Advocacy & Safety - Fort Lauderdale cop tells me the rules of the road...

And guess what? If the lane is of substandard width, I should be on the sidewalk... and I must ride right up on the white line, all the way to the right...


She even had the audacity to pull out the motor vehicle code book and I told her to look up the bicycle regulations in section 316.2065.... and I asked her to read the first paragraph, where it clearly states that I have the same rights as all other vehicle drivers.

I said: "I have an equal right to use the road, and if a car doesn't have to be on the sidewalk, then neither do I ".


Yeah right, thanks for wasting my time lady.

Very nice.

\I asked her to read the first paragraph, where it clearly states that I have the same rights as all other vehicle drivers.
I said: "I have an equal right to use the road, and if a car doesn't have to be on the sidewalk, then neither do I ".
Yeah right, thanks for wasting my time lady.

And how did she respond to your accurate quoting of the Florida Statutes?

Sound like you made a new friend. Good luck riding in Ft Lauderdale in the future.

And guess what? If the lane is of substandard width, I should be on the sidewalk... and I must ride right up on the white line, all the way to the right...


She even had the audacity to pull out the motor vehicle code book and I told her to look up the bicycle regulations in section 316.2065.... and I asked her to read the first paragraph, where it clearly states that I have the same rights as all other vehicle drivers.

I said: "I have an equal right to use the road, and if a car doesn't have to be on the sidewalk, then neither do I ".


Yeah right, thanks for wasting my time lady.

you forgot one detail, how did she respond?

316.2065(5)


Essentialy says unless you can keep up with traffic you need to ride as close to the white line as possible.

Along with having the rights of a motor vehicle (316.2065(5) clearly indicates cyclists dont) you also have the duties of motor vehicle.

...ride as close to the white line as possible...

Isn't the phrasing "as close as practicable" ?

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0316/SEC2065.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0316->Section%202065#0316.2065

Isn't the phrasing "as close as practicable" ?

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0316/SEC2065.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0316->Section%202065#0316.2065
'
It does. Practicle, in my opinion, doesnt mean 'I dont feel like it' and it doesnt mean 'I'm looking instigate'.


Although 316.2065(1) says a cyclist has all the 'rights' 316.2065(5) clearly states they dont.

I said: "I have an equal right to use the road, and if a car doesn't have to be on the sidewalk, then neither do I ".

Cars aren't permited on sidewalks. Bicycles are. Once on a sidewalk a cyclist no longer has the responsibilites of motorist. Therefore you can ride in the opposite direction etc....



I'm out. I've givien my opinion and viewpoint.....

Im lucky I guess.......In another example of Fl. weirdness, the cops
in all the towns I pass though on my ride from Riviera Beach to Juno
seem to be very cool. Ive had to re-think the road /sidewalk thing and
give in to riding the walk for a block or two occasionally. Yeah, it sux
but it really is the least problematic option when its necessary. Also, a
lot of sidewalks in FL. would be considered bike paths in civilized areas.
Since no one walks you have a nice, 5' wide ribbon of cement all to yourself.

Yeah I'm kinda lucky around my neck of the woods too (Polk County). There aint a lot of cyclists around here, although there are some. Cops more or less dont pay much attention to anybody on a bike, and I've (accidentally) run red lights coming right at 'em in their lane. Crazy!! Just knew I was gonna get busted, but they never said anything.

Another thing too, I aint gonna argue with no cop, and I aint gonna quote the scriptures to them either (motor vehicle code). They have puffed up egos as it is, and any kind of confrontation puts them on the defensive and then you're asking for trouble.

No, I pretty much leave the cops alone, and they pretty much leave me alone.


:D

I appreciate hearing about this law enforcement officer who was willing to check the applicable law.

'
It does. Practicle, in my opinion, doesnt mean 'I dont feel like it' and it doesnt mean 'I'm looking instigate'.


Although 316.2065(1) says a cyclist has all the 'rights' 316.2065(5) clearly states they dont.

Practicle is not a word. And practical and practicable are not the same

'
It does. Practicle, in my opinion, doesnt mean 'I dont feel like it' and it doesnt mean 'I'm looking instigate'.


Although 316.2065(1) says a cyclist has all the 'rights' 316.2065(5) clearly states they dont.

You are so wrong. The statute says as close as "practicable" and then it goes on to say that if the lane is so narrow that car and a bicycle cannot safely travel side by side, that the bike can take the entire lane.

Florida also has a 3 foot law, that cars have to give cyclists three feet of clearance when they pass, so the lane has to be wide enough so that the car and the cyclist with three feet between them can fit within the same lane, otherwise the cyclist can take the lane.

You know there are a lot of bycycle bashing forums out there you can visit where you will probably be much happier than here, making unsubstantiated anti bike posts.

Ah, what the heck, stay here, you are so easy to pwn, its kinda fun.

. . . And practical and practicable are not the same
I always thought "practicable" was lawyer-speak for the English word "practical." So, what's the difference?

I always thought "practicable" was lawyer-speak for the English word "practical." So, what's the difference?

None, for all practical purposes. Only sophists tired of debating the number of angels would even bring it up let alone try to make a distinction..

I always thought "practicable" was lawyer-speak for the English word "practical." So, what's the difference? They have overlapping meanings, but "practical" has more meanings than "practicable" does. The main meaning of "practicable" refers to the feasability or sensibility of doing something. "practical" can have the exact same meaning also. And therefore in the rulebook, either of those words could have be used.

Practical has other meanings however, like "Crast is a pretty practical guy" or "Crast has practical knowledge of fixing cars" (meaning I have more than just theoretical knowledge) or even "He was so fast I practically couldn't see his pedals"

'
It does. Practicle, in my opinion, doesnt mean 'I dont feel like it' and it doesnt mean 'I'm looking instigate'.


Although 316.2065(1) says a cyclist has all the 'rights' 316.2065(5) clearly states they dont.

You need to read the whole section, including the exceptions:


(5)(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand 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 any condition, including, but not limited to, a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, animal, surface hazard, or substandard-width lane, that makes it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For the purposes of this subsection, a "substandard-width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand 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 any condition, including, but not limited to, a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, animal, surface hazard, or substandard-width lane, that makes it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For the purposes of this subsection, a "substandard-width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

Game, set, match. Fort Lauderdale cop wasted the op's time.

Send her back to the academy :(

They have overlapping meanings, but "practical" has more meanings than "practicable" does. The main meaning of "practicable" refers to the feasibility or sensibility of doing something. "practical" can have the exact same meaning also. And therefore in the rulebook, either of those words could have be used.

Practical has other meanings however, like "Crast is a pretty practical guy" or "Crast has practical knowledge of fixing cars" (meaning I have more than just theoretical knowledge) or even "He was so fast I practically couldn't see his pedals"
I saw that, but I think you're saying that in the context of this rule, they mean the same thing. Why can't they just write the law in English?

Send her back to the academy :(

Actually, since she was willing to look it up, I'd rather her be on the job then many others.

She was not a true cop, she was a service aide. From what I've heard, they have many similar capacities but she didn't carry a gun..


She followed us for 3 blocks, pulled around and then stopped a light ahead, got out of her car and confronted us when we rolled up on her..

She didn't turn on her flashers (this was after 8 pm at night) and my other riding friend told her that unless she turned on her lights she was creating a dangerous situation for us... lolz. She went back into the car and turned them on.

As to what she said after my comment, she read the statue and tried to make it sound like the exceptions listed were actually the prohibited actions. This lady was clueless.

What did she look like?

I had a real problem with Cops until I moved here.
I couldnt imagine a worse job, anywhere. In the civilized
portions of America, normal people outnumber scummage
considerably. In South Florida, 98% of the population is scum.
They either just did something criminal or are about to.
I feel for Cops if they willingly put themselves in a position to try
to lower this percentage :)
Maybe you should have invited her on a ride later to unburdon herself
of some tension and angst......

What did she look like?

she was about 5.0', and 200 lb.

She tried lots of different angles on us...

First, she said that we cannot ride two abreast: WRONG (FL Statues say you can ride no more than two abreast except for places set aside for bikes, which are mups and bike paths where you can ride MORE THAN two abreast...
Second, she said we had to ride all the way to the right, basically on the white line: WRONG
Third, she said that if the lane is too narrow to share, we have to be on the sidewalk: WRONG
Fourth, she said that she could not see us because of our dark clothing and that we should have bright clothes and reflective stickers on our bodies, helmets, and bikes: WRONG (we all had DOT approved Extra bright blinkies front and back, there is nothing in the florida statutes that says that cyclists must wear bright clothing or reflective stickers at night, she claimed that 1 of us(3) who had a small white front planet bike blinkie which is still DOT approved and visible from 500 feet was not visible from 500 feet... WRONG, the LED is visible to cars directly ahead, not standing directly above the light itself...).

I think the Two Abreast is incorrect.
You need to single up according to FL. law.

(6) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway may not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast may not impede traffic when traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing and shall ride within a single lane.



????

I think the Two Abreast is incorrect.
You need to single up according to FL. law.

(6) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway may not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast may not impede traffic when traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing and shall ride within a single lane.



????

If they're riding in a substandard width lane, then a single cyclist would have the right to take the entire lane. Thus, the "normal speed of traffic" in that lane at that time would be the speed of the single cyclist.

If they're riding in a substandard width lane, then a single cyclist would have the right to take the entire lane. Thus, the "normal speed of traffic" in that lane at that time would be the speed of the single cyclist.

you're correct of course, but the cop's gonna give you a citation anyway and the judge is gonna side with the cop

Believe it or not, many judges are very smart individuals who know how to read statutes. Some of them are even former defense attorneys who, by nature, are skeptical of police.

I saw that, but I think you're saying that in the context of this rule, they mean the same thing. Why can't they just write the law in English?
Because legal writing is not about communicating information.

It's about communicating information, unambiguously. In other words, communicating a point, to the exclusion of all other points.

If they used the word "practical" they'd have to spend extra words trying to specify which definition they meant. Otherwise, people could argue for the application of one of the other definitions*.

The whole "let's keep it simple, and write in plain English" idea, makes for more verbose laws, more revisions of law, and less efficiency. Well-crafted legalese makes our lives easier.


*for example, if they argued for the "useful, suitable to an activity" definition, they could argue that you should a) ride farther from the curb, because it is "practical" for bicycling to have plenty of space, or b) ride closer to the curb, because it is "practical" for driving to have you ought of the way. May sound like a silly example, but it's just a potential loophole off the top of my head. Stranger things have been argued in court.

Because legal writing is not about communicating information.

It's about communicating information, unambiguously. In other words, communicating a point, to the exclusion of all other points.

If they used the word "practical" they'd have to spend extra words trying to specify which definition they meant. Otherwise, people could argue for the application of one of the other definitions*.

The whole "let's keep it simple, and write in plain English" idea, makes for more verbose laws, more revisions of law, and less efficiency. Well-crafted legalese makes our lives easier.


*for example, if they argued for the "useful, suitable to an activity" definition, they could argue that you should a) ride farther from the curb, because it is "practical" for bicycling to have plenty of space, or b) ride closer to the curb, because it is "practical" for driving to have you ought of the way. May sound like a silly example, but it's just a potential loophole off the top of my head. Stranger things have been argued in court.

One definition of "practicable" is "feasible" which also means "reasonable." I think both words imply a balance between cyclist convenience, motorist convenience, and safety. I don't see how "practicable" is really different, except it sounds fancier.

I think the Two Abreast is incorrect.
You need to single up according to FL. law.

(6) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway may not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast may not impede traffic when traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing and shall ride within a single lane.



????


Alright, lets look at it my way.

1. persons (Me and my friends).
2. upon a road way. (using a road).
3. may not ride more than two abreast (this does not say more than 1 abreast, it specifically says TWO is the maximum that may ride abreast).
4. except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles (You can ride more than two abreast on bike lanes and places like parks and such meant specifically for bicycles, ie. not regular public roads).
5. Persons riding two abreast may not impede traffic. (I was on a 6 lane road, 3 in each direction, how can Impede traffic if I cannot possibly block all traffic lanes?).
6. shall ride within a single lane. (a single LANE is not a single LINE, a single LINE implies that we cannot ride two abreast which is stated earlier as being legal, it specifically says LANE, which means we cannot take up more than 1 LANE).


How do you feel about the interpretation of this law now?

^^ You know Im on your side, Its just that there can be some
liberal interpretation of the laws.
When I went to the Jupiter Island / Ban Bicycles meetings a few months
ago the Chief of Police showed some law(??) that sez bikers must single up
in traffic. Might just be a Jupiter Island thing though.

^^ You know Im on your side, Its just that there can be some
liberal interpretation of the laws.
When I went to the Jupiter Island / Ban Bicycles meetings a few months
ago the Chief of Police showed some law(??) that sez bikers must single up
in traffic. Might just be a Jupiter Island thing though.

Last time I read, a city/municipality cannot enforce a law that contradicts state law.

Believe it or not, many judges are very smart individuals who know how to read statutes. Some of them are even former defense attorneys who, by nature, are skeptical of police.

I foresee the judge, who is more likely to be a motorist and identify with motorists, rather than cyclists, telling you in court that these laws are 'for your own safety' or something of the sort, and ruling in favor of the cop. They do things like this in Portland Oregon, and we're talking about Florida here.

I foresee the judge, who is more likely to be a motorist and identify with motorists, rather than cyclists, telling you in court that these laws are 'for your own safety' or something of the sort, and ruling in favor of the cop. They do things like this in Portland Oregon, and we're talking about Florida here.

Sadly I tend to agree... while "justice" should have their eyes closed and rule on the law as it is written, judges are human and do have the same foibles as the rest of us.

I foresee the judge, who is more likely to be a motorist and identify with motorists, rather than cyclists, telling you in court that these laws are 'for your own safety' or something of the sort, and ruling in favor of the cop. They do things like this in Portland Oregon, and we're talking about Florida here.

Very true.

But if you go into court with a court reporter and make sure the judge knows there is a court reporter, you are likely to get a better result. A judge hates being overuled by an appelate judge and even worse, hates to see his stupid court pronouncements in print. So many times a court reporter will keep the judge honest.

Alright, lets look at it my way.

1. persons (Me and my friends).
2. upon a road way. (using a road).
3. may not ride more than two abreast (this does not say more than 1 abreast, it specifically says TWO is the maximum that may ride abreast).
4. except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles (You can ride more than two abreast on bike lanes and places like parks and such meant specifically for bicycles, ie. not regular public roads).
5. Persons riding two abreast may not impede traffic. (I was on a 6 lane road, 3 in each direction, how can Impede traffic if I cannot possibly block all traffic lanes?).
6. shall ride within a single lane. (a single LANE is not a single LINE, a single LINE implies that we cannot ride two abreast which is stated earlier as being legal, it specifically says LANE, which means we cannot take up more than 1 LANE).


How do you feel about the interpretation of this law now?

I feel you are making a tempest in a teapot over a minor annoyance; you didn't even get a ticket or warning. Maybe you'd have had a more satisfying experience if she worked you over with a Tazer, Jack or Club and arrested you on some trumped up charge; THEN you'd actually have some Real issue to bellyache about.

Maybe you'd have had a more satisfying experience if she worked you over with a Tazer, Jack or Club and arrested you on some trumped up charge; THEN you'd actually have some Real issue to bellyache about.

for this, you will need to start a Ft. Lauderdale Critical Mass ride and get more than 10 people to participate

;)

Very true.

But if you go into court with a court reporter and make sure the judge knows there is a court reporter, you are likely to get a better result. A judge hates being overuled by an appelate judge and even worse, hates to see his stupid court pronouncements in print. So many times a court reporter will keep the judge honest.

Appellate Court? Court reporter? Court pronouncements? What Traffic Court do you know about would ever have any of those legal schmegal niceties for minor traffic offenses?

for this, you will need to start a Ft. Lauderdale Critical Mass ride and get more than 10 people to participate

;)

First the OP should get a ticket before he starts his Revolution!

One definition of "practicable" is "feasible" which also means "reasonable." I think both words imply a balance between cyclist convenience, motorist convenience, and safety. I don't see how "practicable" is really different, except it sounds fancier.
Feasible does not mean reasonable. Feasible means doable (Feasible from Latin Facere - to do). To say it means reasonable is silly. If it did, we'd be talking about people behaving feasibly, or having a feasible discussion....

Here are some examples:

She had her mind on the practical results. (She focused on the measurable, real world results)
She had her mind on the practicable results. (She focused on the results that could be accomplished in the real world)

It was a practical solution. (It was a solution that was more efficient and suited to the circumstances)
It was a practicable solution. (It was a realistic solution, that could be effected in the real world)

He was only interested in practical matters. (He was only interested in ordinary, daily subjects)
He was only interested in practicable matters. (He was only interested in things that could be done in the real world)

I'm sorry that the nuances of the differences between "practicable" and "practical" are lost on you. I don't know what to say. They are different words and mean different things. And those meanings matter when we are writing laws....

First the OP should get a ticket before he starts his Revolution!

Good point.

I'll hold off on the revolution just a little bit longer ok?

No matter where you go cops are ignorant of the laws and when you call them on it they still make like you're in the wrong. It seems in my city they can't even solve a crime unless someone gets ratted out. They were going to enforce sidewalk and wrong way riders I'm still waiting for that one. Well one good thing is the whole town is 25MPH and I take the lane everywhere I go.

No matter where you go cops are ignorant of the laws and when you call them on it they still make like you're in the wrong. It seems in my city they can't even solve a crime unless someone gets ratted out. They were going to enforce sidewalk and wrong way riders I'm still waiting for that one. Well one good thing is the whole town is 25MPH and I take the lane everywhere I go.

OMG a whole town that is 25MPH... sounds like near bike heaven. Where is this? I see RI, but where specifically? Can you keep a boat there? I'm just lookin' to retire. 25MPH... Wow! :D

Ft. Lauderdale, like lots of Florida is essentially a police state: My recollection is Administrator Nick Navarro ( ask the older folks ) a corrupt a**hole in bed with the towing companies etc. The most un educated police in the South. Factor in few cops know the law. I was pulled for not pulling over because a funeral was coming TOWARD me, in an incoming lane. The judge said it was disrespectful, i said "I'm not blessed with ESP." I beat that, after losing a day in court and having a friend look like she was from the media. It hasn't changed down there.

OMG a whole town that is 25MPH... sounds like near bike heaven. Where is this? I see RI, but where specifically? Can you keep a boat there? I'm just lookin' to retire. 25MPH... Wow! :D

I suppose a 25mph motorist (or bicyclist) could criss cross the state of RI in an hour. Hope your boat is a yacht if you want to hang out with the Newport crowd.