obeying the rules, no matter how wide the gaps between them.

My main problem with your interpretation is that you're always going to be on the lookout for cars coming behind you, and possibly needing to adjust laterally depending on what they do, resulting in far more lateral shifts that would ever be necessary by defaulting to the sharing position. As long as you don't go too close to the kerb, you'll be just as safe, but can maintain a steady line and can spend less time looking in the rear view mirror and more looking in front of you where you actually need to be looking.

You shouldn't actually need to use a mirror for anything other than lane changes and turns across lanes - basically any time you're going to move into the path of another road user. If you need to keep a lookout in your mirror on a regular straight stretch of road where you're not changing lanes or turning, you're doing something wrong. Any technique that's going to be universally useful should be achievable without a mirror - not everyone wants to use one. The only thing that changed in my riding when I started to use a mirror was that I could see how long people were waiting before they could pass me when I was claiming narrow lanes. Interesting information, but it in no way affected where I ride. Mirrors are a useful addition, but by no means essential.
But the wording in the "as far right as practicable" FTR laws like CA's 21202 is couched by the same "at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time" wording that is used in slow moving vehicle rules where the intent is obviously to cause drivers of slow moving vehicles to temporarily move as far right as practicable in order to facilitate passing by faster traffic, as needed.

On steep gradients on mountain roads with wide shoulders truck drivers don't normally drive in the shoulders automatically - they move in there temporarily, when there is someone behind them who needs to pass, and it is safe and reasonable to do so.

I don't see why bicyclists should be expected to behave any differently.

It is very rare for there to be no traffic on a road at any one time. They may not be in your vicinity for a time, but they're coming. Your interpretation relies on the the normal traffic for a road being none, but only over they length of that road you can see behind you, which can be a wildly varying value. I don't think that's the spirit of the law, but I agree the wording is ambiguous. I think it's best to take the 'normal' speed as being whatever those cars that do pass you are doing, which should be the speed limit if they're obeying the rules, no matter how wide the gaps between them.

My main problem with your interpretation is that you're always going to be on the lookout for cars coming behind you, and possibly needing to adjust laterally depending on what they do, resulting in far more lateral shifts that would ever be necessary by defaulting to the sharing position. As long as you don't go too close to the kerb, you'll be just as safe, but can maintain a steady line and can spend less time looking in the rear view mirror and more looking in front of you where you actually need to be looking.

You shouldn't actually need to use a mirror for anything other than lane changes and turns across lanes - basically any time you're going to move into the path of another road user. If you need to keep a lookout in your mirror on a regular straight stretch of road where you're not changing lanes or turning, you're doing something wrong. Any technique that's going to be universally useful should be achievable without a mirror - not everyone wants to use one. The only thing that changed in my riding when I started to use a mirror was that I could see how long people were waiting before they could pass me when I was claiming narrow lanes. Interesting information, but it in no way affected where I ride. Mirrors are a useful addition, but by no means essential.
But the wording in the "as far right as practicable" FTR laws like CA's 21202 is couched by the same "at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time" wording that is used in slow moving vehicle rules where the intent is obviously to cause drivers of slow moving vehicles to temporarily move as far right as practicable in order to facilitate passing by faster traffic, as needed.

On steep gradients on mountain roads with wide shoulders truck drivers don't normally drive in the shoulders automatically - they move in there temporarily, when there is someone behind them who needs to pass, and it is safe and reasonable to do so.

I don't see why bicyclists should be expected to behave any differently, especially when the legal wording is almost identical.

21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right...

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm

21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right...

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21654.htm

On steep gradients on mountain roads with wide shoulders truck drivers don't normally drive in the shoulders automatically - they move in there temporarily, when there is someone behind them who needs to pass, and it is safe and reasonable to do so.

I don't see why bicyclists should be expected to behave any differently, especially when the legal wording is almost identical.

I don't know if you've noticed, but a bicycle is a lot easier to pass and is a lot narrower than a truck.

I don't know if you've noticed, but a bicycle is a lot easier to pass and is a lot narrower than a truck.
Of course I've noticed. So what? It's still easier to pass a slow truck or a bicycle if the driver/rider moves aside. And there is still a safety compromise when riding curbside (shorter sight lines, less space from hazards on your right, lower conspicuity) as compared to riding further left (centerish, or even in the left third). Why take on that additional risk for no reason?

Of course I've noticed. So what? It's still easier to pass a slow truck or a bicycle if the driver/rider moves aside. And there is still a safety compromise when riding curbside (shorter sight lines, less space from hazards on your right, lower conspicuity) as compared to riding further left (centerish, or even in the left third). Why take on that additional risk for no reason?

Because there is no additional safety, no matter how much you fantasise that there is. Why impose braking and lane changing moves on other road users, or even yourself for that matter, when it isn't necessary?

In the end, the only interpretation of the "normal speed of traffic at that time" means the speed of any traffic not including the cyclist, and, so, if there is no other traffic, then the "normal speed of traffic at that time" is 0 mph. This is consistent with the understanding that the whole point of such laws is to get cyclists out of the way of faster same direction motorists as much as possible. Thus, it is logical to assume that these laws only apply when faster motorists are actually present.

It's the old "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it... does it make a sound..." argument.

Really in the end, if there is no other traffic, does any of the law matter? If there are no observers, no cops, no other traffic... then does it really matter where or how you ride? Seems to me at that point, you OWN the road.

...motorists, when confronted with a slow-moving cyclist, must veer into oncoming traffic hell bent for leather and pass at all costs? That is the true outcome of any lane-taking activities...
The exact same thing will happen (actually in my experience more frequently) if the cyclist is far right in an physically unsharable narrow lane. They passing motorist, no matter how far right the cyclist is, must merge into oncoming lane, at least partially, to pass the cyclist without hitting them.

If the cyclist is far right in a medium width 'slow passing only with cooperation sharable' lane then the motorist will either give safe and legal 3' passing clearance and merge partially into oncoming lane or they will give less than the legal 3' required passing clearance and squeeze in the same lane with the cyclist.

If the cyclist is in a fully sharable wide lane, then the cyclist will/should not be riding centerish when it is time for the motorist to pass, unless there are other safety reasons/exceptions to far right law in effect.

Al

It's the old "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it... does it make a sound..." argument.

Really in the end, if there is no other traffic, does any of the law matter? If there are no observers, no cops, no other traffic... then does it really matter where or how you ride? Seems to me at that point, you OWN the road.

Well of course there will be observers. There is opposing direction drivers, drivers entering from side street and same direction traffic may see the cyclist, but is far enough back that they do not have to slow or change course.
The only law enforcement that may take notice of (legally using full lane when faster traffic is not yet present) is one who is approaching from rear. In that case the cyclist will move right as they approach if safe/appropriate. If they don't and hang out in the lane for no good legal/practical reason, then they may get pulled over.

Al

Well of course there will be observers. There is opposing direction drivers, drivers entering from side street and same direction traffic may see the cyclist, but is far enough back that they do not have to slow or change course.
The only law enforcement that may take notice of (legally using full lane when faster traffic is not yet present) is one who is approaching from rear. In that case the cyclist will move right as they approach if safe/appropriate. If they don't and hang out in the lane for no good legal/practical reason, then they may get pulled over.

Al

While I appreciate your response, there are in fact times and places when the road is clear and there are no observers (not likely during rush hour) and at that point... what is the "legal speed" (as HH discusses it)? Is it not that of the sole user of the road?

BTW this is pretty much academic because in the absence of any other traffic, you really can do anything you want.

While I appreciate your response, there are in fact times and places when the road is clear and there are no observers (not likely during rush hour)
Of course. This situation is very rare in sub/urban areas. In rural areas it can be quite common.

Al

Consider this legal definition of 'Traffic' in Arizona:

6. "Traffic" means pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, vehicles and other conveyances either singly or together while using a highway for purposes of travel.

...and the start of the bicycles far right with exception rule:
"A. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing..."

Hmmmm

Al

Depends upon the type of road we travel. Those with and without adequate shoulders for cyclists. Those with adequate shoulders, the average would be under 5 seconds. But, those few roads we find ourselves on with hardly any shoulder( with which I try to avoid.) often a long string of cyclists might hold up motorists a minute or more. A reason we must insist on adequate shoulders. On a nice sunny day when long lines of cyclists might be present on narrow roads, it can be unpleasant.

I also said "30 seconds tops" even though there have been instances where it may have been slightly longer. Like others have pointed out though, the delay is not really 30 seconds as we are all still moving at 15-25 mph during that time. I do pick up the pace while taking the lane when motorists are behind me just to be considerate, and it seems like most drivers can sense this and are then more accepting of the situation. The funny thing is when I drive the same roads I actually delay the speeders (which is everybody) even more, as I will drive the speed limit and they get "stuck" behind me much longer. I'm sure this upsets some of them too. Oh well.

Oh and I was certain that I made this a public poll, where the voters names would show. I wonder what happened. Did a mod change it?

Oh and I was certain that I made this a public poll, where the voters names would show. I wonder what happened. Did a mod change it?
Still public for me, click on the number of votes (underlined) and it displays who placed the votes.

Al

Still public for me, click on the number of votes (underlined) and it displays who placed the votes.

Al

Thanks. :o

It's the old "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it... does it make a sound..." argument.

Really in the end, if there is no other traffic, does any of the law matter? If there are no observers, no cops, no other traffic... then does it really matter where or how you ride? Seems to me at that point, you OWN the road.
You're thinking like a Californian. Good boy.

As near as I can tell, if you're riding centerish in a wide lane while there is no other same-direction traffic, an Alberta cop coming the other way can and might U-Turn and give you a justified ticket for riding in violation of their FTR law, while a California cop cannot. In fact, the Alberta cop can give you a ticket even if the lane is narrow, while the California cop can't give you a ticket even if there is traffic moving in the same direction as you, unless ALL of the following conditions are also true:


The other same-direction traffic is moving faster than you.
You are not approaching a place where right turns are authorized.
The lane you are in is wide enough to be safely shared side-by-side by a vehicle (which can legally be up to 8.5' wide) and a bike both fully within the lane.
You are not preparing for a left turn.
There are no other obstacles or conditions that warrant you not riding "as far right as practicable".

Of course I've noticed. So what? It's still easier to pass a slow truck or a bicycle if the driver/rider moves aside. And there is still a safety compromise when riding curbside (shorter sight lines, less space from hazards on your right, lower conspicuity) as compared to riding further left (centerish, or even in the left third). Why take on that additional risk for no reason?

Because there is no additional safety, no matter how much you fantasise that there is. Why impose braking and lane changing moves on other road users, or even yourself for that matter, when it isn't necessary?
If you do not recognize the additional safety associated with riding in the more conspicuous thirds of the lane, as opposed to the curbside third, there is no way you can appreciate what I'm saying.

Not only is the cyclist more conspicuous in the non-curbside thirds, but his sight lines to potential cross-conflicts up ahead are significantly improved, as is his buffer to curbside hazards.

head, but there's almost ALWAYS going to be same direction traffic on a road. particularily in southern california. maybe less so in alberta, eh?

have you checked the definition of how big a stretch that 'same direction traffic at the time' has been intrepreted in the califorinia definitions of your codebook?

(which can legally be up to 8.5' wide)
I guess I thought the lanes I use were 10-11' wide. Does this mean this one is only 9' wide at best, 8' if the gutter pan is not included?
http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=16810&d=1149109246

And the ever common utility trailer (I see about a dozen of these during my commute):
http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=16809&d=1149109241
I cooperatively share this lane width with vehicles narrower if the conditions safely allow.
Al

head, but there's almost ALWAYS going to be same direction traffic on a road. particularily in southern california. maybe less so in alberta, eh?
You might easily get that impression if you don't regularly pay much attention to how much (and how little) same-direction traffic there actually is. If you're not specifically looking, then you'll tend to remember the times when there is a lot of traffic, and forget how frequent and long the gaps of no traffic are. An objective way to check your impression is to use google maps to look at satellite photos of roads where you think there is always traffic. These are all daytime photos (when traffic is presumably higher than at night) and yet I bet you can't find a suburban area without long stretches of no traffic. That may also be true for urban areas... I haven't spent as much time looking at such photos so I don't know.


have you checked the definition of how big a stretch that 'same direction traffic at the time' has been intrepreted in the califorinia definitions of your codebook?
I'm pretty sure it was never defined and, so, the "reasonable person" principle applies.

It is my personal impression that as long as there is no other same-direction traffic present that is affected by your presence, then there is no other "same direction traffic at that time". I realize there is a gray area as someone approaches, and actually slows a tad and/or adjusts laterally because of you, but I believe that as long as you make a reasonable effort to move aside before they are significantly impacted then you are in compliance with the intent of the law.

None of this has actually been tested in the courts, so far as I know. If nothing else, that indicates it's not something to worry about in practical terms.

I guess I thought the lanes I use were 10-11' wide. Does this mean this one is only 9' wide at best, 8' if the gutter pan is not included?
http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=16810&d=1149109246

It's hard to tell. How much room between the truck and the left lane edge stripe is there? A foot?
Also, I don't know if 8.5' is supposed to be the max width for the main part of the vehicle, or if the mirrors are supposed to be included in that.


And the ever common utility trailer (I see about a dozen of these during my commute):
http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=16809&d=1149109241
I cooperatively share this lane width with vehicles narrower if the conditions safely allow.
Al
But it's also arguable that it's not reasonable for you to be required to constantly adjust your lateral position based on the width of the next vehicle approaching from behind, and you should be able to ride in a position that is appropriate for a max width vehicle. If you choose to be more cooperative when you notice only narrower vehicles are coming, that's great, but I don't think it's reasonable to legally require you to do so.

Is there a material difference due to the italicized parts between AZ code:
""A. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing..."

vs. CA:
"21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right..."

One possible difference outside the italicized part is that CA makes in clear that it is same direction traffic, where as AZ not not explicitly say it, I think it is a fair assumption.

Al