Vehicular Cycling (VC) - can cyclists take the lane when there's no traffic in California?

judging from the recent thread, there are some in the cycling education and advocacy community that would have cyclists believe that they are prohibited from travelling away from the edge absent a legal excuse.

Well, this ec effective curbhug is marginal and potentially unsafe road positioning advice and does not recognize cyclists in most states are free, absent other faster traffic present at the time, to operate on the right hand side of the road, then pull safely right, as far right as is practicable when faster traffic is overtaking.

this is the case in about two thirds of the states: there are only about a dozen, like ohio, that legally require cyclists to stay safely right, presumably in anticipation of faster traffic overtaking. most other states have no such constrainment, and cyclists are free to


.... clearly, if there is no same-direction traffic anywhere about, the cyclist is permitted to obey the standard rules of the road....."


cyclists, cycling educators, or cycling authors that try to advise cyclists are constrained to curbhug as a default position unless there is an excuse, under their personal misinterpretation of cyclists rights, are doing cyclists a grave disfavor when they marginalize cyclists rights.

do not listen to overly simplistic constrainments to operate at the edge of the road using an EC, effective curbhugging method. it is unwise and it is potentially unsafe riding with a marginalized and false sense of where to position oneself on the road.

check your state traffic codes. In california, cyclists are clearly and explicitly required to operate FRAP only when there is faster traffic present. the law only requires frap when there is faster traffic present at the time, otherwise simply riding on the right side of the middle of the road (generally) meets the legal demands of cyclists in California and a preponderate majority of other states.

riding an effective curbhug is NOT the law in most states. Do not listen to those that marginalize with their misleading effective curbhugging advice.

I live in washington state, another state that requires cyclists operate frap when other traffic is present. I am legally allowed to operate well away from the far right side of the road unless there is faster traffic present.

This allows me on my daily rides to maximize my sightlines and visibility to oncoming, overtaking and cross traffic when there is no other faster traffic needing to overtake. I am allowed to position myself in the middle of unstriped neighborhood roads and collector streets without a middle line, and can legally position myself a foot from the center dividing line on striped, laned roads unless there is faster traffic present at the time.

This style of vehicular cycling has been characterized by John Franklin as using primary/secondary road positioning - operating in a primary road & lane position absent overtaking traffic, and only moving to a secondary ,as far right as practicable position to allow faster traffic to pass. This reflects the laws in most states, the standards in the UVC as well as unwritten fair duties sharing roads with faster traffic.

This primary/secondary positioning is legally allowed by bicyclists in both california and washington state - states that some bicycling educators would have cyclists believe are 'constrained to the edge' of roads unless a legal excuse is demonstrated.

the 'legally constrained to the edge absent an excuse' EC curbhug is an inaccurate misrepresentation of cyclists rights in most states.

can cyclists take the lane when there's no traffic in California?


Yes, can and do, all the time.

The FRAP law in CA specifies:


21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.

Since this little clause exists right there in the beginning, "at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time," when I am the only traffic, obviously I must be the normal traffic, I can and do use any part of the road I chose to use.

Who's to stop me or complain? This is sort of along the lines of "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound."

Now bear in mind that due to the exceptions of the FRAP law, I also can and do chose to use any part of the lane/road any time I feel a need to do so... so about the only time I do ride to the right is when I feel that it is safe to do so.

Where I ride on the road depends on how much road there is, rather than how much traffic or what speed the traffic is moving.

I don't take the lane for any political cause celebre such as Chipseal in Texas (http://chipsea.blogspot.com/), I take the lane for reasons of practicality and safety. Frankly, if there is a nice wide shoulder on a road, and I feel there are no safety concerns involved in the use of the shoulder, then I can, and do use that part of the roadway as freely and easily as any other part of the roadway. I see no reason to do otherwise and I have cycled and bike toured for well over 30 years successfully with that methodology.

But again, to directly answer the question of the OP... YES!

http://i641.photobucket.com/albums/uu132/gavriel_bucket/bicyclesalloweduseoffulllane_80.jpg

I often take the lane even with traffic because many lanes are just too narrow to share.

I'm as free as a breeze
And I ride where I please
Saddle tramp, saddle tramp

I can ride away from the edge of the road even when there is other traffic, the legal fantasies of others notwithstanding.

How cyclists interpret FRAP laws and how police interpret them are often two different things.

I've been pulled over by police for riding in the center of an 11' lane on a 4-lane urban street; the officer thought I was supposed to hug the curb.

Talking a cop out of a ticket (and avoiding being pulled over in the first place) would be easier if the traffic laws were worded so control of a travel lane was the rule and staying right within the lane the exception, rather than the other way around.

How cyclists interpret FRAP laws and how police interpret them are often two different things.

I've been pulled over by police for riding in the center of an 11' lane on a 4-lane urban street; the officer thought I was supposed to hug the curb.

Talking a cop out of a ticket (and avoiding being pulled over in the first place) would be easier if the traffic laws were worded so control of a travel lane was the rule and staying right within the lane the exception, rather than the other way around.

Agreed. I carry a copy of the laws with me, just to make it easier for the officer to find them... . Of course those wallet size cards are also handy for handing out to motorists too.

How cyclists interpret FRAP laws and how police interpret them are often two different things.

oh absolutely. contrary to california's fairly weakly worded FRAP law, colorado's bike laws are about as strong as they can get.

Cyclists should still share the roads when safe to do so. Colorado and California both codify that with a FRAP requirement for bicyclists if the lane is wide enough to share, same as most other states. Colorado not california offers strongly worded affirmation to the cyclists use of the right hand lane when travelling slower than other traffic.

The colorado law may be the best US state law there is directing cyclists right to the travel lane. cyclists are still getting harassed by police and other officials in colorado. go figure.

What's really unfortunate is cyclists telling other cyclists the incorrect information about the laws, egregiously misleading with their unsafe interpretations.

can cyclists take the lane when there's no traffic in California? well, shucks, of course. same as with most states.

21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

Yes, this means that cyclists can take the lane if they are the only thing on the road.

It also means that "traffic" doesn't include "bicycles" and that bicycles cannot define/dictate/establish "normal speed".

=============

How the hell is this thread any different than the one that was locked?

bicycles aren't 'traffic'? what?



and as to the second point, what if there are more bicyclists than motor vehicles? ;)

bicycles aren't 'traffic'? what?
Clearly, in this law, the word "traffic" doesn't include bicycles. If it did, the law would be a logical absurdity.


and as to the second point, what if there are more bicyclists than motor vehicles? ;)
The law clearly establishes bicycles as not the thing that establishes "normal speed", be there one or many.

doubtful interpretations of law, as bicycles would be considered 'traffic' in most states and considered to have duties and rights of drivers of vehicles most places too.

pedestrians, horseback riders, bicyclists, motor vehicles, Conastoga wagons are all 'traffic'. there's no basis that the wording 'normal traffic' doesn't include bicyclists.

more bicyclists means bicyclists are the prevailing and normal traffic on a route, this is debatable yet arguably supported position, but off topic nonetheless.

Clearly, in this law, the word "traffic" doesn't include bicycles. If it did, the law would be a logical absurdity.


The law clearly establishes bicycles as not the thing that establishes "normal speed", be there one or many.

Uh, how does the law establish bicycles as "not traffic" or as not being able to establish "normal speed." I guess I missed this clause somewhere in that law. BTW a local judge tried that same "conclusion" in his judgment against a cyclist, and it was dismissed on appeal. Normal speed was ruled as speed of traffic, which included bicycles... and not the posted speed limit, which was what the judge had claimed.

There is no implication in 21202 that bikes cannot establish either normal speed nor be traffic.

As for logic absurdity... the law merely states "normal speed of traffic moving... " and doesn't establish that cyclists are not traffic. The laws that govern slow moving vehicles also uses similar phrasing...


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

Such phrasing does not suddenly render a slow moving vehicle as something other than "traffic."

Uh, how does the law establish bicycles as "not traffic" or as not being able to establish "normal speed." I guess I missed this clause somewhere in that law.
"Traffic" in this law is not talking about bicycles. The term in this law refers to a group of vehicles that are not bicycles.


There is no implication in 21202 that bikes cannot establish either normal speed nor be traffic.

If a bicycle can establish "normal speed", then they can't be travelling at less than "normal speed".

Keep in mind that we are not talking about the "no other vehicles around" case.
Nor, are we talking about the "travelling at the same speed" case (which is explicitly allowed).

That is, the CA law clearly is talking about two separate classes of vehicles: 1) bicycles and 2) traffic travelling faster than bicycles.

but when one of many vehicles at a place and time, a cyclist may find themselves slower than the rest of the normal traffic!


:ride:

"Traffic" in this law is not talking about bicycles. The term in this law refers to a group of vehicles that are not bicycles.



If a bicycle can establish "normal speed", then they can't be travelling at less than "normal speed".



Keep in mind that we are not talking about the "no other vehicles around" case.
Nor, are we talking about the "travelling at the same speed" case (which is explicitly allowed).

That is, the CA law clearly is talking about two separate classes of vehicles: 1) bicycles and 2) traffic travelling faster than bicycles.

By your logic, a slow moving vehicle is then also "not traffic." Does 21656 also create two separate classes of vehicles?

But by definition in CA law a bicycle is not a vehicle, hence the need for the 21202 law. Bicycles are defined as human powered devices.

By your logic, a slow moving vehicle is then also "not traffic." Does 21656 also create two separate classes of vehicles?
Yes, ones operating at "normal speed" and ones operating at slower speeds. The only property that distinguishes the two classes is speed. That is obvious.

In the bicycle law, the law talks about bicycles.


Turning Out of Slow-Moving Vehicles

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

============


But by definition in CA law a bicycle is not a vehicle, hence the need for the 21202 law. Bicycles are defined as human powered devices.
But bicycles have to be operated like vehicles. Traffic laws applying to vehicles also applies to bicycles (being operated).


21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including

This indicates that laws talking about the operation of vehicles applies to bicyclists (operators of bicycles). (Unless an exception is made for bicycles/bicyclists.)

but when one of many vehicles at a place and time, a cyclist may find themselves slower than the rest of the normal traffic!


:ride:

This doesn't make any sense.

It's not "normal traffic" in the law. It's "normal speed".

California Vehicle Code 620: The term 'traffic' includes pedestrians, ridden animals, vehicles, street cars, and other conveyances, either singly or together, while using any highway for purposes of travel.

Thanks, John Forester for finding the relevant definition.



This doesn't make any sense.

It's not "normal traffic" in the law. It's "normal speed".

HEY! YOU said bicyclists aren't traffic, but we are normal traffic, sometimes operating at speeds slower than the normal speed of all the rest of the normal traffic out there.

:rolleyes:

In most states the laws are clearly written that other traffic certainly has to be present to require a cyclist or any other normal ;) vehicle to operate FRAP.

HEY! YOU said bicyclists aren't traffic, but we are normal traffic, sometimes operating at speeds slower than the normal speed of all the rest of the normal traffic out there.

The bicycle law doesn't say "normal traffic". It says "normal speed". It does not any faster speed.

A bicycle or car driving at 10 mph isn't likely to be interpreted as a "normal speed" for a 55 mph road (ignoring conditions, like fog or snow, that might cause people to travel slower).

Note that the law does not require cyclists to move to the right for any faster traffic.

What does "normal speed" mean? How does a cyclist determine whether they are travelling slower than the "normal speed"?

Motor vehicles define the "normal speed" for bicycles (not vice versa). (Note that "speeding" is not likely to be considered "normal speed". This means the speed limit provides a cap to the "normal speed".)


California Vehicle Code 620: The term 'traffic' includes pedestrians, ridden animals, vehicles, street cars, and other conveyances, either singly or together, while using any highway for purposes of travel.
You mean people walking in the middle of the lane can determine "normal speed"?

The bicycle law doesn't say "normal traffic". It says "normal speed". It does not any faster speed.


It says normal speed of traffic... The normal speed of traffic is NOT dictated by the posted speed LIMIT. This is a concept that far too many motorists fail to understand.




A bicycle or car driving at 10 mph isn't likely to be interpreted as a "normal speed" for a 55 mph road (ignoring conditions, like fog or snow, that might cause people to travel slower).

Note that the law does not require cyclists to move to the right for any faster traffic.

What does "normal speed" mean? How does a cyclist determine whether they are travelling slower than the "normal speed"?

Motor vehicles define the "normal speed" for bicycles (not vice versa). (Note that "speeding" is not likely to be considered "normal speed". This means the speed limit provides a cap to the "normal speed".)




Motor vehicles do not determine the normal speed... traffic determines the normal speed. If the road is filled with walking people, all traffic will move at the speed of walking people. If the road is filled with cyclists, cyclists as traffic determine the normal speed. If the road is filled with motor vehicles... then they as traffic determine the normal speed... and if they are moving at a snail's pace as in "bumper to bumper traffic," then a cyclist may indeed pass on the left and leave the slower traffic to the right.



You mean people walking in the middle of the lane can determine "normal speed"?

Yup, if they make up the majority of traffic... happens quite often when people take to the streets... and this is the very heart of what CM** is... when cyclists make up the majority of traffic, they determine the normal speed.


**now that said, understand that CM has in fact in many places deteriorated to an event that is tangential to the original concept. (I am not a supporter of CM for that reason)

It says normal speed of traffic... The normal speed of traffic is NOT dictated by the posted speed LIMIT. This is a concept that far too many motorists fail to understand.
As I said, the "normal speed" is limited by the speed limit. That is, the "normal speed" can't really be higher than the speed limit because then the law would be allowing an illegal act.



Motor vehicles do not determine the normal speed... traffic determines the normal speed. If the road is filled with walking people, all traffic will move at the speed of walking people. If the road is filled with cyclists, cyclists as traffic determine the normal speed.
No, all of these example, while they force the speed, define an abnormal speed.

Keep in mind that you are required to be in control of your vehicle and be able to stop for obstacles (that means you can't run into things or over people even if they are acting illegally).


and if they are moving at a snail's pace as in "bumper to bumper traffic," then a cyclist may indeed pass on the left and leave the slower traffic to the right.
We aren't talking about passing (which is allowed by another law).

Anyway, cyclists would not be travelling slower than the "normal speed", which means the law we are talking about doesn't apply.

As I said, the "normal speed" is limited by the speed limit. That is, the "normal speed" can't really be higher than the speed limit because then the law would be allowing an illegal act.



No, because any speed would be "normal".

A car travelling at 10 mph on an otherwise empty 55 mph highway doesn't define "normal speed".


We aren't talking about passing (which is allowed by another law).

If the highway is empty... except for one car moving at 10MPH... what is the normal speed of traffic, at that time? Bear in mind that both 21202 and 21656 both use the term "at that time."

How can the normal speed of traffic at that time be anything but the speed that the only traffic at that time is moving?

If the highway is empty... except for one car moving at 10MPH... what is the normal speed of traffic, at that time? Bear in mind that both 21202 and 21656 both use the term "at that time."

How can the normal speed of traffic at that time be anything but the speed that the only traffic at that time is moving?

Clearly, traffic has to exist at that time. 10 mph on a highway isn't "normal" (ignoring conditions that might require low speeds).

The law doesn't say "any speed". It doesn't say "faster speed". It says "slower than normal speed" (ie, "normal" means "usual, typical").

Clearly, traffic has to exist at that time. 10 mph on a highway isn't "normal"

pretty normal on the 405 :P

Clearly, traffic has to exist at that time. 10 mph on a highway isn't "normal" (ignoring conditions that might require low speeds).

The law doesn't say "any speed". It doesn't say "faster speed". It says "slower than normal speed" (ie, "normal" means "usual, typical").

The law says the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time... since the normal speed of traffic at any time can vary quite a bit... the speed of traffic can be anything, depending on the traffic.... even 10MPH, as does indeed does occur often on highways, at some time.

If there is only one car, they are traffic, and therefore the speed at which they are traveling at that time is the normal speed of traffic, at that time.

The law says the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time... since the normal speed of traffic at any time can vary quite a bit... the speed of traffic can be anything, depending on the traffic.... even 10MPH, as does indeed does occur often on highways, at some time.

If there is only one car, they are traffic, and therefore the speed at which they are traveling at that time is the normal speed of traffic, at that time.

No. A single car travelling at 10 mph on a 55 mph highway isn't travelling at a "normal" speed. If a cop saw such a car, they would probably think the driver was drunk and pull them over. They might even get a ticket for something.

There is some law that says that drivers have to travel at a speed that is safe and consistent with conditions. It's that that allows a car to travel at 10 mph. You can't poke along for no reason at 10mph down a freeway!

If a single vehicle could dictate the "normal speed", then a single bicycle could dictate the "normal speed" and never have to move to the right.

No random group (a jury) of people (mostly drivers) would likely agree that such a speed or behavior is "normal".


pretty normal on the 405 :P
Not if it's empty (I'd suspect)!

How obtuse.


What does "normal speed" mean? How does a cyclist determine whether they are travelling slower than the "normal speed"?

Motor vehicles define the "normal speed" for bicycles (not vice versa).

making an argument with claims that cyclists first are NOT traffic, and then claiming that motor vehicles not even present set a 'normal' speed for a bicyclist is about the glibest nonsequitur about bicycling I've seen in here in a long time!




How DOES a cyclist determine if they are travelling the normal speed of traffic present at the time? First off, they attempt to locate other traffic present.... :roflmao:



The law doesn't say "any speed". It doesn't say "faster speed". It says "slower than normal speed" (ie, "normal" means "usual, typical").

BZZZZZT. Incorrect. the law doesn't say 'slower than the normal speed', the California law states "Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time and most state laws state reflect some version of the UVC that clearly states 'slower than the normal speed of traffic at the present time and place and under conditions then existing' or some other, unique in time and place qualifier on the applicability of the FRAP requirement.

This reminds me of "If a tree falls in a forest and there is no (animal) around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

No. A single car travelling at 10 mph on a 55 mph highway isn't travelling at a "normal" speed. If a cop saw such a car, they would probably think the driver was drunk and pull them over. They might even get a ticket for something.

There is some law that says that drivers have to travel at a speed that is safe and consistent with conditions. It's that that allows a car to travel at 10 mph. You can't poke along for no reason at 10mph down a freeway!

If a single vehicle could dictate the "normal speed", then a single bicycle could dictate the "normal speed" and never have to move to the right.

No random group (a jury) of people (mostly drivers) would likely agree that such a speed or behavior is "normal".


Not if it's empty (I'd suspect)!

The irony of your statement is obvious... "move over for what?" If they are the only vehicle on the road, then that vehicle IS traveling at the normal speed, no matter what that speed is... and yes 10MPH could then be the normal speed. If a cop pulled you over, then you were not the only car on the road, or the only vehicle.

If a cyclist has to move over, then they too are not the only vehicle, and the "normal speed" changes. If the motorist slowed down to the cyclists' speed before attempting a pass... hey, guess what, that just became the "normal speed," as all vehicles on that stretch of the road are now traveling at "the normal speed."

The law does not say "posted speed." The normal speed for any road varies due to a wide set of conditions... and those conditions are covered under the Basic Speed Law.

BTW unless you are on a posted freeway there is no minimum speed limit... so if a cop did pull you over because you were doing 10MPH, and you were sober, and your vehicle was legal... what could they ticket you for... obstructing traffic... possibly, as the cop was the only other traffic, but in the absence of the cop, you are not in violation of any other law.

The irony of your statement is obvious... "move over for what?" If they are the only vehicle on the road...
I suspect that the primary motivation for the "keep to the right" laws is to avoid issues with large speed differentials. The general problem is that no one is "the only vehicle on the road" for very long.


If they are the only vehicle on the road, then that vehicle IS traveling at the normal speed, no matter what that speed is... and yes 10MPH could then be the normal speed.

No, this is not correct. "Normal" isn't defined by whatever is possible or whatever people do.


The law does not say "posted speed." The normal speed for any road varies due to a wide set of conditions... and those conditions are covered under the Basic Speed Law.
??? I didn't say anything about "posted speed".


If a cyclist has to move over, then they too are not the only vehicle, and the "normal speed" changes.
No, this is logically incorrect because that means the cyclist would define what "normal speed" is and never have to move over!


]If the motorist slowed down to the cyclists' speed before attempting a pass[/B]... hey, guess what, that just became the "normal speed," as all vehicles on that stretch of the road are now traveling at "the normal speed."
No, this is logically incorrect because that means the cyclist would define what "normal speed" is and never have to move over!


so if a cop did pull you over because you were doing 10MPH, and you were sober, and your vehicle was legal... what could they ticket you for... obstructing traffic... possibly, as the cop was the only other traffic, but in the absence of the cop, you are not in violation of any other law.
The cop would pull you over because the speed you were doing is abnormal!

And if you are "impeding traffic", you are not driving at the normal speed (that's what "impeding traffic" means!). And, if you are driving at the "normal speed", you aren't impeding traffic.

===============

Clearly, "normal speed" is not an exact value. But it isn't generally defined by unusually slow vehicles.

I realize reading is hard but I didn't say a bicycle would have to "move over" if there were no other vehicles around.

"Normal speed" isn't defined by whatever is possible.


??? I didn't say anything about "posted speed".


No, this is logically incorrect because that means the cyclist defines what "normal speed" is and never have to move over!


No, this is logically incorrect because that means the cyclist defines what "normal speed" is and never have to move over!

===============

Clearly, "normal speed" is not an exact value. But it isn't generally defined by unusually slow vehicles.

Normal speed is defined by the speed of the vehicles in use at the time and the speed they are traveling. If the road were filled with horse drawn wagons (parade) that is the normal speed. If the road is filled with bumper to bumper motor vehicles moving at 2 MPH (rush hour) that is the normal speed.

In the latter instance a cyclist passed motor vehicles that were moving very slowly, he was ticketed for moving from the right, but on appeal the city attorney determined that since the normal speed at the time was quite slow, there was no provision for the cyclist to stay to the right.


The ruling was reversed by the City Attorney because Woolley was riding at a speed greater than traffic. The Judge had made his ruling based on what the posted speed limit was on El Cajon Boulevard (35 mph), not based on what the speed of traffic on the road actually was at the time of the incident.
from http://www.bikesd.org/2009/12/city-attorneys-office-finally-clarifies-cvc-21202a/

Conditions dictate "normal speed" and indeed it can be defined by "unusually" slow vehicles, whether those vehicles are motor vehicles or not.

As to whether a cyclist could define "normal speed" is still somewhat debatable as cyclists in CA are not defined as vehicles, but "human powered devices."

If the road were filled with horse drawn wagons (parade) that is the normal speed.
There are laws that make exceptions for "parades" ("exceptions" don't define "normal").


If the road is filled with bumper to bumper motor vehicles moving at 2 MPH (rush hour) that is the normal speed.
Yes, obviously. The law does not require anybody to break physical laws. And your words and examples clearly indicate that it isn't a single vehicle that defines what "normal" is!


Conditions dictate "normal speed"
No one is arguing that "conditions" play a part in determining what "normal speed" is.


indeed it can be defined by "unusually" slow vehicles, whether those vehicles are motor vehicles or not.
No, if they could reasonably speed up, pull over, or keep to the right, they would "indeed" be impeding traffic (in some way). That is, they would not be driving the "normal speed".


As to whether a cyclist could define "normal speed" is still somewhat debatable as cyclists in CA are not defined as vehicles, but "human powered devices."
They can't because then they would never have to move over!

That is, if they could define the "normal speed", the "move over" law would be a logical absurdity!

If one's interpretation of a law is logically absurd, it's not the correct interpretation!


The ruling was reversed by the City Attorney because Woolley was riding at a speed greater than traffic. The Judge had made his ruling based on what the posted speed limit was on El Cajon Boulevard (35 mph), not based on what the speed of traffic on the road actually was at the time of the incident.
So what? The law only talks about going slower than the normal speed. Anyway, I never said that "normal speed" was exclusively defined by the posted speed limit.

There are laws that make exceptions for "parades" ("exceptions" don't define "normal").


Yes, obviously. The law does not require anybody to break physical laws. And your words and examples clearly indicate that it isn't a single vehicle that defines what "normal" is!


No one is arguing that "conditions" play a part in determining what "normal speed" is.


No, if they could reasonably speed up, pull over, or keep to the right, they would "indeed" be impeding traffic (in some way). That is, they would not be driving the "normal speed".


They can't because then they would never have to move over!

That is, if they could define the "normal speed", the "move over" law would be a logical absurdity!

If one's interpretation of a law is logically absurd, it's not the correct interpretation!


So what? The law only talks about going slower than the normal speed. Anyway, I never said that "normal speed" was exclusively defined by the posted speed limit.

No, you are trying to break down what "normal speed" is. Normal speed is the speed of traffic at that point at that time. If "traffic" is one bike, then normal speed is the speed of that one bike.

If traffic is one bike and a car that has slowed down to the cyclist's speed, then the "normal speed of traffic" (the cyclist and motorist) is the speed they are both traveling. If another bike somehow shows up, then normal speed is the speed that two cyclists and one motor vehicle are now moving. (a person in a car has no special privilege to demand that everyone speed up to suit them... if a cyclist is in front of a motor vehicle and taking the lane, there is no requirement for the cyclist to pull over for a single motorist... and the speed at which they are moving is considered normal) If somewhere a light turns green and 20 cars now show up, and they are moving at twice that previous speed, the new "normal" is defined at twice the previous speed. (and due to the sheer number of cars now showing up, a slower vehicle DOES have an obligation to give way)

But clearly if there is one (either cyclist or motor vehicle, or horse drawn carriage or golf cart) "vehicle" moving alone on an isolated section of road, the speed that "vehicle" is moving is the normal speed. (I put vehicle in quotes in that last sentence as not all of those things in parenthesis are considered vehicles)

Now rather than dicing and slicing my comments, you tell me what is "normal speed." It certainly isn't the posted speed... and clearly it can be any speed up to and even beyond the posted speed (according to the Basic Speed Law). At rush hour, it may be one speed, and at other times, it can be yet a different speed.... all of which are normal.

The definition, for the sake of the CA law, is what is a cyclist doing compared to the speed everyone else is doing. If the cyclist is at or above the speed of everyone else (their "normal speed") there is no requirement to ride to the right. And that means a cyclist may take the lane when there is no traffic in California.

What is illogical is determining that everyone (or one) has to speed up if someone faster comes along... the driver/vehicle/cyclist arriving on the scene from behind has a clear obligation to avoid hitting the driver/vehicle/cyclist/wagon/tractor in front... the one in front has no obligation to move (until there are 5 or more following) and can maintain their position if indeed it is the safest thing to do. This is often well illustrated on curvy mountain roads.

No, you are trying to break down what "normal speed" is. Normal speed is the speed of traffic at that point at that time. If "traffic" is one bike, then normal speed is the speed of that one bike.
You have no idea what "normal" means.


If traffic is one bike and a car that has slowed down to the cyclist's speed, then the "normal speed of traffic" (the cyclist and motorist) is the speed they are both traveling.
No, because that would means the "keep to the right" law has no meaning. This interpretation makes the "keep to the right" law magically disappear!


If another bike somehow shows up, then normal speed is the speed that two cyclists and one motor vehicle are now moving.
Again, you don't really know what "normal" means. You are using some other (incorrect) definition of what "normal" means to reflect what you want the law to mean. (Bek does this routinely.)


(a person in a car has no special privilege to demand that everyone speed up to suit them... if a cyclist is in front of a motor vehicle and taking the lane, there is no requirement for the cyclist to pull over for a single motorist...
A person on a bicycle or a car has no special privilege to "demand" that other traffic be forced to slow down for them. Car drivers would be violating the "impeding traffic" law and bicyclists would be violating the "keep to the right" law.


and the speed at which they are moving is considered normal)
You have no idea what "normal" means. At this point, I'd suggest looking it up.


But clearly if there is one (either cyclist or motor vehicle, or horse drawn carriage or golf cart) "vehicle" moving alone on an isolated section of road, the speed that "vehicle" is moving is the normal speed. (I put vehicle in quotes in that last sentence as not all of those things in parenthesis are considered vehicles)
You have no idea what "normal" means. At this point, I'd suggest looking it up.


Now rather than dicing and slicing my comments, you tell me what is "normal speed." It certainly isn't the posted speed... and clearly it can be any speed up to and even beyond the posted speed (according to the Basic Speed Law). At rush hour, it may be one speed, and at other times, it can be yet a different speed.... all of which are normal.
No one is claiming that it is always the "posted" speed (if it where, the law would say that.

In rush hour, a bicyclist would likely not be travelling slower than normal traffic at that time. Outside of rush hour, somebody driving or riding at rush hour speeds would not be driving at the normal speed for that time. This is more than obvious.

The definition, for the sake of the CA law, is what is a cyclist doing compared to the speed everyone else is doing.


If the cyclist is at or above the speed of everyone else (their "normal speed") there is no requirement to ride to the right. And that means a cyclist may take the lane when there is no traffic in California.
Why are you talking about this other law? For that law, if the cyclist can travel at the same speed as other traffic, they don't have to move right. No one is disputing that and it isn't relevant to the case where the cyclist is riding slower than normal speed because it is a different law.


What is illogical is determining that everyone (or one) has to speed up if someone faster comes along... the driver/vehicle/cyclist arriving on the scene from behind has a clear obligation to avoid hitting the driver/vehicle/cyclist/wagon/tractor in front...
???? The law always requires avoiding hitting things and avoiding injuring people. We aren't talking about running into people (the law doesn't allow that).

Anyway, the law does not require "everyone" to speed up (you are making this part up). Bicyclists can move right without changing there speed.


the one in front has no obligation to move (until there are 5 or more following)
The CA "pull out" law applies to motor vehicles. If the person in front is riding a bicycle, they would have to move to the right if travelling slower than normal traffic. There's a law explicitly for that.


can maintain their position if indeed it is the safest thing to do. This is often well illustrated on curvy mountain roads.
Again, the law basically requires "safety" first. The "keep to the right" bicycle laws also list conditions that remove this requirement for bicycles.

2 bicyclists encounter a lone motorist wanting to pass on a lonely road in california.

......at that time and place, who is establishing the normal speed of traffic?

Now rather than dicing and slicing my comments, you tell me what is "normal speed." It certainly isn't the posted speed... and clearly it can be any speed up to and even beyond the posted speed (according to the Basic Speed Law). At rush hour, it may be one speed, and at other times, it can be yet a different speed.... all of which are normal.
No one is claiming that it is always the "posted" speed (if it where, the law would say that.

In rush hour, a bicyclist would likely not be travelling slower than normal traffic at that time. Outside of rush hour, somebody driving or riding at rush hour speeds would not be driving at the normal speed for that time. This is more than obvious.

2 bicyclists encounter a lone motorist wanting to pass on a lonely road in california.

......at that time and place, who is establishing the normal speed of traffic?
???? What is the motorist passing? How fast are people travelling??

are we even having the same discussion?

why the anger over bicyclists being allowed to take the lane when there's no traffic in california, as well as being considered traffic in that state? chill, dude.

Bueller, Bueller......

why the anger over bicyclists being allowed to take the lane when there's no traffic in california, as well as being considered traffic in that state? chill, dude.
I personally don't care what they do (as long as they are reasonable about it). But the law is what it says (not what you imagine it to be).

Also, I suspect that a bicyclists won't have any legal problem as long as they are being reasonable.

yes, the law says what the law says regarding operation of a bicycle in california.


(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.

cogent to this discussion:

when there's no other traffic, cyclists are legally allowed to take the lane. cyclists only need to share the road when there's other traffic to share with, and bicyclists are certainly allowed to take the lane if their safety dictates it, even in the presence of faster traffic wanting to pass.

CVC21202 is pretty clean and unequivocal in statute.

Interpretations of CVC21202, however, as njkayaker so abundantly illustrates, are less absolute.

I'd suggest looking it up.

Normal; conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

The normal speed is the common speed... so for a cyclist, "normal" is somewhere likely less than 20MPH.

The CVC uses the wording "at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time" signifying that whatever traffic there is, defines "normal;" the wording also states "at that time."

The CVC also defines traffic as just about anything using the roadway... including pedestrians or ridden animals. Clearly the normal speed of ridden animals is generally less than what you are thinking, and since traffic includes ridden animals, they can define the normal speed at that time to be far lower that what you have imagined.


V C Section 620 Traffic
Traffic

620. The term "traffic" includes pedestrians, ridden animals, vehicles, street cars, and other conveyances, either singly or together, while using any highway for purposes of travel..

Now no matter how you slice and dice my comments, you somehow seem to be hung up on the fact that a cyclist, alone, can take the lane when there is no traffic in California...


BTW you are completely wrong on this point:
A person on a bicycle or a car has no special privilege to "demand" that other traffic be forced to slow down for them. Car drivers would be violating the "impeding traffic" law and bicyclists would be violating the "keep to the right" law.

All traffic must give way to traffic in front of them, regardless of speed. If this were not true, there would be constant rear end collisions on the streets and those making such rear end collisions would not be considered generally guilty. A motorist must slow down for slower traffic ahead, and must keep watch for such slower traffic, that is the law, that is physics and that is very logical. This is why it is prudent to drive within your sight lines... and not just go as fast as you want or even as fast as the posted speed.

Oh and why do I keep mentioning the posted speed... far too many motorists see the posted speed as the speed which they must maintain... they fail to understand that the posted speed is a LIMIT, not the desired speed, not the normal speed, and not a speed they must drive.... The basic speed law covers the speed they should drive, regardless of the posted speed.


Basic Speed Law

22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.

The normal speed is the common speed... so for a cyclist, "normal" is somewhere likely less than 20MPH.
No, because if "normal speed" always was 20 mph (or less), cyclists would never be travelling less than normal speed and they'd never have to move over. Normal speed doesn't become 20 mph by the mere presence of a single cyclist.

"Common" doesn't mean "just cyclists". And cyclists are not usually "common". That means that "common" includes other vehicles.

Outside of rush hour, somebody driving or riding at rush hour speeds would not be driving at the normal speed for that time. This is more than obvious.


Clearly the normal speed of ridden animals is generally less than what you are thinking, and since traffic includes ridden animals, they can define the normal speed at that time to be far lower that what you have imagined.
Where are animals "common" on roads?


All traffic must give way to traffic in front of them, regardless of speed. If this were not true, there would be constant rear end collisions on the streets and those making such rear end collisions would not be considered generally guilty. A motorist must slow down for slower traffic ahead, and must keep watch for such slower traffic, that is the law, that is physics and that is very logical. This is why it is prudent to drive within your sight lines... and not just go as fast as you want or even as fast as the posted speed.
Who is arguing against this? It's also the reason why you don't drive slower than normal (expected) speeds on roadways.


you somehow seem to be hung up on the fact that a cyclist, alone, can take the lane when there is no traffic in California
No, I'm only talking about "normal speed".

For the CA law, it's this that indicates that other traffic must exist (since something that does not exist cannot "move").


21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

It also clearly indicates that it's the other traffic (not bicyclists) that typically defines "normal speed".

Because, if the cyclist could always define what "normal speed" was, the law would be meaningless (the cyclist would never have to ride to the right).

Which is what I said a year ago.

when there's no other traffic, cyclists are legally allowed to take the lane. cyclists only need to share the road when there's other traffic to share with, and bicyclists are certainly allowed to take the lane if their safety dictates it, even in the presence of faster traffic wanting to pass.
This is correct (I said this a year ago).

But the law also clearly indicates that bicyclists don't define "normal speed", otherwise they would never have to move to the right!

This is correct (I said this a year ago).

But the law also clearly indicates that bicyclists don't define "normal speed", otherwise they would never have to move to the right!

If no other traffic exists, then cyclists DO define the normal speed. As soon as other traffic shows up, a new normal is defined. By the same token, if a group of cyclists came upon a group of horse back riders, the cyclists would have to slow down to the horse back riders speed... and a new normal would be defined.

Slower traffic, regardless of the type of traffic, must keep to the right... The reason the bike laws are defined as such is because bikes are not defined as vehicles in the state, they are defined as human powered devices... therefore certain laws had to be repeated to cover "human powered devices." But cyclists are "traffic" under the term "and other conveyances," mentioned above.

Normal speed, like normal anything, is what the majority is doing at the time.... i.e. "When in Rome..."

Normal is not defined in any other way. This is exactly why there has to be "other traffic" before a cyclist is required to do anything different.

Apparently your view is one in which motorists define "normal." That really is not the case, according to CA laws... laws which also include ridden animals and pedestrians as "traffic."

BTW I love this: "Where are animals "common" on roads?" They are common enough to be included in the definition of "traffic..." Just because they don't have any animals where you roam doesn't mean they don't exist, and are considered both "common and normal" in some locations.

Funny how this whole debate is revolving around the world as njkayaker defines it; not as the law are actually written, or what may be "normal." Of course this is all based on CA law, but then that location was key to the question of the OP.

Perhaps the laws where you exist are different. Where do you exist?

If no other traffic exists, then cyclists DO define the normal speed.
No, because then a car driving 5 or 200 mph on empty 55 mph roads would establish the "normal" speed, when it's clear that these speeds are abnormal.


Slower traffic, regardless of the type of traffic, must keep to the right... The reason the bike laws are defined as such is because bikes are not defined as vehicles in the state, they are defined as human powered devices...
No, because bicyclists have the same rights and duties as operators of vehicles. The bicycle "keep to the right" law is either redundant or something different.


Normal speed, like normal anything, is what the majority is doing at the time.... i.e. "When in Rome..." Normal is not defined in any other way.
No, there's more to it than that. Somebody standing on their head in the middle of the street isn't normal, even when no one else is around.


Apparently your view is one in which motorists define "normal." That really is not the case, according to CA laws... laws which also include ridden animals and pedestrians as "traffic."
No, it's bicyclists that don't define normal (the law says so).

Anyway, practically it is motorists because it's extremely unlikely that a cyclist would be travelling more slowly for any animals and pedestrians (who would anyway almost never be in the lanes of traffic in the first place).

Apparently your view is one in which motorists define "normal." That really is not the case, according to CA laws... laws which also include ridden animals and pedestrians as "traffic."


BTW I love this: "Where are animals "common" on roads?" They are common enough to be included in the definition of "traffic..."
No, the fact that they are mentioned in the law establishes that they exist not how "common" they are. "Common enough" is meaningless and weasily (what's "enough"?).


Just because they don't have any animals where you roam doesn't mean they don't exist, and are considered both "common and normal" in some locations.
They are common in rare locations. And it isn't clear that they define "normal speed" in those rare locations at all! What is with your weird obsession with animals in the roads?

No, because bicyclists have the same rights and duties as operators of vehicles. The bicycle "keep to the right" law is either redundant or something different.



I suspect you have not read the law... The law says cyclists only have to keep right in the presence of faster same direction traffic. If no such traffic exists, there is no motivation to keep right.


21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.


Here is the key phrase again, in case all those words baffle you: "at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time"

Please specifically note that last set of words in bold.

Again you want to define this in your terms... likely the laws are different where you are... too bad.

On my commute home from work, I took the right car lane to trip the signal, and a cop rolled up on the left turn and didn't question it, we both went on our merry way. But this was at 3am, literally no traffic other than the cop. In California atleast you are allowed to take the lane. I do so multiple times on my ride to/from work due to narrow underpasses etc..

I suspect you have not read the law... The law says cyclists only have to keep right in the presence of faster same direction traffic. If no such traffic exists, there is no motivation to keep right.



Here is the key phrase again, in case all those words baffle you: "at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time"

Please specifically note that last set of words in bold.

Again you want to define this in your terms... likely the laws are different where you are... too bad.

Njkayaker is correct. The cyclist far right law is either the same as the slow moving vehicle law, in which case it is redundant, or it is different. The phrasings are much the same, for they were taken out of the same lawbook, but the fact that there is a separate law for cyclists means that it can be enforced in an entirely different manner than other drivers, meaning motorists, would accept being applied to their misdemeanors. Furthermore, this is the law that most people seem to consider the most important law for cyclists, largely ignoring most of the other laws that apply to all drivers, the exceptions being stop signs and traffic signals.

That's what's wrong with American traffic law for cyclists; it treats them as second-class roadway users, so that the public believes that they are only second-class roadway users.

Njkayaker is correct. The cyclist far right law is either the same as the slow moving vehicle law, in which case it is redundant, or it is different. The phrasings are much the same, for they were taken out of the same lawbook, but the fact that there is a separate law for cyclists means that it can be enforced in an entirely different manner than other drivers, meaning motorists, would accept being applied to their misdemeanors. Furthermore, this is the law that most people seem to consider the most important law for cyclists, largely ignoring most of the other laws that apply to all drivers, the exceptions being stop signs and traffic signals.

That's what's wrong with American traffic law for cyclists; it treats them as second-class roadway users, so that the public believes that they are only second-class roadway users.

So John, you are saying that a cyclist cannot take the lane when there is no other same direction traffic on the same road at the same time? Cause that is what this thread is all about.