Advocacy & Safety - bikes do not impede traffic, we are traffic

There seems to be a growing false legitimacy among some bicyclists surrounding the notion bicyclists should be and are subject to variations of the "slow moving vehicle-impeding-pull off roadway" laws.

this is a bad, marginalizing trend in so called bicycling 'advocacy'

Rules that require leaving the roadway to allow faster traffic to pass under certain traffic and roadway conditions run counter to bicyclists road rights.

From Swift v the city of Topeka in 1890 to much more recent court decision of Selz V Trotwood, bicyclists have been supported in our rights to ride the roads at our fair speed unimpeded by suggestions we can impede traffic.


I quote 'bicycledriving.org, in the online treatise 'a guide to improving bicycle laws'

"Some states have statutes prohibiting drivers from impeding traffic. These statutes should be written so that they apply only to motor vehicles, not to all vehicles. Otherwise, a broad version of this rule could be wrongly interpreted as prohibiting operation of bicycles or horse-drawn wagons whenever following drivers might be inconvenienced."

I believe - rather radically it seems - among some 'bicycle drivers', that bicyclists are not required to pull off a roadway under any states' "impeding" laws. bikes are traffic travelling at our normal speeds, are traffic, and cannot therefore 'impede'.

If this is civil disobedience, so be it, this is my position about 'can a bike impede traffic or are we traffic' in strong disapproval of any laws requiring bicyclists to 'pull off 2 lane highways' when five vehicles backup behind at the nearest safe location.

Any marginalizing notions suggesting bikes impede traffic and can be required to leave two lane roads if five vehicles back up behind should be exterminated.

Bicycledriving.org supports my general contentions about bicycles impeding laws and the potential for injustice inherent in this type of anti-bicycling interpretation of bicyclists road rights.

I don't see what is so radical about this concept.

I am always amused at the concept that any driver should be able to count how many vehicles he/she is "impeding."

I can see a problem if you're on a larger road with lanes of width insufficient to let cars pass you by. When it's busy and if you're unable to keep up with traffic, you'll have far more than 5 cars behind you immediately - you'd effectively be barred from cycling there, or else have to pull out at every opportunity. This is based on the original post, I haven't actually looked into it at all.

There seems to be a growing false legitimacy among some bicyclists surrounding the notion bicyclists should be and are subject to variations of the "slow moving vehicle-impeding-pull off roadway" laws.

this is a bad, marginalizing trend in so called bicycling 'advocacy'

Rules that require leaving the roadway to allow faster traffic to pass under certain traffic and roadway conditions run counter to bicyclists road rights.

From Swift v the city of Topeka in 1890 to much more recent court decision of Selz V Trotwood, bicyclists have been supported in our rights to ride the roads at our fair speed unimpeded by suggestions we can impede traffic.


I quote 'bicycledriving.org, in the online treatise 'a guide to improving bicycle laws'

"Some states have statutes prohibiting drivers from impeding traffic. These statutes should be written so that they apply only to motor vehicles, not to all vehicles. Otherwise, a broad version of this rule could be wrongly interpreted as prohibiting operation of bicycles or horse-drawn wagons whenever following drivers might be inconvenienced."

I believe - rather radically it seems - among some 'bicycle drivers', that bicyclists are not required to pull off a roadway under any states' "impeding" laws. bikes are traffic travelling at our normal speeds, are traffic, and cannot therefore 'impede'.

If this is civil disobedience, so be it, this is my position about 'can a bike impede traffic or are we traffic' in strong disapproval of any laws requiring bicyclists to 'pull off 2 lane highways' when five vehicles backup behind at the nearest safe location.

Any marginalizing notions suggesting bikes impede traffic and can be required to leave two lane roads if five vehicles back up behind should be exterminated.

Bicycledriving.org supports my general contentions about bicycles impeding laws and the potential for injustice inherent in this type of anti-bicycling interpretation of bicyclists road rights.


Sounds so, "Forester-esque"!

I think it's important to avoid confusing two provisions in the law. The first is the prohibition against traveling so slowly that the normal movement of other traffic is impeded. Bicyclists, like other drivers of vehicles with limited speed capability, are exempt from this law, as they should be. Remember, compliance with this law requires increasing speed, which is physically impossible for some vehicle types, making them exempt. (In most states, the law is worded very clearly on this point.) The impeding traffic law does NOT prohibit use of slow vehicles on the roadway. Increasing public understanding of this point is of great importance to cyclists.

The second provision is the requirement, in some states (although not in North Carolina where I live) that if several vehicles back up behind a slow moving vehicle on a narrow TWO LANE roadway, the driver of the slow vehicle use the next available turnout to allow traffic to pass. This may well apply to cyclists; the question becomes a matter of practicality - what is considered an appropriate turnout for a bicycle, how often should a cyclist be expected to do this, and what if the number of cyclists exceeds the number of other drivers? Here our right to use the roadway is not in question, our equality is established. So, I suggest we turn to the Golden Rule to determine what is courteous versus what is silly - much like when we decide how long to wait to hold the door for one or more people approaching behind us, balancing our own convenience with the convenience of others.

The Iowa Department of Transportation provides this advice for farm vehicle operators.

Make your intentions known when you're turning by using signal lights or the appropriate hand signal in advance of a turn.
Drive slow-moving vehicles in the right-hand lane as close to the edge of the roadway as safely possible. Traveling half on the shoulder may cause motorists to risk passing in a dangerous situation.
Avoid encouraging or signaling motorists to pass. Pull over where it is safe, and let the traffic go by.

Modified for cyclists this might read:
Make your intentions known when you're turning by using the appropriate hand signal in advance of a turn.
When the lane is wide enough for sharing, ride in the right-hand lane as close to the edge of the roadway as safely practicable. When the lane is not wide enough for sharing, ride in it's center or left of center to make it clear to motorists that same lane passing would be dangerous.
Avoid encouraging or signaling motorists to pass. Pull over where it is safe, and let the other traffic go by.

The second provision is the requirement, in some states (although not in North Carolina where I live) that if several vehicles back up behind a slow moving vehicle on a narrow TWO LANE roadway, the driver of the slow vehicle use the next available turnout to allow traffic to pass. This may well apply to cyclists; the question becomes a matter of practicality - what is considered an appropriate turnout for a bicycle, how often should a cyclist be expected to do this, and what if the number of cyclists exceeds the number of other drivers? Here our right to use the roadway is not in question, our equality is established. So, I suggest we turn to the Golden Rule to determine what is courteous versus what is silly - much like when we decide how long to wait to hold the door for one or more people approaching behind us, balancing our own convenience with the convenience of others.


I believe it is in not very many states, but regardless:

any law requiring specifically, that a bicyclist needs to turn off two lane roadways when n vehicles has built up behind is an affront to bicyclists right to the road.

Applicability of the SMV-impeding-pull off roadway to bicyclists needs to be fought.


'SMV-impeding-pull off roadway' laws should not apply to bicyclists, or our rights to travel two lane busy roads is seriously threatened.

Bicyclists should never be required to 'leave a roadway' to allow traffic to pass: Bicyclists have a basic right to travel public roads and our right to do so shall not be circumscribed in this degree.

I believe it is in not very many states, but regardless:
'SMV-impeding-pull off roadway' laws should not apply to bicyclists, or our rights to travel two lane busy roads is seriously threatened.


Do drivers of other SMVs feel their road rights are threatened or diminished by such laws? Do you believe that cyclists would fare worse than those other SMV drivers?

Seriously, how often is this an issue? In addition to the two-lane limitation and five-or more vehicles,what if we added the requirement that the vehicles be following for more than one minute before the SMV operator be required to pull off? I can't think of this scenario happening to me more than once or twice in the last decade. The exception is group rides, where cyclists outnumber motorists. Perhaps a different approach or interpretation would he appropriate for that.

Whatever happened to common sense and common courtesy? Too many people with chips on their shoulders.

If you are holding up a reasonable amount of traffic when operating a SMV or bicycle, it is good manners to pull over and let the log jam pass when and if it is safe to do so...nothing more, nothing less.

good manners, perhaps. bicyclists circumscribed to 'leave the highway' on two lane roads with five vehicles behind?

imagine the wrongheaded interpretations of this restriction of bicyclists' rights. This 'impeding' crap is the kind of stuff bicyclists get pulled over for far more often that not operating FRAP. i doubt most police even know how to say 'FRAP' when pulling over a bicyclist, i'm confident a notion of 'impeding' BS plays out in far more cop/bike interactions.

Laws requiring bicyclists 'leave the highway' are fundamentally against bicyclists rights to operate on the public roads.

Do drivers of other SMVs feel their road rights are threatened or diminished by such laws? Do you believe that cyclists would fare worse than those other SMV drivers?

Seriously, how often is this an issue? In addition to the two-lane limitation and five-or more vehicles,what if we added the requirement that the vehicles be following for more than one minute before the SMV operator be required to pull off? I can't think of this scenario happening to me more than once or twice in the last decade. The exception is group rides, where cyclists outnumber motorists. Perhaps a different approach or interpretation would he appropriate for that.


do i believe that cyclists would far worse? yes.

how often is this an issue? for some cyclists, likely it would de facto prevent their leaving their house on a bicycle. On my rides to the grocery store, pretty much every ride when there's traffic, i'd have to pull over two or three times in the short mile or so on the road to the grocery store. the stoplight releases a pack of motorists, moving three times my speed, on a busy road.

Under SMV-impeding-pull off roadway laws, i'd be required to pull off the highway in these instances and let the pack of traffic pass. i would remount the bike, and ride until the next group of motorists from the light gets released behind me and approach at three times my speed. i would have to again leave the highway, and repeat.

this would be required of me under broad application of 'smv-impeding-pull off roadway' laws if they applied to bicyclists.

If law enforcement officers believed incorrectly that it is practical and reasonable for cyclists to pull over very frequently, and with minimal warning, for such non-emergency situations then perhaps the law could be clarified. Requiring 5 vehicles to back up for more than one minute on the two-lane road before action must be taken might be better than having no time frame.

In my experience, tractors and construction equipment pull over less than once every few minutes.

Courtesy goes a long way. No one like a road hog, regardless of their rights. Where the roadway allows pull off to let traffic pass.

I don't see what is so radical about this concept.

I am always amused at the concept that any driver should be able to count how many vehicles he/she is "impeding."

Plus one..
. Take us off our bikes and put we cyclists in cars- those short sighted motorists will find more gridlock at traffic lights.

Plus one..
. Take us off our bikes and put we cyclists in cars- those short sighted motorists will find more gridlock at traffic lights.
Someone correct me if I am wrong but the variations of the "slow moving vehicle-impeding-pull off roadway" laws are neither applicable nor applied on streets where traffic lights and gridlock are issues.

There seems to be a growing false legitimacy among some bicyclists surrounding the notion bicyclists should be and are subject to variations of the "slow moving vehicle-impeding-pull off roadway" laws.

this is a bad, marginalizing trend in so called bicycling 'advocacy'

Rules that require leaving the roadway to allow faster traffic to pass under certain traffic and roadway conditions run counter to bicyclists road rights.

From Swift v the city of Topeka in 1890 to much more recent court decision of Selz V Trotwood, bicyclists have been supported in our rights to ride the roads at our fair speed unimpeded by suggestions we can impede traffic.


I quote 'bicycledriving.org, in the online treatise 'a guide to improving bicycle laws'

"Some states have statutes prohibiting drivers from impeding traffic. These statutes should be written so that they apply only to motor vehicles, not to all vehicles. Otherwise, a broad version of this rule could be wrongly interpreted as prohibiting operation of bicycles or horse-drawn wagons whenever following drivers might be inconvenienced."

I believe - rather radically it seems - among some 'bicycle drivers', that bicyclists are not required to pull off a roadway under any states' "impeding" laws. bikes are traffic travelling at our normal speeds, are traffic, and cannot therefore 'impede'.

If this is civil disobedience, so be it, this is my position about 'can a bike impede traffic or are we traffic' in strong disapproval of any laws requiring bicyclists to 'pull off 2 lane highways' when five vehicles backup behind at the nearest safe location.

Any marginalizing notions suggesting bikes impede traffic and can be required to leave two lane roads if five vehicles back up behind should be exterminated.

Bicycledriving.org supports my general contentions about bicycles impeding laws and the potential for injustice inherent in this type of anti-bicycling interpretation of bicyclists road rights.

By two-lane roads I presume that you mean one lane for each direction of travel, correct?

About a year or so ago I was on my way home from the First Friday Concert in downtown St. Pete. When an off duty St. Pete Traffic Homicide cop in a police SUV pulled me over. Claiming that I was riding too far into the lane/road. When I called St. Pete's office of Bicycle and Pedestrian safety to report him. I was called back and told that that particular officer not surprisingly has had a number of complaints logged against him. He also told the young lady who runs the Bicycle and Pedestrian safety office that traffic could not pass me. Which is/was interesting considering that the road I was on had two lanes of travel in each direction as well as a center turn lane. He also tried tell her that I didn't have reflectors or lights on my bike.

I'll admit that I may no longer have the factory installed red reflector on my bike, but that the taillight that I use has a reflector built into it's lens. So his argument that I didn't have a red reflector doesn't hold water.

There are certain roads that when either myself or when I am riding with a friend that if too many cars start stacking up that I will, IF I can do so safely will pull over and allow them to pass. But that is because I want to be polite and am hoping to create some good will. Those roads with only one lane in each direction of travel.

Or a few months ago when I was coming home from Tampa from meeting about the Friendship trail connecting Tampa and St. Pete. That time the road in question is normally two lanes in each direction of travel, but the left most lane was closed for maintenance and/or repair. It was also around 2130 or so that I was on the road, and yes I had my lights on as well as my reflective vest and ankle strap. I had I don't know how many cars backed up behind me, and I was looking for a safe place to pull over and allow them to pass, but couldn't find one. When the left hand lane opened up again and all of those cars were able to move over to that lane and safely pass me.

Somewhat surprisingly not one of those cars blew their horn at me or yelled the usual "pleasantries" at me. Which I have to say was both rather nice and somewhat surprising. And it would be nice if more drivers could be that polite.

In some states, the impeding law does only apply to motor vehicles. In Ohio, that is not the case. Bicycles can impede traffic. Yes, I know about Selz vs. Trotwood. I am a big fan of that case or rather the appeal. Ohio changed the statutes because of that verdict. 4522.22 (C) now say, "In a case involving a violation of this section, the trier of fact, in determining whether the vehicle was being operated at an unreasonably slow speed, shall consider the capabilities of the vehicle and its operator."

It doesn't say bikes can't impede, but rather the capabilities of the vehicle and the operator needs to be considered. So, yes, If I am traveling normally, I can't impede. But if decided to ride at a very slow speed, then I could be sited for impeding. I think this is good. There is no reason if I am capable to ride at 12 mph that I should travel at 5 mph.

Whatever happened to common sense and common courtesy? Too many people with chips on their shoulders.

I doubt if a rabid anti-car luddite would suffer the ignominy of having a chip on his shoulder, since they believe nothing should be on the shoulder for any reason. All this quibble about tractors, farm equipment, etc is complelely irrelevant when it comes to bicycles. A tractor (etc) is designed for off road use (fields, last time I looked) and is granted the privilege of using the roadway occasionally and intermittently to go from one job to another. This has no relevance whatsoever to a cyclist obscuring traffic as part of a daily commute. I can easily imagine that if a tractor regularly crossed the Brooklyn bridge and held up traffic, he would be ticketed, banned, or probably just run off into the river.

Most farmers understand their equipment is bulky and awkward on the roadway, and are proud of the courtesy they show to other road users when they have the opportunity. Most critical mazzholes and their ilk are the exact opposite.

roughstuff

Nor do I swallow the cute mazzhole claim 'we are traffic.' Vehicles are equipped with brake lights, numerous mirrors, and turn signals, none of which require the rider to remove his hand from the streering mechanism or his eye from the roadway in front of him; and which provide invaluable information about, and to, other vehicles and raodway users. Bicycles have neither.

A tractor (etc) is designed for off road use (fields, last time I looked) and is granted the privilege of using the roadway occasionally and intermittently to go from one job to another.Exactly what privileges it's given would depend on what the law said.


I can easily imagine that if a tractor regularly crossed the Brooklyn bridge and held up traffic, he would be ticketed, banned, or probably just run off into the river.If the law said he could be there, he could be there. Even if he was there every day twice a day. You can't get a ticket for breaking the law if you're not breaking the law. (Though of course, the law might be changed if he pushed too hard.)

Nor do I swallow the cute mazzhole claim 'we are traffic.' Vehicles are equipped with brake lights, numerous mirrors, and turn signalsVehicles go. `A conveyance that transports people or objects'. Everything else is superfluous, though the law may require them for certain types of vehicles. Though if you believe that the brake lights, mirrors and turn signals make the vehicle, people certainly have added all of these to their bicycles. Here's a brake light and turn signal setup (http://www.amazon.com/Acclaim-Signal-Directional-Brake-Bicycle/dp/B000SMCY0E), and of course you can find mirrors easily enough. Though there are hand signals for stopping and turning -- and as long as you have two hands, you can use one of these signals and still keep a hand on the handlebars.

Bicycles have neither.Well, some bicycles. And you may have noticed that many farm tractors omit these things too. Hell, antique cars may omit these things too -- and not be legally required to have them. The operators of these cars generally use the same hand signals that cyclists use.

... now to extract this hook from my mouth ...

... Vehicles are equipped with brake lights, numerous mirrors, and turn signals, none of which require the rider to remove his hand from the streering mechanism or his eye from the roadway in front of him; and which provide invaluable information about, and to, other vehicles and raodway users. Bicycles have neither.This part of your post is wrong. As a cyclist, I have a helmet mounted mirror that works much better than the numerous mirrors a motorist has. As a cyclist, I have a stop signal that works just fine, (my left arm) motorist just have to learn what the signal means (something they were suppose to do before they got a drivers license). As a cyclist, I have turn signals (see sentence above). I am able to see the road ahead and still keep one hand on my steering control. Are you claming that motorist keep both hands on their steering control when activating turn signals?

PS: Here in Hawaii, I use my turn signals far more often than most motorist.

In my state, at least, a slow-moving vehicle is defined as being incapable of speeds over 25mph. Since even my heavy MTB can do and has done 28-30, it doesn't apply.

Two-lanes without a shoulder, even though I have the right to travel on them, cause me to look at alternate routes. Another forum was discussing the new additions to bike lanes in SF, and I made a comment I'm quite proud of:

"No amount of creativity and good intention can overcome a raging tsunami of stupid."

This is what we all face.

In my state, at least, a slow-moving vehicle is defined as being incapable of speeds over 25mph. Since even my heavy MTB can do and has done 28-30, it doesn't apply.

Two-lanes without a shoulder, even though I have the right to travel on them, cause me to look at alternate routes. Another forum was discussing the new additions to bike lanes in SF, and I made a comment I'm quite proud of:

"No amount of creativity and good intention can overcome a raging tsunami of stupid."

This is what we all face.

oh for chris' sake. Two lanes with no shoulder isn't that big of a deal. Not trying to pick on you, but it's comments like this that perpetuate the notion that cycling is dangerous. Nobody will argue that I ain't the brightest bulb on the tree nor some kind of super human, yet I've managed to survive relatively unscathed riding on the roadways...two lane with no shoulder or otherwise, for over 4 decades. If I can do it, it can't be 'rocket surgery'.

oh for chris' sake. Two lanes with no shoulder isn't that big of a deal. Not trying to pick on you, but it's comments like this that perpetuate the notion that cycling is dangerous. Nobody will argue that I ain't the brightest bulb on the tree nor some kind of super human, yet I've managed to survive relatively unscathed riding on the roadways...two lane with no shoulder or otherwise, for over 4 decades. If I can do it, it can't be 'rocket surgery'.

Chip, the POINT of my comment about two-lanes is about STUPIDITY, not cycling being dangerous. Put STUPID behind the wheel, and, as SF's bike lanes portray, you get bike-unfriendly results. So you've been two-laning it for 4 decades...good for ya. Come visit my town and try it -- that streak will come to an end.

oh for chris' sake. Two lanes with no shoulder isn't that big of a deal. Not trying to pick on you, but it's comments like this that perpetuate the notion that cycling is dangerous. Nobody will argue that I ain't the brightest bulb on the tree nor some kind of super human, yet I've managed to survive relatively unscathed riding on the roadways...two lane with no shoulder or otherwise, for over 4 decades. If I can do it, it can't be 'rocket surgery'.I kind of agree with DX-MAN on this one, but for different reasons. I don't find 2 lane roads without shoulders dangerous, but if there are alternative routes, I'll use them. This is because I am assuming the lanes are not wide enough to share and I'd rather not hold up others if I don't have to do that. It just makes for a more peaceful ride in my opinion. If there are no other options, I'll use those roads.

I am always amused at the concept that any driver should be able to count how many vehicles he/she is "impeding."

Do you drive? And you find it weird that one should know how many cars are behind him? It's irresponsible to not know this. Or do you only mean it's hard to know if you are impeding them or if they are happy at the speed they are travelling? If they caught up to you in the first place, I think that answer is pretty clear.



Are you claming that motorist keep both hands on their steering control when activating turn signals?

Of course. Who the hell takes their hand off the steering wheel to use the turn signal lever? It's not a button on the dashboard: it's placed so you can activate it without removing your left hand from its recommended position (somewhere between 8 and 10 o'clock: preferably 8 or 9 in airbag equipped cars).

There seems to be a growing false legitimacy among some bicyclists surrounding the notion bicyclists should be and are subject to variations of the "slow moving vehicle-impeding-pull off roadway" laws.

I don't believe there's anything false about that -- at least in Washington State, bicycles clearly are bound by the slow-moving vehicle statute. But that statute doesn't say anything close to what most people think it does.

It applies:

*Only on a two-lane road
*Only where passing in the oncoming lane is unsafe or illegal
*Only when the slow-moving vehicle has delayed five or more vehicles in a line

Once all those conditions apply, then the law does not require vehicles to pull over immediately, it requires them to pull over only when it is safe to do so.

This law applies far less often than most operators, motorists or bicyclists, seem to believe.




I quote 'bicycledriving.org, in the online treatise 'a guide to improving bicycle laws'

"Some states have statutes prohibiting drivers from impeding traffic. These statutes should be written so that they apply only to motor vehicles, not to all vehicles. Otherwise, a broad version of this rule could be wrongly interpreted as prohibiting operation of bicycles or horse-drawn wagons whenever following drivers might be inconvenienced."

Nonsense. These laws should be written clearly enough to avoid wrongful interpretation, and should apply to all vehicles whatever their motive power. These laws made sense before there were motor vehicles on the road, when heavy ox-carts would pull right to be passed by a coach-and-four, and they continue to make sense today.



I believe - rather radically it seems - among some 'bicycle drivers', that bicyclists are not required to pull off a roadway under any states' "impeding" laws. bikes are traffic travelling at our normal speeds, are traffic, and cannot therefore 'impede'.

This logic would suggest these laws should not apply to slow-moving motor vehicles, since those vehicles are traveling at their normal speed and are traffic. Yet that is exactly the situation these rules describe, when a vehicle is unable to move as fast as the prevailing speed of traffic, and clearly delay multiple vehicles as a result.

When I'm climbing a mountain pass in an underpowered RV, I'm traffic, that's my normal speed, and I clearly am a slow moving vehicle, opbligated to move right when safe if I'm delaying five or more vehicles that cannot pass me safely. The difference when I'm bicycling is that it's much rarer for that many vehicles to build up behind me and be unable to pass.

suggestions bicyclists should be bound by slow moving vehicles-impeding-pull off roadway flies in the face of american bicyclist road rights.

asking bicyclists to pull off two lane roads when backups of traffic are behind them? A de facto ban of bikes from busy two lane roads.

this type of erosional interpretation of smv laws are a reprehensible affront to bicyclists right to travel roads under our own power.

some might find these 'reasonable' demands from bicyclists.


i assure you, legally defining bicyclists as being required to pull off two lane highways at the soonest safe opportunity once five vehicles have backed up behind a bicyclist is asking for bicyclists to begin to be banned from busy two lane roads.

perhaps, california could start banning bicyclists on busy two lane roads during rush hour? Its' only reasonable to expect bicyclists to not get out in traffic they will consistently impede, isnt' it?


this expectation that this law should both broadly apply and be lobbied for by 'bicycling advocates' is an extremely marganilizing position and an erosion of bicyclists road rights. I suspect far more bicyclists get tickets for supposedly 'impeding traffic' than not operating FRAP.

would a bicyclist, holding a stoplight at a red, be considerd to be 'impeding' if five vehicles back up behind? Maybe California should just begin requiring bikes at stoplights to pull out of the lineup on two lane roads if there's more than five cars behind them.

you see, the dangers inherent in recognizing the legitimacy of "SMV-impeding-pull off roadway" laws as they could be broadly applied and misinterpreted against bicyclists.

bicyclists should not be subject to 'impeding-pull off roadway statutes for the reasons stated by the author at bicycledriving.org

" a broad version of this rule could be wrongly interpreted as prohibiting operation of bicycles or horse-drawn wagons whenever following drivers might be inconvenienced."

I hope everyone begins to grasp the gravity of this 'advocacy' messsage and the dangerous marginalization of bicyclists rights.

SMV-impeding- pull off roadway laws need to be fought if they apply to bicyclists. this is a bigger problem than FRAP laws as frap allows bicyclists to remain on the roadway regardless of traffic behind.

Someone correct me if I am wrong but the variations of the "slow moving vehicle-impeding-pull off roadway" laws are neither applicable nor applied on streets where traffic lights and gridlock are issues.

My understanding of them is that they only apply to vehicles intentionally moving slower than they can go (and significantly slower than the maximum posted speed). So, if you're stopping your car and refusing to move on a green light that's impeding traffic. If you're biking at a normal pace that's not. The laws, TMK, don't discriminate on type of road and are more for dealing with protests and accidents than bicycles and farm equipment.

IANAL.

Good thing the bicycle laws in Missouri are not like that...SMV....Drivers have to yeild to them here until is it safe to pass.




307.190. Riding To Right, Required For Bicycles And Motorized Bicycles
Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, except when making a left turn, when avoiding hazardous conditions, when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle or when on a one-way street. Bicyclists may ride abreast when not impeding other vehicles.


And we can use our Right arm to signal right!!!! Nice!

I don't believe there's anything false about that -- at least in Washington State, bicycles clearly are bound by the slow-moving vehicle statute. But that statute doesn't say anything close to what most people think it does.

It applies:

*Only on a two-lane road
*Only where passing in the oncoming lane is unsafe or illegal
*Only when the slow-moving vehicle has delayed five or more vehicles in a line

Once all those conditions apply, then the law does not require vehicles to pull over immediately, it requires them to pull over only when it is safe to do so.

i would stringently deny that WA code requires bicyclists to pull off the roadway as we are specifically granted the right to operate FRAP moving slower than traffic at the present time under bicycle specific RCW.

if indeed it does, it should not, or bikes would be de facto banned from busy two lane roads.

i would stringently deny that WA code requires bicyclists to pull off the roadway as we are specifically granted the right to operate FRAP moving slower than traffic at the present time under bicycle specific RCW.

if indeed it does, it should not, or bikes would be de facto banned from busy two lane roads.


I was in Seattle this fall and it seemed like a very bicycle friendly city compared to St Louis. Bikes were everywhere. Beautiful country I might add too! I cant imagine that the laws are interpreted as SMV regulations by the local authorities.

Of course. Who the hell takes their hand off the steering wheel to use the turn signal lever? It's not a button on the dashboard: it's placed so you can activate it without removing your left hand from its recommended position (somewhere between 8 and 10 o'clock: preferably 8 or 9 in airbag equipped cars).Virtually everyone I know except me. Then again, few of them even have that hand on the steering wheel in the first place.

complaints that bicyclists don't have equal rights to the roadway as operators of human powered vehicles because bikes don't have brake lights or remove their hands from the steering column to signal turns is just about the lamest discrimination against bicyclists from a bicyclist I've read in a looooong time.

cannot believe the level of marginalizations kicking around the american bicycling ethos.

Bek,

Are pull-off roadway SMV laws onerous for drivers of neighborhood electric vehicles, horse-drawn carriages, tractors, and other SMVs?

If they are onerous, then shouldn't the SMV laws be reformed to be less onerous for all SMV drivers?

If the laws are not onerous in the manner in which they are enforced, why should cyclists be exempted as a special group?

I fail to see why special treatment for cyclists is politically desirable. Why should we expect society to accept that NEV drivers, the Amish and farmers have to pull off the road, but a bicyclist doesn't? It seems to me that a much fairer, politically viable approach would be to clarify or reform SMV laws so that they cannot create significant problems for any operator whose speed is limited to slower than normal by the nature of their vehicle. I suggest that a minimum amount of time (e.g. a minute or three) should apply before an SMV driver should be expected to pull off at the next turnout. Does anyone have a better suggestion?

given the nature and large numbers of bicyclists relative to horse drawn carriages and tractors on roads today, i'd say yes, bicyclists are a class that deserves recognition.

in recognizance of bicycles nature of being slower than traffic on many two lane narrow roads bicyclists will be travelling upon, laws should reflect this. Due the inherent vulnerability of bicycle travel and its difficulty to reclaim a part of the roadway once having left it under marginally oppressive overtaking traffic conditions, laws should not require bicycles to be subject to 'smv-impeding-pull off roadway' laws.

the laws should recognize bicycles differently because of the effort and vulnerability inherent in travelling public rights of way by bicycle, and the narrowness of the vehicle, that a bicycle cannot impede traffic under 'smv-impeding-pull off roadway- laws.

electric vehicles are already fairly regulated by speed definitions to their travel duties, as are motor driven two and three wheeeled devices.

I know you're fond of advocating for the Segway, steve. ;) but keep cognizant of the applicability of the laws, the characteristics of traveling by bicycle and its presence as an everyday roadway vehicle versus the rare interloper of farm tractors or herds of cattle to market.

Pedestrians and bicyclists, as vulnerable, human powered road users, deserve treatment different than that for an operator of a motorized device. motorized devices are fairly regulated by states or the laws continue to clarify for these developing classes of vehicles.

Never fail to lose sight of the vulnerable, human powered roadway users, steve.

i would stringently deny that WA code requires bicyclists to pull off the roadway as we are specifically granted the right to operate FRAP moving slower than traffic at the present time under bicycle specific RCW.

if indeed it does, it should not, or bikes would be de facto banned from busy two lane roads.

Bicyclists are bound by all laws applicable to vehicles in general:


RCW 46.61.755
Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles.
(1) Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and
shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter,
except as to special regulations in RCW 46.61.750 through 46.61.780 and except as to
those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application.

The slow-moving vehicle law is written to apply to all vehicles, not only motor vehicles:


RCW 46.61.427

Slow-moving vehicle to pull off roadway.

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


Note also that the definition of a slow-moving vehicle is relative to the normal flow of traffic on that roadway at that time of day, not to the speed capacity of the vehicle itself: As used in this section a slow moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

As a political matter, if significant numbers of cyclists began to routinely flout this plainly-written law, that would provide good ammunition to those who would prefer a blanket ban on cyclists on faster two-lane roads. "Share the road" isn't a one-way obligation -- asking slow-moving vehicles, including cyclists, to occasionally move right when it is safe to do so is not a ban, or a de-facto ban. It's an alternative to a ban.

i suggest bicyclists not be bound by this statute as broad applicability of this law would de facto prevent practical travel by bicycle on many two lane roads.

if this is civil disobedience so be it, the laws should reflect no such duty be applied to bicyclists.


again, this is not on the radar at any WA state DOT website or any bike advocacy site for WA state. I am not convinced that a reading of the law as Joshua has done is the interpretation of the law in washington state.

given the nature and large numbers of bicyclists relative to horse drawn carriages and tractors on roads today, i'd say yes, bicyclists are a class that deserves recognition.

in recognizance of bicycles nature of being slower than traffic on many two lane narrow roads bicyclists will be travelling upon, laws should reflect this. Due the inherent vulnerability of bicycle travel and its difficulty to reclaim a part of the roadway once having left it under marginally oppressive overtaking traffic conditions, laws should not require bicycles to be subject to 'smv-impeding-pull off roadway' laws.

the laws should recognize bicycles differently because of the effort and vulnerability inherent in travelling public rights of way by bicycle, and the narrowness of the vehicle, that a bicycle cannot impede traffic under 'smv-impeding-pull off roadway- laws.

You appear to argue that an onerous law is okay as long as it only applies to a minority user like NEV and horsedrawn carriage operators, but that the onerous law should not apply to bicyclists because bicyclists are more numerous.

This is the exact line of reasoning that has placed onerous laws on minority bicyclists to benefit majority motorists. Bicyclist advocacy depends heavily on opposing this rationale. A minority road user does not deserve a special legal restriction merely for being in the minority unless there is some truly compelling, truly unavoidable operational problem that applies only to that user group, and the legal restriction is a reasonable mitigation of such .

Is there really an operational reason why NEVs and carriages deserve a pull-off-road requirement that is more onerous than what should be expected of cyclists? You argue that cyclists are narrow, and so traffic is less likely to back up. That's great; it merely means that cyclists won't face the pull-off-road requirement as often. But once traffic has backed up, say because the road is very narrow, why should the cyclist be allowed to proceed longer than the horsedrawn carriage operator before pulling over? You suggest that pulling back into the roadway is less safe or convenient for the cyclist than for others. I think the horsedrawn carriage driver would disagree.

It seems to me that it would be more ethical to word the law to minimize its difficulty for all SMV operators than to exempt cyclists and leave minority drivers of less popular SMVs screwed.

there is a core and fundamental difference between human powered locomotion and being propelled by an electric vehicle or in a horse drawn carriage!

a Tesla is an electric vehicle. hmm. and so are golf carts. how states best regulate these vehicles relative to bicycles suggests a different treatment.

some state have clarifed this in the past with 'driven off the highway' which indicates off road travel is even practicable for the operator of these devices, which is a core difference between a bike versus a horse drawn carriage.

you complain about debris readily when discussing facilites, steve. those 25s or whatever it is you ride would almost prevent you from riding off some roads. likely you would have to dismount and stand in gravel on the side of the road, patiently waiting for a sufficient gap in traffic to reclaim a 50 mph overloaded rural highway (very commonplace). i suspect on some roads i ride around the greater seattle area, it would take a bicyclists 2 hours to go 10 miles if they had to pull off a busy two lane road at soonest conveinence when five or more vehicles backed up behind.

there is a core and fundamental difference between human powered locomotion and being propelled by an electric vehicle or in a horse drawn carriage!

a Tesla is an electric vehicle. hmm. and so are golf carts. how states best regulate these vehicles relative to bicycles suggests a different treatment.

What difference do you believe is relevant to traffic law? Where do we draw the line between the bicycle, the electric-assisted bicycle, the electric moped, the electric motorcycle, the golf car, the NEV, the Chevy Volt and the Prius with the engine off when we consider traffic rules for public roadways? Why?

well, for starters, 'vulnerable users' of public roads include pedestrians and bicyclists, operators under human power.

seems simple enough of a distinction to start.

And motorcyclists!

Remember, those who try to create or enforce discriminatory laws to kick cyclists out of the roadway use vulnerability as an excuse all the time. It isn't an effective argument in favor of keeping a cyclist on the roadway longer than the backhoe driver when traffic is following.

That a bicyclist should consider themselves as if they were a backhoe is wishful thinking on the respect a bicyclist can get while driving on public roadways. sure, a bike and a backhoe should be considered synonymous :rolleyes:

think - vulnerable road users steve. peds and bicyclists.

motorcyclists can, luckily, proceed at the prevailing speed of traffic and their motor displacement of many makes legal and practical use of interstates and other limited access roadways.

these are all ancillary to the discussion that a bicyclist should not be considered capable of impeding traffic under SMV-impeding-pull of roadway laws.

kick cyclists off of the roadway? the only real 'kicking off the roadway' i see is asking to be considered capable of 'SMV-impeding-pull off roadway" laws and those circumscribing mandatory sidepath use.

mandatory sidepath use would continue to be a minority issue in states compared to the widespread applicability of SMV-I-POR laws, as roads with sidepaths are an extreme minority of road miles compared to busy two lane roads -'highways'. in California for example, the ratio of narrow two lane roads to roads with sidepaths (not that CA has a sidepath law) would likely be thousands to one.

FRAP and bikelane laws ensure continued roadway use by bicyclist.

Uniform, vehicle-agnostic traffic laws are elegant in the way they focus on the position and movements of vehicles. The source of locomotion has little relevance to effective collision avoidance, and in those rare cases where the law would require a driver to perform an action that is physically impossible for that vehicle type, the law exempts the driver in that situation. I am happy that NC is one of the most vehicle-agnostic in terms of its traffic laws; this makes it much easier to obey the law when switching from one vehicle type to another.

Vulnerability is a valid reason why other drivers should operate cautiously around cyclists and pedestrians. This is a basic requirement in the traffic law - to operate safely. However, it doesn't mean we should provide special priviledges to one group over another.

thats a nice sugar coating.

That a bicyclist should consider themselves as if they were a backhoe is wishful thinking on the respect a bicyclist can get while driving on public roadways. sure, a bike and a backhoe should be considered synonymous .

So let's think about this. I'm a motorist following a backhoe on a two lane, and the backhoe driver pulls over to let backed up traffic pass after a two minutes. Then I come upon a cyclist taking the lane. Several minutes go by and the cyclist does not pull over.Eventually I can pass. I feel annoyed, so I ask the police about the law. The police say the backhoe driver has to pull over, but the cyclist does not. Why, should I, the motorist, think that this makes sense?

well, consider reframing the argument with the focus on a vulnerable road user (as well as the operating characteristics of a bicycle) and you will find your answer.

you used to consider yourself an advocate for vulnerable road users, didn't you? should be painfully obvious.

FWIW, I don't believe that it's legal to ban human-powered transport from the roadway unless a viable alternate route exists. There is a right to travel, not actually in the constitution but closely related and it has been upheld many times. This is why in some areas, bicycles are allowed to travel on limited-access expressways; there's no reasonable alternate route that isn't tens of miles or more out of the way.

From my house, for instance, there is nothing BUT 2 lane, high speed roadways for many miles around. Saying I couldn't ride a bike on 2 lane high speed roads is the same as saying I can't ride a bike at all.