Google sponsored links
I have always struggled to truly understand the meaning of 'practicable' as used in bicycling regulations so often, such as "shall ride as far to the right as practicable". Today I had conversation with a local police officer while at our daughter's soccer games. 'Practicable' came up, and he explained it like this-
It is possible to stand right behind a closed door, but not practicable because when that door is opened, you'll get hit.
Any thoughts on that explanation? Is it an accurate way to tell the difference between possible/practicable?
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
I have always struggled to truly understand the meaning of 'practicable' as used in bicycling regulations so often, such as "shall ride as far to the right as practicable". Today I had conversation with a local police officer while at our daughter's soccer games. 'Practicable' came up, and he explained it like this-
It is possible to stand right behind a closed door, but not practicable because when that door is opened, you'll get hit.
Any thoughts on that explanation? Is it an accurate way to tell the difference between possible/practicable?
The short answer...No.
There are as many ways to define practicable as there are lawyers.:D
Did you find his explanation helpful? Would have been interesting to know what location would have prompted an action on his part were he on duty. :)
The short answer...No.
There are as many ways to define practicable as there are lawyers.:D
Did you find his explanation helpful? Would have been interesting to know what location would have prompted an action on his part were he on duty. :)
He said of bikes that he had better things to do. The only time he "fools" with bikes is BMX kids stunting in parking lots.
IIRC, someone defined "practicable" as that which is "possible" to do, with the following caveat. The "possible" has safely implied, since it is presumed that the legislature intends that actions be conducted safely, unless evidence clearly points to the contrary. IANAL. (IIRC, this issue might have come about in the famous Ohio case Trotwood v. Selz).
I have always struggled to truly understand the meaning of 'practicable' as used in bicycling regulations so often, such as "shall ride as far to the right as practicable". Today I had conversation with a local police officer while at our daughter's soccer games. 'Practicable' came up, and he explained it like this-
It is possible to stand right behind a closed door, but not practicable because when that door is opened, you'll get hit.
Any thoughts on that explanation? Is it an accurate way to tell the difference between possible/practicable?
I think his definition is very good and very applicable to cycling. Practicable implies as close as "safely" possible. Most state have laws that say that cyclists must ride as close to the right side of the road as "practicable." This doesn't mean as close to the right side of the road as possible, but as close as its safe to do, so when its safer to take the lane, that is as far to the right side of the road as "practicable."
^^^It seemed to hit the nail on thehead for me. I had never really understood the difference until he said that.
It is cool you actually found a cop that understood the difference. Many cops and people think both words mean exactly the same.
Many states have revised the basic legal language to improve understanding and applicabilty of the law. Here's the state of Georgia's law about "ride as far right as practicable". I think it's clear that Georgia intends to give the bicyclist some legal latitude to interpret the situation and then operate bicycle in safest manner possible.
Getting a road raging motorist to understand this is, however, quite another issue. I think motorists' basically make up the rules as they go to justify their latest dangerous, aberrant behavior.
40-6-294
(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, except when turning left or avoiding hazards to safe cycling, when the lane is too narrow to share safely with a motor vehicle, when traveling at the same speed as traffic, or while exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction; provided, however, that every person operating a bicycle away from the right side of the roadway shall exercise reasonable care and shall give due consideration to the other applicable rules of the road. As used in this subsection, the term "hazards to safe cycling" includes, but is not limited to, surface debris, rough pavement, drain grates which areparallel to the side of the roadway, parked or stopped vehicles, potentially opening car doors, or any other objects which threaten the safety of a person operating a bicycle.
I think his definition is very good and very applicable to cycling. Practicable implies as close as "safely" possible. ... I concur. This is the sort of message we need to get out to John Q. Public.
Thought that I had last week:
When I ride my full-suspension mountain bike on the road, there is no practical reason why I can't curb-hug over the sewer grates, broken pavement, and busted car parts in the gutter. I'm not talking about places where I can get doored or hooked.
On a bike with long travel suspension and downhill tires, it makes no *practical* difference to me.
So is a my freeride bike legally entitled to less of the road than my road bike?
the other word to compare practicable to is practical.
they all basically mean the same thing, practicable is just the snooty engineer / lawyer way to say it.
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. ;)
Some discussion here:
http://www.crankmail.com/Fred/Rt2Road.html#Practicable
What I think is interesting is that in the case cited, a judge struck down a law using the word "practicable" as unconstitutionally vague.
Two elements of "practicable" are legal, and safe. Here's a way of thinking of the difference between practicable, practical and possible: if someone drove a car as fast as possible, they would be negligent. If they drove as fast as practical, they might speed sometime, but would otherwise be reasonably careful. If they drove as fast as practicable, they would obey all speed limits and traffic regulations, in addition to being reasonably careful.
It is possible to stand right behind a closed door, but not practicable because when that door is opened, you'll get hit.
I like it.
"Practicable", or "practical", would also include "predictable" to me -- meaning that, even though you might be able to hug the curb for thirty yards without running over dead cats, you should probably ride close to the same position as if you were encountering curbside hazards... which means that you'll be swerving less, which means that drivers will be less confused about what you're really doing.
It is cool you actually found a cop that understood the difference. Many cops and people think both words mean exactly the same.
Yes, what stinks is he was a local cop, but not from my city, or one I regularly ride in.:(
Thought that I had last week:
When I ride my full-suspension mountain bike on the road, there is no practical reason why I can't curb-hug over the sewer grates, broken pavement, and busted car parts in the gutter. I'm not talking about places where I can get doored or hooked.
On a bike with long travel suspension and downhill tires, it makes no *practical* difference to me.
So is a my freeride bike legally entitled to less of the road than my road bike?
The law doesn't differentiate between Hummers and Hoda Civics, even tho' a Hummer can clearly withstand highway obstacles better. I can see no no reason why the law should differentiate between different kinds of bikes. In any case, kerbside litter, including busted car parts, is hazardous to tyres. It is, therefore, not practicable for you to "curb-hug", since full suspension does not protect you against puncture causing sharp stuff.
I have always struggled to truly understand the meaning of 'practicable' as used in bicycling regulations so often, such as "shall ride as far to the right as practicable". Today I had conversation with a local police officer while at our daughter's soccer games. 'Practicable' came up, and he explained it like this-
It is possible to stand right behind a closed door, but not practicable because when that door is opened, you'll get hit.
Any thoughts on that explanation? Is it an accurate way to tell the difference between possible/practicable?Yes, it's accurate and a great way of explaining the difference.
I have always struggled to truly understand the meaning of 'practicable' as used in bicycling regulations so often, such as "shall ride as far to the right as practicable". Today I had conversation with a local police officer while at our daughter's soccer games. 'Practicable' came up, and he explained it like this-
It is possible to stand right behind a closed door, but not practicable because when that door is opened, you'll get hit.
Any thoughts on that explanation? Is it an accurate way to tell the difference between possible/practicable?
It's a good explanation of the difference, by way of example, not definition.
I agree with Randya that "practical" is closer than "possible" to the meaning of "practicable", but more specifically practicable also conveys "reasonably safe" and "repeatable". So to me practicable means reasonably safe to repeatedly practice.
So a certain distance from the curb may be possible and even practical at the moment, but "as far right as practicable" may still be further left because it can't be done repeatedly like that.
Consider a road on which on street parallel parking is allowed. My interpretation of "as far right as practicable" is that you're not required to ride where cars can be parked just because they happen to not be there at that moment. It's not practicable to ride there, though it may be practical on that Sunday morning, because you can't ride there when cars are parked there.
It's a good explanation of the difference, by way of example, not definition.
I agree with Randya that "practical" is closer than "possible" to the meaning of "practicable", but more specifically practicable also conveys "reasonably safe" and "repeatable". So to me practicable means reasonably safe to repeatedly practice.
So a certain distance from the curb may be possible and even practical at the moment, but "as far right as practicable" may still be further left because it can't be done repeatedly like that.
Consider a road on which on street parallel parking is allowed. My interpretation of "as far right as practicable" is that you're not required to ride where cars can be parked just because they happen to not be there at that moment. It's not practicable to ride there, though it may be practical on that Sunday morning, because you can't ride there when cars are parked there.That interpretation is nonsense, and will result in you being on the wrong side of the law in the event you're cited or involved in a collision.
So to me practicable means reasonably safe to repeatedly practice.
That interpretation is nonsense, and will result in you being on the wrong side of the law in the event you're cited or involved in a collision.
What about that interpretation makes you think it's nonsense?
Here's a dictionary definition for practicable: Capable of being effected, done, or put into practice. link (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/practicable)
To "put into practice" implies doing it more than once - repeatable.
If it's practicable to do something, that generally means you can do it like that repeatedly, doesn't it?
Are you suggesting that cyclists (and drivers of slow moving vehicles who are also legally contrained by the "as far right as practicable" language) are legally required to ride in the area where cars park whenever cars happen to not be parked there?
What about that interpretation makes you think it's nonsense?
Here's a dictionary definition for practicable: Capable of being effected, done, or put into practice. link (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/practicable)
To "put into practice" implies doing it more than once - repeatable.
If it's practicable to do something, that generally means you can do it like that repeatedly, doesn't it?
Are you suggesting that cyclists (and drivers of slow moving vehicles who are also legally contrained by the "as far right as practicable" language) are legally required to ride in the area where cars park whenever cars happen to not be parked there?The fact that it's a nonsensical legal argument makes me think that it's nonsense-- and I don't need a dictionary to know what practicable means.
You can twist the words all you want, but you're still required to ride as far to the right as practicable, and a practicable distance is a fluid concept, dependent upon the time, place, and conditions then existing-- it is most definitely not a rigid concept, as you (and some misinformed law enforcement officers and prosecutors) are attempting to make it. And if you insist on twisting the words to make "practicable" fit your ideological agenda, don't be surprised to find yourself on the losing end of that argument in court-- no judge, and no jury, will believe that a "practicable distance" means that you must ride at the same distance from the curb when cars aren't parked there as you must ride when cars are parked there. :rolleyes:
Thought that I had last week:
When I ride my full-suspension mountain bike on the road, there is no practical reason why I can't curb-hug over the sewer grates, broken pavement, and busted car parts in the gutter. I'm not talking about places where I can get doored or hooked.
On a bike with long travel suspension and downhill tires, it makes no *practical* difference to me.
So is a my freeride bike legally entitled to less of the road than my road bike?
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. For me, the biggest difference between riding one of my road bikes and riding my mountain bike on the road is whether or not I have to circumnavigate various potholes, bits of debris, and other road hazards.
The fact that it's a nonsensical legal argument makes me think that it's nonsense-- and I don't need a dictionary to know what practicable means.
You can twist the words all you want, but you're still required to ride as far to the right as practicable, and a practicable distance is a fluid concept, dependent upon the time, place, and conditions then existing-- it is most definitely not a rigid concept, as you (and some misinformed law enforcement officers and prosecutors) are attempting to make it. And if you insist on twisting the words to make "practicable" fit your ideological agenda, don't be surprised to find yourself on the losing end of that argument in court-- no judge, and no jury, will believe that a "practicable distance" means that you must ride at the same distance from the curb when cars aren't parked there as you must ride when cars are parked there. :rolleyes:
But at the same time, every piece of bike safety literature I've ever seen says you aren't supposed to weave in and out parked cars, so if you're riding a safe distance from parked cars and you come upon an area of the road for 1/2 a block or so where there are no cars parked, but 1/2 block up there are parked cars, you should hold your line a safe distance from where the parked cars are/were and will be again shortly.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/vehicle/bicycle/rules.htm
Bikesafer (www.bikesafer.blogspot.com)
Jeff
I have always struggled to truly understand the meaning of 'practicable' as used in bicycling regulations so often, such as "shall ride as far to the right as practicable". Today I had conversation with a local police officer while at our daughter's soccer games. 'Practicable' came up, and he explained it like this-
It is possible to stand right behind a closed door, but not practicable because when that door is opened, you'll get hit.
Any thoughts on that explanation? Is it an accurate way to tell the difference between possible/practicable?
That's a pretty good explanation. I think the Bicycling and the Law definition said it was as best you could do without compromising safety, according to the reasonable person standard. Where the reasonable person standard is determined by a jury of your peers.
So, IMO, as far to the right as practicable basically means never. You're almost always going to be able to find an excuse why it wasn't safe to be over to the right. And a jury of your peers will have one person who knows anything about cycling in traffic, if you're lucky.
Riding on the right should be thought of as traffic etiquette instead of law. You're doing it to help out drivers, not to avoid getting a ticket. So only do it when it makes sense.
But at the same time, every piece of bike safety literature I've ever seen says you aren't supposed to weave in and out parked cars, so if you're riding a safe distance from parked cars and you come upon an area of the road for 1/2 a block or so where there are no cars parked, but 1/2 block up there are parked cars, you should hold your line a safe distance from where the parked cars are/were and will be again shortly.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/vehicle/bicycle/rules.htm
Bikesafer (www.bikesafer.blogspot.com)
Jeff
Blue Order seems to be envisioning no parked cars for a significant enough distance to allow some traffic by you. It's not practicable to weave in and out of parked cars, but if there aren't any for a block or two you can let some traffic get by you.
I'm not sure what the original author was envisioning.
The definition cited by the OP isn't bad. Here's what my dictionary has to say:
practicable: 1) that which can be done or put into practice, feasible; 2) that can be useful
possible: 1) what can be, what is capable of existing; 3) that can be done, known, selected
I found this one to...
(b) Left turn.--The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left at any intersection shall approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of such vehicle, and, after entering the intersection, the left turn shall be made so as to leave the intersection in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in such direction upon the roadway being entered. A person riding a bicycle and intending to turn left in accordance with this section is entitled to the full use of the lane from which the turn may legally be made. Whenever practicable the left turn shall be made in that portion of the intersection to the left of the center of the intersection.
Are you suggesting that cyclists (and drivers of slow moving vehicles who are also legally contrained by the "as far right as practicable" language) are legally required to ride in the area where cars park whenever cars happen to not be parked there?
Exactly right. I hope you stay clear of the door zone when there are no cars there as well.
The fact that it's a nonsensical legal argument makes me think that it's nonsense-- and I don't need a dictionary to know what practicable means.
You can twist the words all you want, but you're still required to ride as far to the right as practicable, and a practicable distance is a fluid concept, dependent upon the time, place, and conditions then existing-- it is most definitely not a rigid concept, as you (and some misinformed law enforcement officers and prosecutors) are attempting to make it. And if you insist on twisting the words to make "practicable" fit your ideological agenda, don't be surprised to find yourself on the losing end of that argument in court-- no judge, and no jury, will believe that a "practicable distance" means that you must ride at the same distance from the curb when cars aren't parked there as you must ride when cars are parked there. :rolleyes:
You're the only one twisting words in this discussion. So promoting traffic cycling best practices is an ideological agenda? :rolleyes: What's your agenda, Blue Order? Disparaging everything I say just because? The part in bold is not what I said, and I never said or implied a practicable distance is a rigid concept, nor did I say or imply it is not a fluid concept.
But now that you put it that way, I think the term implies both a rigid and a fluid component. I think that an as far right as practicable distance implies a rigid/non-fluid minimum distance that applies at all times, plus additional fluid distance as determined by the circumstances/conditions. For example, it may be possible and even practical to ride in the 2' wide gutter pan in a given situation, but it's never as far right as practicable to ride in the gutter pan. That is, a cyclist is never legally required to ride in the gutter pan (that would be further right than the rigid minimum component). Similarly, I don't think a cyclist (or any driver of a slow moving vehicle) is ever legally required to ride in the "parking zone" of a street.
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.
Right, and, to be clear, under the area of "visibility" falls conspicuousness (how noticeable you are to others - those approaching from behind as well as potential cross traffic ahead that may pose a hazard to you) and vantage (how well and how soon you can notice potential hazards up ahead, and how much time and space you have to adjust accordingly). The further right you are, the more you fall outside of what John Franklin refers to as the "drivers' zone of maximum surveillance", and thus the more likely you are to be overlooked.
Speaking of "space", that's a fourth reason to ride farther from the curb: to have more lateral maneuvering space to adjust for and avoid potential hazards.
Are you suggesting that cyclists (and drivers of slow moving vehicles who are also legally contrained by the "as far right as practicable" language) are legally required to ride in the area where cars park whenever cars happen to not be parked there?
Exactly right. I hope you stay clear of the door zone when there are no cars there as well.
Thanks for answering my question. Now if only the person to whom it was posed would answer it.
The door zone is arguably the gray area between the fluid and rigid aspects of the meaning of the term in the context of a street on which onstreet parallel parking is allowed. Many people (including LEOs) think cyclists are required to ride in the door zone even when cars are parked there (after all, the law requires drivers to check before opening their doors - so the legal onus is on them). I think most of us here can agree to disagree with that interpretation (though while some of us reached this position without actually getting doored, others may require experiencing an actual dooring before realizing this). But when the street is clear of parked cars for, say, at least 10 seconds ahead of the cyclist, I can agree that it is practicable to ride within the door zone, but I still say further right (in the space actually occupied by parked cars when they are there) is arguably not practicable, and is certainly further right than the "3 feet to the right of overtaking traffic" often recommended for being a reasonable compromise between accommodating overtaking traffic and safety (per at least the 4 reasons cited above).
Blue Order seems to be envisioning no parked cars for a significant enough distance to allow some traffic by you. It's not practicable to weave in and out of parked cars, but if there aren't any for a block or two you can let some traffic get by you.That's right.
Riding as close as practicable to the right doesn't mean that you must weave in and out, rigidly following a curb-hugging line, weaving in when a parking slot is open, and weaving out when a car is parked. Instead, the practicable distance in that case would be a more or less straight line a safe distance to the left of the parked cars.
If you've got a street that has parked cars weekdays, and on the Sunday when you ride, there are no parked cars, the practicable distance changes to take into account the fact that there are no parked cars on the street that day.
But at the same time, every piece of bike safety literature I've ever seen says you aren't supposed to weave in and out parked cars, so if you're riding a safe distance from parked cars and you come upon an area of the road for 1/2 a block or so where there are no cars parked, but 1/2 block up there are parked cars, you should hold your line a safe distance from where the parked cars are/were and will be again shortly.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/vehicle/bicycle/rules.htm
Bikesafer (www.bikesafer.blogspot.com)
JeffI agree (see above).
That's right.
Riding as close as practicable to the right doesn't mean that you must weave in and out, rigidly following a curb-hugging line, weaving in when a parking slot is open, and weaving out when a car is parked. Instead, the practicable distance in that case would be a more or less straight line a safe distance to the left of the parked cars.
If you've got a street that has parked cars weekdays, and on the Sunday when you ride, there are no parked cars, the practicable distance changes to take into account the fact that there are no parked cars on the street that day.
I agree (see above).
This whole weaving thing is a red herring. I never said or even thought that's what you were suggesting.
Certainly the practicable distance changes whether parked cars are present or not. We agree riding in the parking zone is not practicable when the cars are parked there, and, I suspect, we agree that it is not practicable to ride in the door zone when the cars are there. The issue is whether riding in the parking zone is practicable when cars are not parked there. Relative to where vehicular traffic is flowing and expected to be, riding in the unoccupied parking zone is arguably too far right to be practicable (for at least the 4 reasons cited in the John E portion of my previous post), but riding in the "door zone" (when no cars are parked) is probably fine.
As many of you already know, this is not language used only for the 'far right' rule for bicycles. It applies to motor vehicles as well:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/00721.htm
"B. On all roadways, a person driving a vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall drive the vehicle in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway."
The word practicable is used in 26 different transportation laws in AZ:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/SearchResults.asp?SearchPhrase=Practicable&x=12&y=16&Scope=%2Fars%2F28&SearchedFrom=%2FArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp
Al
You're the only one twisting words in this discussion. So promoting traffic cycling best practices is an ideological agenda? :rolleyes:Your belief about what constitutes "traffic cycling best practices" is rigidly ideological.
What's your agenda, Blue Order?In this thread? Countering your nonsensical legal interpretation with the correct legal interpretation about what "practicable" means. I thought that should have been obvious.
Consider a road on which on street parallel parking is allowed. My interpretation of "as far right as practicable" is that you're not required to ride where cars can be parked just because they happen to not be there at that moment. It's not practicable to ride there, though it may be practical on that Sunday morning, because you can't ride there when cars are parked there.
no judge, and no jury, will believe that a "practicable distance" means that you must ride at the same distance from the curb when cars aren't parked there as you must ride when cars are parked there. :rolleyes:The part in bold is not what I said, and I never said or implied a practicable distance is a rigid concept, nor did I say or imply it is not a fluid concept.:rolleyes:
But now that you put it that way, I think the term implies both a rigid and a fluid component. I think that an as far right as practicable distance implies a rigid/non-fluid minimum distance that applies at all times, plus additional fluid distance as determined by the circumstances/conditions. For example, it may be possible and even practical to ride in the 2' wide gutter pan in a given situation, but it's never as far right as practicable to ride in the gutter pan. That is, a cyclist is never legally required to ride in the gutter pan (that would be further right than the rigid minimum component). Similarly, I don't think a cyclist (or any driver of a slow moving vehicle) is ever legally required to ride in the "parking zone" of a street.You're confusing "possible" with "practicable." What you call the "rigid/non-fluid minimum distance" is the closest distance to the right that it's "possible" to ride. The "practicable" distance is the fluid distance you're required to ride as determined by the circumstances/conditions.
What a "practicable distance" does imply, however, is both a subjective and an objective determination of what that "practicable distance" is, based upon the time and place and conditions then existing. You, the rider, must make a subjective determination about what that practicable distance is. If you're cited or involved in an accident, the judge and/or jury must make an objective determination about what that practicable distance is, based upon an objective "reasonable person" standard-- that is, what would a "reasonable person" have done at that time and place and under the conditions then existing?
Accordingly, no reasonable person would hug the curb so closely that pedal strike is a constant danger; no reasonable person would ride where being doored is a constant danger, no reasonable person would ride through road surface hazards, and no reasonable person would ride to the left of an imaginary line of parked cars on a Sunday morning when there are no parked cars.
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. ;)
What's this? Someone biting on my blue font schtick?
Personally, I like the door analogy.
The on street parking...
If painted as on street parking I think most reasonable drivers would not travel in it even when there are no parked cars.
A reasonable/courteous cyclist may temporarily move right into that space if there was a faster vehicle behind them and there were no present dangers in moving temporarily into the parking spaces.
If not painted as on street parking, but still permitted, then it is ambiguous if the space when unused for parking is travel lane or not. If no parked cars for a considerable distance, then a reasonable driver may travel anywhere within that unmarked lane.
Al
The on street parking...
If painted as on street parking I think most reasonable drivers would not travel in it even when there are no parked cars.Most drivers of automobiles likely wouldn't. But drivers subject to the slow-moving vehicle statute likely would.
Most drivers of automobiles likely wouldn't. But drivers subject to the slow-moving vehicle statute likely would.
I hope not; parking lanes are always parking lanes unless otherwise specified (on arterials during rush hour, for example).
But, if someone's driving in a parking lane, they're either delivering newspapers or they're drunk/high/whatever.
I hope not; parking lanes are always parking lanes unless otherwise specified (on arterials during rush hour, for example).
But, if someone's driving in a parking lane, they're either delivering newspapers or they're drunk/high/whatever.
Yeah, drunk/high/whatever, or Blue Order riding a bike.
Your belief about what constitutes "traffic cycling best practices" is rigidly ideological.
So you say. :rolleyes:
In this thread? Countering your nonsensical legal interpretation with the correct legal interpretation about what "practicable" means. I thought that should have been obvious.
Is that what you think you were doing?
:rolleyes:
Well, I can see how you got that impression, but you were way off the mark.
You're confusing "possible" with "practicable." What you call the "rigid/non-fluid minimum distance" is the closest distance to the right that it's "possible" to ride.
Not at all. The "rigid/non-fluid minimum distance" is likely to be significantly further left than the closest distance to the right that it's "possible" to ride.
The "practicable" distance is the fluid distance you're required to ride as determined by the circumstances/conditions.
No, the practicable distance is the "rigid/non-fluid minimum distance" plus any fluid additional distance that may be allowed as determined by the circumstances/conditions.
Another way to understand the "rigid/non-fluid minimum distance" is as far right as you are required to ride when no particular circumstances/conditions happen to apply, which is usually going to be significantly further left than the closest distance to the right that it's "possible" to ride.
What a "practicable distance" does imply, however, is both a subjective and an objective determination of what that "practicable distance" is, based upon the time and place and conditions then existing. You, the rider, must make a subjective determination about what that practicable distance is. If you're cited or involved in an accident, the judge and/or jury must make an objective determination about what that practicable distance is, based upon an objective "reasonable person" standard-- that is, what would a "reasonable person" have done at that time and place and under the conditions then existing?
Accordingly, no reasonable person would hug the curb so closely that pedal strike is a constant danger; no reasonable person would ride where being doored is a constant danger, no reasonable person would ride through road surface hazards, and no reasonable person would ride to the left of an imaginary line of parked cars on a Sunday morning when there are no parked cars.
On all that, we agree.
I would add, however, that when both the subjective and objective determinations are made, that the condition-independent "rigid/non-fluid minimum distance" be considered as well as any additional condition-specific fluid distance that may apply.
I hope not; parking lanes are always parking lanes unless otherwise specified (on arterials during rush hour, for example).
But, if someone's driving in a parking lane, they're either delivering newspapers or they're drunk/high/whatever.You've got a road with curb that's available for parking. Perhaps there are even painted lines on the asphalt to indicate parking spaces. Perhaps not. It's a Sunday morning, and nobody is parked there. A golf cart, or a tractor, or a farm combine, or a driver cruising at 5 MPH while looking for an address, is traveling along the road. The state has a slow-moving vehicle statute on the books, that requires slow-moving vehicles to travel as close as practicable to the right curb. Do you believe that statute means that the driver of the slow-moving vehicle must use the travel lane, simply because cars park next to the curb on weekdays?
The travel lanes are based off of the center line, not the curb.
You've got a road with curb that's available for parking. Perhaps there are even painted lines on the asphalt to indicate parking spaces. Perhaps not. It's a Sunday morning, and nobody is parked there. A golf cart, or a tractor, or a farm combine, or a driver cruising at 5 MPH while looking for an address, is traveling along the road. The state has a slow-moving vehicle statute on the books, that requires slow-moving vehicles to travel as close as practicable to the right curb. Do you believe that statute means that the driver of the slow-moving vehicle must use the travel lane, simply because cars park next to the curb on weekdays?
Blue Order, you seem to be arguing a false dichotomy.
I don't believe that the statute means that he must use the travel lane, but I also don't believe that it means that he must use the (unoccupied) parking lane, or that it prohibits him from using the travel lane (as long as he is "as far right as practicable").
The law requires at least "as far right as practicable" - it doesn't allow him to be further left (assuming faster same direction traffic is present and no other exceptions apply), but it does not preclude him from being even further right (including using the parking lane, if it is safe and reasonable to do so at that time). But just because it happens to be safe and reasonable to use the parking lane at that time, does not mean it's practicable to use the parking lane. To be practicable, it has to be something that can be put into practice, which means it's a normal/usual condition, not an exceptional condition. An empty parking lane is, arguably, an exceptional condition.
The travel lanes are based off of the center line, not the curb.
That's a good point, but we're talking about what the law requires of cyclists and drivers of slow moving vehicles, and those laws are written in terms of "as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway".
I see Tom Cruise ^ is still up to his old "why post once when twice will do" ways.
To be practicable, it has to be something that can be put into practice, which means it's a normal/usual condition, not an exceptional condition. An empty parking lane is, arguably, an exceptional condition.Again, nonsense. Practicable means that which can reasonably be accomplished under the circumstances. There's no requirement that it be repeatable at all times and all places. It is what can reasonably be accomplished at the time and the place and under the conditions then existing.
the practicable distance is the "rigid/non-fluid minimum distance" plus any fluid additional distance that may be allowed as determined by the circumstances/conditions.
Another way to understand the "rigid/non-fluid minimum distance" is as far right as you are required to ride when no particular circumstances/conditions happen to apply, which is usually going to be significantly further left than the closest distance to the right that it's "possible" to ride.Actually, I agree with you.
Don't get used to it. :lol:
Again, nonsense. Practicable means that which can reasonably be accomplished under the circumstances. There's no requirement that it be repeatable at all times and all places. It is what can reasonably be accomplished at the time and the place and under the conditions then existing.
+1
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.-----
Again, nonsense. Practicable means that which can reasonably be accomplished under the circumstances. There's no requirement that it be repeatable at all times and all places. It is what can reasonably be accomplished at the time and the place and under the conditions then existing.
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.
Thanks for answering my question. Now if only the person to whom it was posed would answer it.
No problem. Now answer me a question - if you choose a lane position clear of parked cars that aren't there, what do you do with faster same direction traffic that isn't there?
The door zone is arguably the gray area between the fluid and rigid aspects of the meaning of the term in the context of a street on which onstreet parallel parking is allowed. Many people (including LEOs) think cyclists are required to ride in the door zone even when cars are parked there (after all, the law requires drivers to check before opening their doors - so the legal onus is on them). I think most of us here can agree to disagree with that interpretation (though while some of us reached this position without actually getting doored, others may require experiencing an actual dooring before realizing this). But when the street is clear of parked cars for, say, at least 10 seconds ahead of the cyclist, I can agree that it is practicable to ride within the door zone, but I still say further right (in the space actually occupied by parked cars when they are there) is arguably not practicable, and is certainly further right than the "3 feet to the right of overtaking traffic" often recommended for being a reasonable compromise between accommodating overtaking traffic and safety (per at least the 4 reasons cited above).
:rolleyes: Yeah, thanks for clearing that up.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.