You guys are going to confuse me again.

If I understand what some of you are saying, then my policemans' description would be----It is possible to stand behind a door, and practicable to stand behind a door as long as there is no threat that the door will be opened while you are there.-----I think you had it right the first time.

It is never practicable to stand behind the door if there is a chance that it will be opened while you are there. I suppose, however, that if conditions were right-- if you were the only one in the building, and nobody could enter the room, then it would be practicable to stand behind the door.

But for simplicity's sake, what your local LEO said is a really good seat of the pants explanation.

Are you channeling Mionske? I think then existing applies to the fluid aspect, not the static aspect. That is, if there is a car double-parked, then as close as practicable to the right means considerably further left (left of the double-parked car) than it does under normal circumstances.

But then existing does not apply to the static aspect. That is, regardless of the circumstances, you are never required to ride further right than as far right as you are required to ride under normal circumstances.

And if normal circumstances includes cars parked in the parking lane, then the static aspect of as close as practicable to the right is to the left of the parking lane.That last sentence is where your analysis falls apart. The static condition is the curb free of parked cars. When cars are parked along the curb, the practicable distance shifts to the left.

That last sentence is where your analysis falls apart. The static condition is the curb free of parked cars. When cars are parked along the curb, the practicable distance shifts to the left.
The curb free of parked cars is not a static condition (true every time you ride there) if parking is allowed. Sometimes cars are parked, sometimes they are not. That is not a static condition.

Now, if it's a road where normally there are no cars parked, and having cars parked there is a relatively rare (exceptional) condition, then you may have a point. But we've been talking about a situation where cars parked are the norm.

The curb free of parked cars is not a static condition (true every time you ride there) if parking is allowed. Sometimes cars are parked, sometimes they are not. That is not a static condition.Yes, under the law, it is the static or default condition. The law states that you must ride as close to the curb as practicable-- not that you must ride as close to the "normal conditions" as practicable.

Yes, under the law, it is the static or default condition. The law states that you must ride as close to the curb as practicable-- not that you must ride as close to the "normal conditions" as practicable.
But if cars are normally parked in the parking lane, then it's not practicable to ride in the parking lane.
And if it's not practicable to ride in the parking lane, then as close to the curb as is practicable is somewhere to the left of the parking lane. And that's true whether the parking lane happens to be occupied or not.

But if cars are normally parked in the parking lane, then it's not practicable to ride in the parking lane.
And if it's not practicable to ride in the parking lane, then as close to the curb as is practicable is somewhere to the left of the parking lane. And that's true whether the parking lane happens to be occupied or not.No, it's not true, because it doesn't take time, place, and conditions then existing into account. The curb is the default line, and all other then-existing conditions are factors to take into account when establishing the practicable distance at that time and place.

No, it's not true, because it doesn't take time, place, and conditions then existing into account. The curb is the default line, and all other then-existing conditions are factors to take into account when establishing the practicable distance at that time and place.

I'm just curious, because I don't have a strong opinion on this: If the area is clearly delineated for parking is that different?

I have two examples:
1. Angle parking, like you'd find on main street in a small town.
2. Parallel parking, with meters, and lines painted, like you'd find downtown in a big city.

This is compared to a street which simply allows parking, but has no markers or meters.

I'm thinking:
1. This isn't really the roadway. You'll be dodging in and out at every intersection because of the way these are normally built.
2. This depends, sometimes you have the same problem, and sometimes you don't.

And if it's not practicable to ride in the parking lane, then as close to the curb as is practicable is somewhere to the left of the parking lane. And that's true whether the parking lane happens to be occupied or not.

Likewise, if it's not practicable to ride in the traffic lane, then as close to the curb as is practicable is somewhere to the right of the traffic lane. And that's true whether the traffic lane happens to be occupied or not.

It is, therefore, not practicable for you to "curb-hug", since full suspension does not protect you against puncture causing sharp stuff.

Incorrect. It is practicable. It has nothing to do with the suspension and everything to do with the downhill tires, which get flats so rarely no matter where I ride that they are not a factor. The hummer comparison is interesting, but that's not a vehicle I am used to seeing moving at anything less than the normal speed of traffic, to say the least.


There are at least three reasons to ride farther from the curb: 1) debris; 2) right hook avoidance; and 3) visibility. Even if you are in an area where no right turns (including into driveways) are possible, #3 still applies, irrespective of your choice of machine.

I don't need to always maximize my visibility. If I wanted to increase visibility, I could wear a ANSI Lime jacket, put on three Dinotte tail lights, or use a safety flag. It's practicable for me to ride with none of these things. And it's practicable under many circumstances for me to ride well off the traveled portion of the road.

I'm just curious, because I don't have a strong opinion on this: If the area is clearly delineated for parking is that different?

I have two examples:
1. Angle parking, like you'd find on main street in a small town.
2. Parallel parking, with meters, and lines painted, like you'd find downtown in a big city.

This is compared to a street which simply allows parking, but has no markers or meters.

I'm thinking:
1. This isn't really the roadway. You'll be dodging in and out at every intersection because of the way these are normally built.
2. This depends, sometimes you have the same problem, and sometimes you don't.I agree with your points. Assuming that a road has curbside parking, but is not specially configured to accommodate that parking, when the cars are not parked there, the requirement to ride as close as practicable to the right shifts you closer to the curb than you would ride when cars are parked there. When the road is specially configured to accommodate parking, and cars aren't parked there, I don't think that the law requires you to weave left and right as you hug the curbline.

I agree with your points. Assuming that a road has curbside parking, but is not specially configured to accommodate that parking, when the cars are not parked there, the requirement to ride as close as practicable to the right shifts you closer to the curb than you would ride when cars are parked there. When the road is specially configured to accommodate parking, and cars aren't parked there, I don't think that the law requires you to weave left and right as you hug the curbline.
I agree with this.

We also agree that when cars are parked "as close as practicable to the right" is normally just outside of the door zone of the parked cars.

Our disagreement is over how much closer to the curb "as close as practicable to the right" requires you to ride when cars are not parked there. My interpretation is being in the area that is the door zone when cars are parked there is all that is required, and you seem to think that cyclists are required to ride significantly closer to the curb, well into the parking zone (the area physically occupied by parked cars when cars are parked there).

And if it's not practicable to ride in the parking lane, then as close to the curb as is practicable is somewhere to the left of the parking lane. And that's true whether the parking lane happens to be occupied or not.

Likewise, if it's not practicable to ride in the traffic lane, then as close to the curb as is practicable is somewhere to the right of the traffic lane. And that's true whether the traffic lane happens to be occupied or not.
Very clever, Allister.

The problem is that the meaning of "practicable" has a static and dynamic component. The "not practicable to ride in the parking lane" is true in terms of the static component, while the "not practicable to ride in the traffic lane" is true in terms of the dynamic component (because of a double-parked van or something).

Blue Order (and perhaps you) seems to think that it is in terms of the dynamic component that it is not practicable to ride in the parking lane - that it's the dynamic presence or absence of the parked cars that determines whether it is practicable to ride in the parking lane, just as it's the dynamic presence or absence of the double-parked delivery van or some other obstacle that determines whether it is practicable to ride in the traffic lane.

But I think it's not practicable to ride in the empty parking lane for all the reasons cited by John E earlier. It's too much of a compromise in terms of conspicuousness, vantage and predictability. It's just not space which is expected to be used for vehicular traffic - you're less likely to be expected there, more likely to be overlooked. It's just not practicable to ride so far to the right of other vehicular traffic.

In order to be treated like a driver you must act like a driver, and using the parking lane as a travel lane is not acting like a driver.

I agree with this.

We also agree that when cars are parked "as close as practicable to the right" is normally just outside of the door zone of the parked cars.

Our disagreement is over how much closer to the curb "as close as practicable to the right" requires you to ride when cars are not parked there. My interpretation is being in the area that is the door zone when cars are parked there is all that is required, and you seem to think that cyclists are required to ride significantly closer to the curb, well into the parking zone (the area physically occupied by parked cars when cars are parked there).Yes on everything.

Yes on everything.
Well, if we can at least agree on what we are disagreeing about, that's worth celebrating.

:beer:

It's just not space which is expected to be used for vehicular traffic - you're less likely to be expected there, more likely to be overlooked. It's just not practicable to ride so far to the right of other vehicular traffic.But it is exactly the point of the law-- to position you to the right of other vehicular traffic.

Well, if we can at least agree on what we are disagreeing about, that's worth celebrating.

:beer::lol:

Well, we also agree that "as close to the right as practicable" does not require one to ride in the door zone (when cars are parked there, of course. ;) ).

Very clever, Allister.

Not 'very clever' of me - very inconsistent of you. You still haven't explained why it's impracticable to ride in an empty parking lane, because sometimes cars park there, but also impracticable to maintain a position outside where cars travel even though they're not there. Cars appearing in the travel lane is far more likely than cars appearing in the parking lane. Your psuedo-scientific-sounding blathering about 'static' and 'dynamic' conditions doesn't address that simple inconsistency.

My philosophy is, take whatever space best suits, and that could mean riding in an empty parking lane.

It's just not practicable to ride so far to the right of other vehicular traffic.

You never ride 'so far' to the right of cars. Just far enough to give them room to safely plass, no more. Why is that such a hard thing for you to grasp? It maintains a stead traffic flow for all users, I don't have to be so vigilant with the mirror, I sacrifice nothing in conspicuity, and it's only a slight shift required to move into a more commanding position if it's so required. It is not 'so far', it's 'just a little way'. It is also not kerbhugging like you seem to think, which does carry all the risks that cause you such a panic. And, considering the 100% success rate of cars seeing me and passing safely, I don't consider it to be confusing to drivers.

There are plenty of parking lanes that become clearways during peak hours. Do you ride in them?

In order to be treated like a driver you must act like a driver, and using the parking lane as a travel lane is not acting like a driver.

Don't patronise me, Serge. I've been doing this sh!t a lot longer than you have. Riding a bike isn't so rigid. Considering the poor standard you define as 'acting like a driver', I think I'll stick to thinking and acting like a cyclist.

Not 'very clever' of me - very inconsistent of you. You still haven't explained why it's impracticable to ride in an empty parking lane, because sometimes cars park there, but also impracticable to maintain a position outside where cars travel even though they're not there. Cars appearing in the travel lane is far more likely than cars appearing in the parking lane. Your psuedo-scientific-sounding blathering about 'static' and 'dynamic' conditions doesn't address that simple inconsistency.

My philosophy is, take whatever space best suits, and that could mean riding in an empty parking lane.

I have explained it, 2 or 3 times, starting I believe with my response to John E's post.


You never ride 'so far' to the right of cars. Just far enough to give them room to safely plass, no more. Why is that such a hard thing for you to grasp? It maintains a stead traffic flow for all users, I don't have to be so vigilant with the mirror, I sacrifice nothing in conspicuity, and it's only a slight shift required to move into a more commanding position if it's so required. It is not 'so far', it's 'just a little way'. It is also not kerbhugging like you seem to think, which does carry all the risks that cause you such a panic. And, considering the 100% success rate of cars seeing me and passing safely, I don't consider it to be confusing to drivers.

On roads with curb parking there are essentially three areas: the vehicular travel portion, the parking portion and the "door zone" buffer in between, which is approximately four feet wide.

When cars are parked, the normal reasonable place to ride is just left of the door zone, unless that invites close passes in which case further left is advised. Most experienced cyclists more or less agree on this.

When cars are not parked and that position just left of the door zone is far enough [right] to give them room to safely pass, there is no reason to adjust at all. But if moving right is necessary, "to give them room to safely pass" without encroaching in the adjacent lane, I can see the point in moving into the door zone (still assuming no cars are parked at the curb), but given about four feet of width in the door zone, I see no reason to ever have to move right of the door zone buffer into the portion actually used for parking. Can you?


There are plenty of parking lanes that become clearways during peak hours. Do you ride in them?

I don't know of any San Diego, but I've seen them in San Francisco. I consider that a special case, and yes, I would ride in them.


Don't patronise me, Serge. I've been doing this sh!t a lot longer than you have. Riding a bike isn't so rigid. Considering the poor standard you define as 'acting like a driver', I think I'll stick to thinking and acting like a cyclist.
It's funny to hear you ask me (or anyone else) to not patronize. Anyway, if I came across in a patronizing way, sorry, it was unintentional.

If you want to be treated like a "cyclist" rather than like a driver, you are of course free to do so. I've experienced both treatment as a cyclist and as a driver, and I much prefer being treated like a driver (who happens to be a cyclist). But, again, if you want the close calls, buzzes, honks, yelling and aggressive behavior that's integral with being treated like a "cyclist", that's of course your choice.

I have explained it, 2 or 3 times, starting I believe with my response to John E's post.

If I understand you correctly, and that's obviously always a crapshoot, it's because of your fear of being inconspicuous, even to cars that aren't there. I'm not suggesting riding in the gutter, nor compromising conspicuity.

I see no reason to ever have to move right of the door zone buffer into the portion actually used for parking. Can you?

As always, it depends. I just prefer to leave the option open. It's foolish to try and define a rigid lane position for every situation. I'll grab any bit of pavement that lets me keep moving.

But, again, if you want the close calls, buzzes, honks, yelling and aggressive behavior that's integral with being treated like a "cyclist", that's of course your choice.

LOL. I get hardly any of that. What exactly do you think being a cyclist entails?

If I understand you correctly, and that's obviously always a crapshoot, it's because of your fear of being inconspicuous, even to cars that aren't there. I'm not suggesting riding in the gutter, nor compromising conspicuity.
I'm suggesting that the further right you are, the more you are compromising conspicuousness, vantage, predictability, and buffer/escape space. If there are no cars parked on the road and you are riding further right than where the door zone would be (if cars were parked there) you are compromising these things since you could be in the door zone.


As always, it depends. I just prefer to leave the option open. It's foolish to try and define a rigid lane position for every situation. I'll grab any bit of pavement that lets me keep moving.

I'm not saying you can't ride that far right. I'm saying the "as far right as practicable" law does not require you to ride that far right.


LOL. I get hardly any of that. What exactly do you think being a cyclist entails?
I don't doubt that you get hardly any of that because you probably act like a driver much more often than most cyclists, at least most cyclists in the U.S. (I have no idea how the typical cyclist behaves in Australia). Of course, the population density is 2.6/ sq km down there, while it's 80/ sq km in the U.S., so that might have something to do with the difference.

I'm not saying you can't ride that far right. I'm saying the "as far right as practicable" law does not require you to ride that far right.As I said before, that's an ideological argument that will put you on the wrong side of the law in a courtroom.

As I said before, that's an ideological argument that will put you on the wrong side of the law in a courtroom.

We can't have a court room unless we have a case* and a case will have more specifics which will include other traffic/road conditions as well. One can not look at legal lane position in isolation of everything else.

(*I suck at legal type stuff, but try to understand my layperson terms and think traffic court, not some court addressing more theoretical stuff.)

Al

We can't have a court room unless we have a case* and a case will have more specifics which will include other traffic/road conditions as well. One can not look at legal lane position in isolation of everything else.

(*I suck at legal type stuff, but try to understand my layperson terms and think traffic court, not some court addressing more theoretical stuff.)

AlTrue, but Helmet Head's attempts to make his lane positioning theory one of the safety exceptions considered by the state legislatures when they drafted the ride to the right statutes is just groundless ideological posturing.

True, but Helmet Head's attempts to make his lane positioning theory one of the safety exceptions considered by the state legislatures when they drafted the ride to the right statutes is just groundless ideological posturing.
The only groundless ideological posturing going on here is by you, including this attempt to paint my argument as an attempt "to make [my] lane positioning theory one of the safety exceptions considered by the state legislatures when they drafted the ride to the right statutes". That claim is totally baseless and absurd.

I am not arguing that the legislators understood that it was not practicable to ride in the area normally used for curbside parking. I am arguing (and would argue in court in the unlikely event that I'm ever cited for violating CVC 21202 while riding so far right that I'm in the door zone when no parked cars are present) that it is not practicable to do so (due to needless compromises in conspicuousness, vantage, predictability and buffer space), though it may be possible and even practical to do so in some if not many conditions.

The only groundless ideological posturing going on here is by you, including this attempt to paint my argument as an attempt "to make [my] lane positioning theory one of the safety exceptions considered by the state legislatures when they drafted the ride to the right statutes". That claim is totally baseless and absurd.

I am not arguing that the legislators understood that it was not practicable to ride in the area normally used for curbside parking. I am arguing (and would argue in court in the unlikely event that I'm ever cited for violating CVC 21202 while riding so far right that I'm in the door zone when no parked cars are present) that it is not practicable to do so (due to needless compromises in conspicuousness, vantage, predictability and buffer space), though it may be possible and even practical to do so in some if not many conditions.And that argument will likely garner you a conviction.

Whether we consider it right or wrong, the purpose of the statute is to keep cyclists to the right of faster vehicular traffic. Recognizing that keeping cyclists as far right as possible would subject cyclists to unsafe conditions, the legislatures have instead required cyclists to ride as far right as is safe. Your argument that it is unsafe to ride to the right of traffic, and therefore, "practicable" means riding in the lane with faster vehicular traffic, defeats the purpose of the law, and therefore, no judge is likely to agree with you.

That claim is totally baseless and absurd.No, what's absurd is claiming that (absent any other actual hazards that would make it unsafe to do so) it's unsafe to ride any further to the right than the door zone of an imaginary line of parked cars.

It's equally absurd to believe that a judge would agree with you that you're riding as far to the right as practicable in that situation.

The general public would be better served if legislators would simply change the word "practicable" to "safe".

It is obvious that our legislators are serving lawyers rather than the general public. ;)

If laws were understandable by the general public, we would have less need for lawyers and the lynching of legislators would be a common occurrence.

And that argument will likely garner you a conviction.
Perhaps, but we'll probably never find out because I will probably never even get cited if I'm riding as far right as the door zone on a street where curbside parked cars are not present.


Whether we consider it right or wrong, the purpose of the statute is to keep cyclists to the right of faster vehicular traffic. Recognizing that keeping cyclists as far right as possible would subject cyclists to unsafe conditions, the legislatures have instead required cyclists to ride as far right as is safe.

Agreed.


Your argument that it is unsafe to ride to the right of traffic, ...
Huh? My argument is not and has never been that it is unsafe to ride to the right of traffic.


and therefore, "practicable" means riding in the lane with faster vehicular traffic, defeats the purpose of the law, and therefore, no judge is likely to agree with you.

What the heck are you talking about? With parked cars not being present, I'm talking about riding in the door zone, beside faster vehicular traffic where I'm not interfering with their travel any more than the presence of a parked car would be, not in the lane inline with them. I would only be there if the parked cars are present, and I have reason to stay out of the door zone.


No, what's absurd is claiming that (absent any other actual hazards that would make it unsafe to do so) it's unsafe to ride any further to the right than the door zone of an imaginary line of parked cars.

I never said it was unsafe. I said it's needless compromise in safety, which makes it impracticable (a behavior that is not reasonable to put in practice).


It's equally absurd to believe that a judge would agree with you that you're riding as far to the right as practicable in that situation.
And you "know" this because???

And you "know" this because???Because it's likely the judge never drank the kool-aid.

With parked cars not being present, I'm talking about riding in the door zone, beside faster vehicular traffic where I'm not interfering with their travel any more than the presence of a parked car would be, not in the lane inline with them. I would only be there if the parked cars are present, and I have reason to stay out of the door zone.By riding as far from the curb as practicable, and as close to the other traffic as practicable, you're treating the curb as a greater hazard than the cars to your immediate left, and that is turning the meaning of the law upside down.


I never said it was unsafe. I said it's needless compromise in safety, which makes it impracticable (a behavior that is not reasonable to put in practice).So you're saying it IS safe? :lol:

I'm suggesting that the further right you are, the more you are compromising conspicuousness, vantage, predictability, and buffer/escape space.

I know you're 'suggesting' that. It's not the first time you've 'suggested' it. Still doesn't make it true. The difference in all those things between riding in the centre of the lane and riding 2 metres to the side of it is neglibigle to be non-existent. We're talking about a field of view of less than ten degrees - that's well within even the most tunnel-vision-afflicted drivers like yourself. Your irrational fear of being inconspicuous is as counter-productive as an irrational fear of overtaking traffic. Tens of thousands of kilometers of actually riding that way is far more convincing to me than your ill-informed scaremongering.

By the way, if motorists are honking and yelling and buzzing me, it's a pretty safe bet it's not because they haven't seen me. :rolleyes:

You've seen my videos - show me where I compromise conspicuousness, vantage, predictability, and buffer/escape space.

By riding as far from the curb as practicable, and as close to the other traffic as practicable, you're treating the curb as a greater hazard than the cars to your immediate left, and that is turning the meaning of the law upside down.
Who is riding as far from the curb as practicable?


So you're saying it IS safe? :lol:
Another false dichotomy. Safety is measured on a continuum only the extremes of which can be characterized as "safe" or "not safe", and neither of which arguably applies in traffic.

In addition to what "practicable" means, you also have to think about what "roadway" means. The roadway is only the traveled part of the road -- the travel lanes. So it's a red herring when the law says "curb or edge of roadway" -- the word "curb" only serves to confuse the purpose of the law. The curb can be the edge of the roadway, or there can be space between the edge of the roadway and the curb -- a parking lane for example. So having the word "curb" in the law adds nothing to the meaning of the law -- it will never happen that the curb is to the left of the edge of the roadway.

Is a parking lane that is not being used for parking part of the roadway? Is it legal to drive there? I think you'd have to check your local statutes. If it is not legal to drive in a parking lane, it is not part of the roadway, and you cannot be required to ride there.

In addition to what "practicable" means, you also have to think about what "roadway" means. The roadway is only the traveled part of the road -- the travel lanes.

Not sure about there, but the rules here do include what they call 'road-related area' in the difinition of road, unless expressly stated otherwise.


11 Regulation applies to vehicles and road users on roads and
road-related areas
(1) This regulation applies to vehicles and road users on roads and
road-related areas.
(2) A reference in this regulation (except in this division) to a “road”
includes a reference to a “road related area”, unless otherwise expressly
stated in this regulation.

and

13 What is a road related area
A “road-related area” is any of the following—
(a) an area that divides a road;
(b) a footpath or nature strip adjacent to a road;
(c) an area that is not a road and that is open to the public and
designated for use by cyclists or animals;
(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to, or used by, the
public for parking vehicles;
(2) However, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference in this
regulation (except this division) to a “road-related area” includes a
reference to—
(a) any shoulder of a road; or
(b) any other area that is a footpath or nature strip as defined in the
dictionary.

I think it'd pay to check your local rules to confirm that.

I think it'd pay to check your local rules to confirm that.

My local rules say:

Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this subsection and in subsection 2202.9 of this title, 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 travel as closely as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, or as closely as practicable to the left-hand curb or edge of the roadway when on a one-way street.


"Roadway" is defined as "that portion of a highway ordinarily used for vehicular travel, excluding the sidewalk or shoulder."