Vehicular Cycling (VC) - the statutory duty of cyclists to share two lane roads

There is ample basis for a common understanding that SMV FRAP laws governing all vehicles are to facilitate overtaking by faster traffic. Long held as a road sharing standard that far predates statutory traffic codes, a duty to share the road by turning to operate to the right, as far to the right as practicable to the edge of the road, safely, has long been part and parcel of the social contract of public road use.

There seems to be a mistaken perception among some bicycle drivers that under SMV laws a duty to facilitate overtaking would be obviated anytime they ride on a laned road, and that a cyclists' duty to facilitate overtaking would no longer a requirement on two laned roads.

that is a curious interpretation of traffic laws that clearly are written and have been shown to clearly require facilitating overtaking. Suggestions a duty to facilitate overtaking is no longer a requirement on any laned roadway is simply not supportable.

Indeed, it is on two lane roads that sharing the road and facilitating passing is at its most crucial, and form the basis of SMV-FRAP laws.

There is also an position advanced by some bicycle drivers that statutes that use the wording 'right hand lane available for traffic' refers to a two lane road. This position is incorrect. Vehicles on two laned roadways are generally prohibited from operating to the left of the middle of the road. Arguing that 'right hand lane' would indicate the opposing lane is the left hand lane available for traffic is erroneous and unsupportable in standards of statutory construction.

a law that in its wording has 'right hand lane available for traffic' most clearly does NOT indicate that a two lane road has a left hand and a right hand lane for traffic to travel side by side in the same direction.

While I agree that 'right hand lane available for traffic' clearly does not refer to a two lane road, I disagree with your statement that vehicles are generally prohibited from operating to the left of center on two lane roads. I agree that vehicles are often prohibited from crossing to the left of center, but using the word "generally" implies that such a condition exists on the majority of two-lane mileage, and that is not my experience.

I am concerned that your strident tone here suggests that you consider a vehicle that is overtaking another to have the right of way. It seems as though you may even suggest that the slower vehicle must clear the way rather than that the faster vehicle must look for a safe place to pass. Hopefully I'm just reading in something that was not intended to be conveyed.

The other thread gets closed and ten minutes later, you are still at it with a new thread.

I am concerned that your strident tone here suggests that you consider a vehicle that is overtaking another to have the right of way. It seems as though you may even suggest that the slower vehicle must clear the way rather than that the faster vehicle must look for a safe place to pass. Hopefully I'm just reading in something that was not intended to be conveyed.And imagine when police and judges start reading it the same way.

different topic, CBHI. that was about california bike advocacy gone sour, this is a related thread on how to share the road safely and the fundamental duties of cyclists that thread may have touched on.



While I agree that 'right hand lane available for traffic' clearly does not refer to a two lane road, I disagree with your statement that vehicles are generally prohibited from operating to the left of center on two lane roads. I agree that vehicles are often prohibited from crossing to the left of center, but using the word "generally" implies that such a condition exists on the majority of two-lane mileage, and that is not my experience.

I am concerned that your strident tone here suggests that you consider a vehicle that is overtaking another to have the right of way. It seems as though you may even suggest that the slower vehicle must clear the way rather than that the faster vehicle must look for a safe place to pass. Hopefully I'm just reading in something that was not intended to be conveyed.

I may have sounded strident, but it's only because just as the discussion started into the fundaments of the laws being interpreted badly in California, it got closed down because the thread had generated interest from people that had a difference of opinion. Wierd. Anyhoo,

Traffic laws in all states restrict operation of vehicles to the right of the center line except in making turns or passing so a statement that it is generally prohibited is correct.

The vehicle ahead always has the right of way. however, sharing the road by operating safely to the right does not impinge on the right of way of the vehicle being passed. Operating as far to the right as practicable is not onerous.

It is a long standing duty of all vehicles to share the road by operating safely to the right to share the road with faster traffic wishing to overtake.

Yet your OP sounds so close to the last post of yours in the other thread.


why, in the world, do some cyclists believe they have no common or statutory duty to share a two lane road if safe to do so?

operating as far to the right as practicable when a slowly driven vehicle is being passed on two lane roadways is when operating FRAP is most important - steve and the rest of these bicycle drivers will be unable to find a capable judge in the land who would agree with their far-flung assertions 'SMV-FRAP' laws remove cyclists duties to share two lane roadways.

wow. the deceit being foisted about cyclists somehow being abrogated of the duty to share a two lane highway when safe by operating as far to the right as practicable.

Amazing these 'bicycle drivers' can even believe themselves with such far-flung and unsupportable opinions on the rules of the road.

Believing slowly driven vehicles don't have to share two lane highways by operating FRAP, because there is a center line on the road.

wild and wacky stuff...

Just so we're clear about context and have the laws discussed on-hand, the original thread was discussing why repealing CA VC 21202, which is as follows:


21202. (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm) (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.
Amended Sec. 4, Ch. 674, Stats. 1996. Effective January 1, 1997.

might be a good idea, since it would be replaced by the standard SMV law, which is as follows:


21654. (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21654.htm) (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time, and is not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute prima facie evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation of subdivision (a) of this section.

(c) The Department of Transportation, with respect to state highways, and local authorities, with respect to highways under their jurisdiction, may place and maintain upon highways official signs directing slow-moving traffic to use the right-hand traffic lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle or preparing for a left turn.
Amended Ch. 545, Stats. 1974. Effective January 1, 1975.

Personally, while I disagree with Bek's interpretation of the 21654, and I think that in theory it would be sufficient, what really makes 21202 important is that it specifies some common situations where taking the lane is necessary. While one could say it doesn't need to be specified, it's helpful to cyclists to have it spelled out, and it does so without limiting the situations which you can take the lane to just the ones listed. I think it's far easier to convince a cop/judge of the right to take a lane when it's not fit to share when the law spells that out as a reason, as opposed to being under the blanket opt-out of "when reasonable to avoid conditions".

Just so we're clear about context and have the laws discussed on-hand, the original thread was discussing why repealing CA VC 21202, which is as follows:



might be a good idea, since it would be replaced by the standard SMV law, which is as follows:



Personally, while I disagree with Bek's interpretation of the 21654, and I think that in theory it would be sufficient, what really makes 21202 important is that it specifies some common situations where taking the lane is necessary. While one could say it doesn't need to be specified, it's helpful to cyclists to have it spelled out, and it does so without limiting the situations which you can take the lane to just the ones listed. I think it's far easier to convince a cop/judge of the right to take a lane when it's not fit to share when the law spells that out as a reason, as opposed to being under the blanket opt-out of "when reasonable to avoid conditions".

I tend to agree. 21202 offers both conditions and guidance, and while it can be misinterpreted, so too can 21654, and those with a bias against cyclists will interpret either law in a way to enforce that bias, regardless of the intent of the law itself.

Yet your OP sounds so close to the last post of yours in the other thread.

yes, that's because in a discussion about an astroturf cycling organization in california, the topic of why they should be avoided is they want to constrain cyclists to a much more restrictive law, and there was some confusion in the other thread.

some people have the completely far-fetched idea slow moving vehicles do not have to operate FRAP on two lane roads.

Misleading about state laws and the common laws governing road use, and making claims cyclists have no statutory duty to share a two lane road under SMV-FRAP laws.

THAT belief, CBHI, that cyclists or other slowly driven vehicles have no duty to share a two lane road is what THIS thread is about.

funny how topics about bicycling and advocacy are sometimes related, eh?

Personally, while I disagree with Bek's interpretation of the 21654, and I think that in theory it would be sufficient, what really makes 21202 important is that it specifies some common situations where taking the lane is necessary. While one could say it doesn't need to be specified, it's helpful to cyclists to have it spelled out, and it does so without limiting the situations which you can take the lane to just the ones listed. I think it's far easier to convince a cop/judge of the right to take a lane when it's not fit to share when the law spells that out as a reason, as opposed to being under the blanket opt-out of "when reasonable to avoid conditions".

let me illustrate a clause out of the SMV law that may change your mind, sudo.


If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time, and is not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute prima facie evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation

this is a far, far worse of a scenario for cyclists to be in.

Onerous to cyclists, therefore California addressed and for which redress was developed into CVC 21202.

fighting to remove a law giving cyclists explict and far ranging rights to take the lane, to be replaced by a law stating that operating away from the right is evidence an infraction occurred is a very negative and constraining course for California cyclists.

the same would be the case in Hawaii, absent the prima facie evidence of a violation.

replacing cycling specific FRAP with SMV FRAP doesn't seem to offer much protection from police and motorist harassment. I'm not sure how to fix this, because many cops are not capable of differentiating between practicable and possible.

One way this can be addressed is advocacy and talking about these issues.

getting other cyclists and the public clear on the actual duties and rights of cyclists is one way to address this issue, unterhausen.

Here's a tactic that could be instituted in every state in the country.


204536




this new MUTCD sign is soon to be allowable in most states (jan 15,2012)

I launched a campaign at a recent spring statewide advocacy planning session to implement these signs in every county in the state, on identified and select routes it may significantly affect cyclist level of service on.

with a few 204536 scattered thru out the state, motorists and police would slowly grok the message 'bikes may use full lane', under the existing bikes ride frap laws in all states.

that's one of my ideas, something i have done and something i recommend interested parties institute as well. start a campaign at the state bicycling advocacy level to get 204536 signs in every county in a state.

police training (so long as it does not mislead!!!!!) would be another valuable program.


Bikes may use full lane and bikes ride FRAP do not contradict one another.

let me illustrate a clause out of the SMV law that may change your mind, sudo.

What do you mean 'change my mind'? I just agreed 21202 offers more protection than 21654, if nothing else then at least in practical application.

i was, specifically, making mention of CVC 21654, of which you said would be sufficient to protect cyclists rights. the b) clause in that law indicates that it would make it much more difficult to defend a cyclists right to the lane, and one that makes the california SMV-FRAP quite onerous.

Hence, the specific cyclist redress under bikes ride FRAP laws in California, and other states, like Hawaii. Hawaii and California, like most states, provide far more specific enumerated rights for bicyclists to choose a safe road position.

NO advocacy organization or cycling advocate concerned about bicyclists right to the road should be opposing bikes FRAP laws.
They are the very laws giving cyclists broad protections to take the lane for safety and other reasons unique to our class of slowly driven, vulnerable, delicate, human powered vehicles.

There are certainly improvements that can be made in the laws affecting cyclists. removing our protections under law is not one of them!

I tend to agree. 21202 offers both conditions and guidance, and while it can be misinterpreted, so too can 21654, and those with a bias against cyclists will interpret either law in a way to enforce that bias, regardless of the intent of the law itself.

Genec argues that the American "bias against cyclists will interpret [any] law in a way to enforce that bias." For forty years I have held that this anti-cyclist bias is the source of both the legal and the social troubles for American cyclists. Genec is correct about that cause. But I disagree that this bias is all-powerful in legal affairs. In legal affairs, the as cyclist far right as practicable (FRAP) laws provide the legal cover allowing this bias to be enforced. After all, that law says FRAP is generally required, is the normal state of affairs, to be released only for particular conditions. The slow-moving vehicle (SMV) law requires vehicles moving slowly to use the right-hand lane available for traffic or be as close as practicable to the right-hand edge. That is, as long as the cyclist obeys either one of these requirements he is acting lawfully and even biased police cannot touch him about that.

The American bias I have long termed the cyclist-inferiority, motorist-superiority superstition. I hold that this is bad for cyclists, with society telling cyclists that they are trespassers on the roadway and should not operate as legitimate drivers of vehicles. However, we have a school who call themselves bicycle advocates who reinforce this cyclist-inferiority superstition by advocating bikeways and cycling in the subservient manner, both of which inform motorists of their superior status. They argue that this anti-cyclist position is necessary to attract into bicycle transportation the population that believes the superstition. They may also fear that the motoring majority will more strongly oppose cycling, such as by cutting off the funds for bikeways, if it sees cycling being advocated with cyclists equal to motorists, and with cyclists it sees as behaving in an uppity manner.

We have seen the surface details of this advocacy being loudly argued while carefully concealing the motivation for these arguments. And the details have been refuted time and again. Need we continue with such a pointless discussion?

i was, specifically, making mention of CVC 21654, of which you said would be sufficient to protect cyclists rights. the b) clause in that law indicates that it would make it much more difficult to defend a cyclists right to the lane, and one that makes the california SMV-FRAP quite onerous.

I agree. Remember, I said 21654 would be sufficient in theory. That is, were it interpreted and applied correctly. As I said, I disagree with your interpretation of the all-important "or" and "right-hand lane", but that's precisely what I think 21654's weakness is - it's too easy to interpret it differently than the law's intention. My fear is that it's just too vague to effectively protect cyclists.

I'm also not sure what the stink is about repealing 21202 - I mean, it's in essence the same law as 21654, just spelled out better so there is less room for funny interpretations. I suppose clarifying 21654 would be sufficient... but we already have 21202, and it offers a solid protection of cycling rights, IMO (the only thing I wish it also spelled out was riding single file vs riding abreast).

Genec argues that the American "bias against cyclists will interpret [any] law in a way to enforce that bias." For forty years I have held that this anti-cyclist bias is the source of both the legal and the social troubles for American cyclists. Genec is correct about that cause. But I disagree that this bias is all-powerful in legal affairs. In legal affairs, the as cyclist far right as practicable (FRAP) laws provide the legal cover allowing this bias to be enforced. After all, that law says FRAP is generally required, is the normal state of affairs, to be released only for particular conditions. The slow-moving vehicle (SMV) law requires vehicles moving slowly to use the right-hand lane available for traffic or be as close as practicable to the right-hand edge. That is, as long as the cyclist obeys either one of these requirements he is acting lawfully and even biased police cannot touch him about that.

I must disagree. We've already seen cases that should have been clear-cut in favor of a cyclist be interpreted incorrectly (or simply ignored) to cyclists' detriment, and that's with a law that very plainly spells out situations where taking the lane is OK. Why would we expect better interpretation of a more vague SMV law? I agree it should offer adequate protection in theory, but I don't believe this would be the case in practice, and I point to common misinterpretation of a much more plain law as my reasoning.


The American bias I have long termed the cyclist-inferiority, motorist-superiority superstition. I hold that this is bad for cyclists, with society telling cyclists that they are trespassers on the roadway and should not operate as legitimate drivers of vehicles. However, we have a school who call themselves bicycle advocates who reinforce this cyclist-inferiority superstition by advocating bikeways and cycling in the subservient manner, both of which inform motorists of their superior status. They argue that this anti-cyclist position is necessary to attract into bicycle transportation the population that believes the superstition. They may also fear that the motoring majority will more strongly oppose cycling, such as by cutting off the funds for bikeways, if it sees cycling being advocated with cyclists equal to motorists, and with cyclists it sees as behaving in an uppity manner.

While a "cyclist inferiority complex" may or may not be the reason for pushing for bike lanes, surely you don't think that that's a requirement for those pushing bike lanes? Do car-poolers suffer from a similar complex if they push car-pool lanes? Having a bike lane isn't a necessity, merely a convenience...

Removing the BIKES-FRAP provision wouldn't remove the duty of bikes to ride as far to the right as practicable to share the road. SMV-FRAP laws would apply.

Siren cries of 'discrimination' and 'inferiority' aside, :rolleyes: it is easy to ascertain that the bike specific laws governing FRAP generally provide far more exceptions for cyclists safety to take a full lane than the general SMV-FRAP laws.

Cyclists have a duty to operate safely right on two lane roads to share the road with faster traffic wishing to overtake. Unequivocally.

ANY bicycling advocacy that predicate their road rights on a belief SMV-FRAP laws will allow cyclists to take an entire lane of traffic anytime there are lane lines on the road must be steered well clear of; this mistaken assumption about cyclists rights under SMV regulations is woefully, sorrily inadequate.


Removing cyclist protections under law would remove not improve the public relations arena for bicyclists, and revoking cyclist specific duties to operate safely right to share the road would not remove a cyclists duties to do so.

I agree. Remember, I said 21654 would be sufficient in theory. That is, were it interpreted and applied correctly. As I said, I disagree with your interpretation of the all-important "or" and "right-hand lane", but that's precisely what I think 21654's weakness is - it's too easy to interpret it differently than the law's intention. My fear is that it's just too vague to effectively protect cyclists.

I'm also not sure what the stink is about repealing 21202 - I mean, it's in essence the same law as 21654, just spelled out better so there is less room for funny interpretations. I suppose clarifying 21654 would be sufficient... but we already have 21202, and it offers a solid protection of cycling rights, IMO (the only thing I wish it also spelled out was riding single file vs riding abreast).

I fail to see the feared vagueness in the slow vehicle law as compared to the bicycle law. The bicycle law (21202 in Calif) is predicated on the general principle that cyclists should ride as close as practicable to the right-hand edge. That's its general principle, with freedom to escape that principle only under specific conditions. And it was obviously written by motorists, both in the first instance and in the modern version, with the intent of restricting cyclists for the convenience of motorists.

The slow vehicle law has none of those complications. The slow vehicle law (21654 in Calif) requires the slow driver (be he motorist or cyclist) to use either the right-hand lane or be as close as practicable to the right-hand edge. That's what it says, and that's what it allows. If there is a right-hand lane then the slow driver has the lawful choice between those two positions. The police do not have the legal power to force a driver to take one instead of the other when the law gives that choice to the driver. So what more do cyclists need? Any reasonable cause for moving into the next lane to the left has already been accepted in the slow vehicle law, so cyclists would not be more limited in this respect than would other drivers of vehicles.

When the matter is as simple as this, one has to suspect that the strenuous argumentation to preserve what the motorists have so long been intent on preserving, the principle that cyclists should ride as far right as practicable and on bikeways where present, has some motive beyond the welfare of cyclists.

Removing the BIKES-FRAP provision wouldn't remove the duty of bikes to ride as far to the right as practicable to share the road. SMV-FRAP laws would apply.

Siren cries of 'discrimination' and 'inferiority' aside, :rolleyes: it is easy to ascertain that the bike specific laws governing FRAP generally provide far more exceptions for cyclists safety to take a full lane than the general SMV-FRAP laws.

Cyclists have a duty to operate safely right on two lane roads to share the road with faster traffic wishing to overtake. Unequivocally.

ANY bicycling advocacy that predicate their road rights on a belief SMV-FRAP laws will allow cyclists to take an entire lane of traffic anytime there are lane lines on the road must be steered well clear of; this mistaken assumption about cyclists rights under SMV regulations is woefully, sorrily inadequate.


Removing cyclist protections under law would remove not improve the public relations arena for bicyclists, and revoking cyclist specific duties to operate safely right to share the road would not remove a cyclists duties to do so.

Well, Bek has anticipated my last posting by admitting that the motorists will not allow repeal of the cyclist FRAP law (21202 in Calif), because they see it as making motoring more convenient than would treating cyclists as drivers of vehicles. In short, Bek is making the same argument that motorists have made for seventy years, but trying to cover it up with a false veneer of benefit for cyclists. Rather like the motorists' argument that the law requiring FRAP was necessary to make cycling safe.

The slow vehicle law (21654 in Calif) requires the slow driver (be he motorist or cyclist) to use either the right-hand lane or be as close as practicable to the right-hand edge. That's what it says, and that's what it allows. If there is a right-hand lane then the slow driver has the lawful choice between those two positions. The police do not have the legal power to force a driver to take one instead of the other when the law gives that choice to the driver. So what more do cyclists need? Any reasonable cause for moving into the next lane to the left has already been accepted in the slow vehicle law, so cyclists would not be more limited in this respect than would other drivers of vehicles.

John, what say you to the argument made by others here that under the generic FRAP law, there must be more than one marked lane in the same direction of travel for the slower driver to have the option to operate anywhere in the "right hand" lane? That is, if there is no "left hand lane" designated for the same direction available for passing, then there is no "right hand lane," and therefore the slower driver must operate at the road edge, or the right edge of the marked lane? This interpretation of the generic FRAP law would prohibit drivers of narrow vehicles from controlling the lane as effectively as drivers of wide vehicles on two-lane/two way roads, and in theory places the burden of proof on the bicyclist to demonstrate that their position away from the edge is as far right as practicable whenever using a travel lane on a two-lane/two-way road.

John, what say you to the argument made by others here that under the generic FRAP law, there must be more than one marked lane in the same direction of travel for the slower driver to have the option to operate anywhere in the "right hand" lane? That is, if there is no "left hand lane" designated for the same direction available for passing, then there is no "right hand lane," and therefore the slower driver must operate at the road edge, or the right edge of the marked lane? This interpretation of the generic FRAP law would prohibit drivers of narrow vehicles from controlling the lane as effectively as drivers of wide vehicles on two-lane/two way roads, and in theory places the burden of proof on the bicyclist to demonstrate that their position away from the edge is as far right as practicable whenever using a travel lane on a two-lane/two-way road.

1: Here is the history of FRAP as applied to vehicles and of the slow vehicle rule as these appeared in the Uniform Vehicle Code.

In 1930, the UVC adopted the rule that vehicles should be driven as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, but that if the roadway had been marked with lanes, a vehicle shall be driven in the lane nearest the right-hand edge. These rules were deleted in 1934.

In 1934, the UVC adopted the lane use rule. Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic ... a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane ...

In 1948, the UVC adopted its slow-moving vehicle rule, requiring use of the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge ...

I suggest that the 1934 rule clearly indicates that a roadway may be divided into two lanes, meaning one for each direction of normal travel. This with the 1948 rule indicates that the phrase "the right-hand lane then available for traffic" applies to roadways with two lanes as well as to roadways with more than two lanes.

2: The wording itself. If the intent had been to allow drivers moving slowly to use the whole right-hand lane only when two or more lanes were assigned for traffic in that direction the draftsman would have so stated. Since he did not word the rule in that manner, one has to conclude that he did not mean to include such a restriction. The contrary argument faces two deficiencies: the rules does not say "two or more" and it uses "available" rather than "assigned" or similar.

3: Historical relevance. At the time the slow-moving vehicle rule was written, the draftsmen would be concerned about wagons (still), farm equipment, construction equipment, heavily-loaded trucks, much of these being wide vehicles. Any typical motor vehicle being driven to overtake one of these would have to use the next lane over, and this would be true whether or not the slow-moving vehicle was near the center of its lane or a couple of feet farther right. In short, when a typical vehicle is overtaking a slow-moving vehicle, there is no advantage to anyone if the slow vehicle is a bit farther right than more nearly centered in its lane. Therefore, the rule was drafted to say that when there was a lane for the slow-moving vehicle, no more than occupying that lane should be required.

4: Agreement with other rules. The UVC adopted the rule that a vehicle should be driven, as much as practicable, entirely within one lane. In short, when one vehicle is overtaking another, both vehicles ought to be driven each in its own lane. To consider that the faster vehicle should try to occupy as much as possible, or as safe, of the lane being used by the slower vehicle contradicts this principle.

1: Here is the history of FRAP as applied to vehicles and of the slow vehicle rule as these appeared in the Uniform Vehicle Code.

In 1930, the UVC adopted the rule that vehicles should be driven as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, but that if the roadway had been marked with lanes, a vehicle shall be driven in the lane nearest the right-hand edge. These rules were deleted in 1934.

In 1934, the UVC adopted the lane use rule. Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic ... a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane ...

In 1948, the UVC adopted its slow-moving vehicle rule, requiring use of the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge ...

I suggest that the 1934 rule clearly indicates that a roadway may be divided into two lanes, meaning one for each direction of normal travel. This with the 1948 rule indicates that the phrase "the right-hand lane then available for traffic" applies to roadways with two lanes as well as to roadways with more than two lanes.

2: The wording itself. If the intent had been to allow drivers moving slowly to use the whole right-hand lane only when two or more lanes were assigned for traffic in that direction the draftsman would have so stated. Since he did not word the rule in that manner, one has to conclude that he did not mean to include such a restriction. The contrary argument faces two deficiencies: the rules does not say "two or more" and it uses "available" rather than "assigned" or similar.

3: Historical relevance. At the time the slow-moving vehicle rule was written, the draftsmen would be concerned about wagons (still), farm equipment, construction equipment, heavily-loaded trucks, much of these being wide vehicles. Any typical motor vehicle being driven to overtake one of these would have to use the next lane over, and this would be true whether or not the slow-moving vehicle was near the center of its lane or a couple of feet farther right. In short, when a typical vehicle is overtaking a slow-moving vehicle, there is no advantage to anyone if the slow vehicle is a bit farther right than more nearly centered in its lane. Therefore, the rule was drafted to say that when there was a lane for the slow-moving vehicle, no more than occupying that lane should be required.

4: Agreement with other rules. The UVC adopted the rule that a vehicle should be driven, as much as practicable, entirely within one lane. In short, when one vehicle is overtaking another, both vehicles ought to be driven each in its own lane. To consider that the faster vehicle should try to occupy as much as possible, or as safe, of the lane being used by the slower vehicle contradicts this principle.

Thank you for your excellent response, John. We here in NC made a similar analysis when arriving at a consensus with police and the DMV that cyclists have the right to a full lane in NC (since we have only the generic slow vehicle rule). Of course we promote the idea that cyclists should be courteous to help other traffic pass, if that traffic would otherwise experience significant delays, where and when the pavement is adequately wide and conditions make it safe and practical to ride far enough to the right to make a difference. Our interpretation is that this action is voluntary, not legally mandated in NC, allowing the cyclist to use his or her best judgment.

What references do you recommend for reading the history and exact text of the uniform vehicle code from the 1930s to 1980s?

It appears sggoodri and john forester are advancing a wholly unsupportable opinion that SMV-FRAP laws don't apply on two lane roads, and cyclists would not be required to facilitate passing anytime there are lanes on a road.

John, at his website and likely in his book has earlier taken the correct position on the wording of FRAP laws, that the distinction in SMV-FRAP laws refers to multiple versus single lane, each direction, 'two lane roadways' with the phrase 'right hand lane'

This 'lanes make FRAP not apply' sophistry is a newfangled and totally unsupported interpretation of SMV-FRAP law and the phrase 'right hand lane or as far to the right as practicable' somehow removes the duty of slowly driven vehicles to turn out as far to the right as practicable on two lane roadways.

That position not only ignores the law, it ignores the long standing duty of slowly driven vehicles to facilitate passing.

john forester argued this needed to be included in the SMV-FRAP laws of the UVC- that SMV-FRAP laws are to facilitate overtaking.

How would a narrow, slowly driven vehicle facilitate overtaking on a two lane roadway?




the position cyclists or other vehicles need not FRAP under SMV-FRAP laws on two lane roads is absurd.

Facilitating passing is at its most crucial on two lane roads for safe operation of all road users; there is not a judge in the land that would interpret the standard SMV-FRAP law so as to not to require FRAP on a two lane road!


ANY bicycling advocate or advocacy that predicates cyclists road rights on a belief SMV-FRAP laws will allow cyclists to take an entire lane of traffic anytime there are lane lines on the road must be steered well clear of; this mistaken assumption about cyclists rights under SMV regulations is woefully, sorrily inadequate.

John, what say you to the argument made by others here that under the generic FRAP law, there must be more than one marked lane in the same direction of travel for the slower driver to have the option to operate anywhere in the "right hand" lane? That is, if there is no "left hand lane" designated for the same direction available for passing, then there is no "right hand lane," and therefore the slower driver must operate at the road edge, or the right edge of the marked lane? This interpretation of the generic FRAP law would prohibit drivers of narrow vehicles from controlling the lane as effectively as drivers of wide vehicles on two-lane/two way roads, and in theory places the burden of proof on the bicyclist to demonstrate that their position away from the edge is as far right as practicable whenever using a travel lane on a two-lane/two-way road.

See, this is my fear. I don't think that's the intent of the law, and I agree with Mr. Forester's interpretation, but I've also seen judges misinterpret a very plain law with little ambiguity, such as 21202. In fact, wasn't there a case posted recently where a judge ruled against a cyclist because the judge simply ignored one of his "outs" under the law?

This is why I say, in theory, the SMV law should be sufficient and even preferable. It allows operation if an entire lane, or lane-sharing at the cyclist's discretion. But it relies on it being correctly interpreted, and I fear it's more easily misinterpreted as "must stay right when there is only a single lane of travel", without the outs provided by 21202. If that interpretation is used, 21654 would be an inferior law...

Thank you for your excellent response, John. We here in NC made a similar analysis when arriving at a consensus with police and the DMV that cyclists have the right to a full lane in NC (since we have only the generic slow vehicle rule). Of course we promote the idea that cyclists should be courteous to help other traffic pass, if that traffic would otherwise experience significant delays, where and when the pavement is adequately wide and conditions make it safe and practical to ride far enough to the right to make a difference. Our interpretation is that this action is voluntary, not legally mandated in NC, allowing the cyclist to use his or her best judgment.

What references do you recommend for reading the history and exact text of the uniform vehicle code from the 1930s to 1980s?

Probably the best source for the history of the Uniform Vehicle Code is the publication Traffic Laws Annotated, published by the creator of the UVC, the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances. Under each section of the Code, this summarizes the changes from the first edition in 1926 to the date of publication. I have a copy of the 1972 book plus the 1975 supplement. I thought that this was the last edition, but I see now that there was a 1979 edition.

See, this is my fear. I don't think that's the intent of the law, and I agree with Mr. Forester's interpretation, but I've also seen judges misinterpret a very plain law with little ambiguity, such as 21202. In fact, wasn't there a case posted recently where a judge ruled against a cyclist because the judge simply ignored one of his "outs" under the law?

This is why I say, in theory, the SMV law should be sufficient and even preferable. It allows operation if an entire lane, or lane-sharing at the cyclist's discretion. But it relies on it being correctly interpreted, and I fear it's more easily misinterpreted as "must stay right when there is only a single lane of travel", without the outs provided by 21202. If that interpretation is used, 21654 would be an inferior law...

SMV laws do not allow operation of an entire lane, it requires operation as far to the right as practicable. You are right about the interpretation except it would be correct, that vehicles must stay right when there is a single lane of travel under the long standing traditions that form the foundations of SMV-FRAP laws.

Vehicles DO have to stay as far to the right as practicable to facilitate passing on a road with a single lane of travel in each direction.

I will say this once again: it is wholly unsupportable that slowly driven vehicles have no duty to operate FRAP on a two lane road under the clear statutory provisions of SMV-FRAP laws. this position is untenable, facilitating passing is both the intent of SMV-FRAP laws and at its most crucial to road safety along two lane roads. a center stripe does not alleviate a slowly driven vehicle from having to operate FRAP! particularly a narrow, slowly driven one.

In North Carolina, despite the ardent misframing by some, the state DOT interprets their SMV-FRAP law as to require bicyclists to operate FRAP at all times on all roads. And it is reasonable to assume that would be the ruling by any judge in North Carolina, faced with a bicyclist up on charges of failing to operate FRAP while riding well to the left of a lane, in the middle of the roadway of a divided highway.

Not as FRAP under the SMV FRAP law.

Probably the best source for the history of the Uniform Vehicle Code is the publication Traffic Laws Annotated, published by the creator of the UVC, the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances. Under each section of the Code, this summarizes the changes from the first edition in 1926 to the date of publication. I have a copy of the 1972 book plus the 1975 supplement. I thought that this was the last edition, but I see now that there was a 1979 edition.

John, you yourself lobbied for inclusion of 'the purpose of (SMV-FRAP lws) are to facilitating passing' to whatever agency it is that manages revisions to the UVC.

Explain your rationale to include this facilitate passing language into the UVC, and how it would apply to bicyclists along a two lane road.

How would a bicyclist ride to comply with facilitating passing provisions of the SMV-FRAP law on a two lane road? do you suggest any lane position would meet the FRAP requirement?

please, clarify.

Was it to constrain cyclists to the edge of the road? Me suspects either unwittingly or duplicitously.

It appears sggoodri and john forester are advancing a wholly unsupportable opinion that SMV-FRAP laws don't apply on two lane roads, and cyclists would not be required to facilitate passing anytime there are lanes on a road.

John, at his website and likely in his book has earlier taken the correct position on the wording of FRAP laws, that the distinction in SMV-FRAP laws refers to multiple versus single lane, each direction, 'two lane roadways' with the phrase 'right hand lane'

This 'lanes make FRAP not apply' sophistry is a newfangled and totally unsupported interpretation of SMV-FRAP law and the phrase 'right hand lane or as far to the right as practicable' somehow removes the duty of slowly driven vehicles to turn out as far to the right as practicable on two lane roadways.

That position not only ignores the law, it ignores the long standing duty of slowly driven vehicles to facilitate passing.

john forester argued this needed to be included in the SMV-FRAP laws of the UVC- that SMV-FRAP laws are to facilitate overtaking.

How would a narrow, slowly driven vehicle facilitate overtaking on a two lane roadway?




the position cyclists or other vehicles need not FRAP under SMV-FRAP laws on two lane roads is absurd.

Facilitating passing is at its most crucial on two lane roads for safe operation of all road users; there is not a judge in the land that would interpret the standard SMV-FRAP law so as to not to require FRAP on a two lane road!


ANY bicycling advocate or advocacy that predicates cyclists road rights on a belief SMV-FRAP laws will allow cyclists to take an entire lane of traffic anytime there are lane lines on the road must be steered well clear of; this mistaken assumption about cyclists rights under SMV regulations is woefully, sorrily inadequate.

Beck is arguing strongly that cyclists should cringe along at the edges of roadways to facilitate overtaking by motorists. This is exactly the argument presented by motorists for the last 7 decades, along with the justification that if cyclists strayed from the edge of the roadway they would be killed. This is precisely the cyclist-inferiority, motorist-superiority policy that I have opposed for the last 4 decades.

Beck claims that his view facilitates motorist overtaking, but he provides no engineering analysis as to how this is supposed to occur. In this he is no different from the motoring organizations that support cyclist-inferiority cycling. Beck clearly has stated that his view is motivated by public opinion, which is to say, by the motorists. He consistently applies his view that motoring interests are paramount to both cyclist-inferiority cycling and the bikeway system which physically implements it. And in both cases engineering analysis proves that his view is not in accord with standard traffic engineering principles.

Here is the engineering analysis of the typical two lane roadway case that Beck is now arguing so strongly. Typical roadway lanes are insufficiently wide for bicycles and typical motor vehicles to share side by side. Therefore, when a motorist desires to overtake a cyclist on such a road, the motorist is obliged to use the adjacent lane, which he is allowed to enter only when there is no traffic in that lane approaching so close as to constitute a danger. If that lane is clear, as just defined, then the motorist might just as well occupy it during the process of overtaking. In fact, if he didn't, he would be operating unlawfully by not confining his operation to only one lane at a time. Beck's argument is that motorists should squeeze unlawfully through the gap between a cringing cyclist and the traffic in the adjacent lane, be that traffic in the same direction or in opposite direction, as with a two-lane road. That's what Beck's claim amounts to. I will have none of that, and I think that others should also disagree.

Beck's other writings are devoted to popularizing bicycle transportation in America. It is clear that Beck believes that actions that conflict with the popular superstition of cyclist-inferiority, motorist-superiority will jeopardize his goal of a great increase in bicycle transportation. Beck so admitted a few days ago. The discussions about bicycling affairs would be more informative if they were not so limited by the superstition so that the real goals would be out in the open.

As it is, those who believe that "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles" have advanced a policy proposal. That is, let those who want cyclist-inferiority cycling and bikeways have as much of their way as society will allow, provided that there is no impediment against cyclists who choose to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles instead. If one's goal is to increase bicycle transportation, one should not exclude those who are today doing it best in the effort to include those who want to do it badly. And taking motorist opinion as the guideline is surely to be disruptive.

John, you yourself lobbied for inclusion of 'the purpose of (SMV-FRAP lws) are to facilitating passing' to whatever agency it is that manages revisions to the UVC.

Explain your rationale to include this facilitate passing language into the UVC, and how it would apply to bicyclists along a two lane road.

How would a bicyclist ride to comply with facilitating passing provisions of the SMV-FRAP law on a two lane road? do you suggest any lane position would meet the FRAP requirement?

please, clarify.

Was it to constrain cyclists to the edge of the road? Me suspects either unwittingly or duplicitously.

I was opposing the motorists' argument that FRAP was required for cyclist safety, that if a cyclist strayed from the edge of the roadway motor traffic would kill him. Therefore, I argued that the true purpose of the FRAP requirement was to facilitate overtaking rather than cyclist safety. It seems that this argument must still be made, in view of the governments' policy that bikeways are necessary to protect cyclists from same-direction motor traffic. I see a valid purpose in emphasizing that FRAP is for motorist convenience rather than the emotionally powerful reason of cyclist safety.

The issue has now become as to what operating methods actually facilitate safe overtaking by motor traffic, actual analysis rather than just the motorists' argument, also emotional, that cyclists must stay out of the way of motor traffic lest the roads get plugged up.

I must disagree. We've already seen cases that should have been clear-cut in favor of a cyclist be interpreted incorrectly (or simply ignored) to cyclists' detriment, and that's with a law that very plainly spells out situations where taking the lane is OK. Why would we expect better interpretation of a more vague SMV law? I agree it should offer adequate protection in theory, but I don't believe this would be the case in practice, and I point to common misinterpretation of a much more plain law as my reasoning.

I'm sorry, Sudo, but you are expressing a common misconception. You have been confused by the specific permissions of the cyclist FRAP law to fail to see its basic principle of guilty unless proved innocent. The cyclist FRAP law says that bicycle traffic is a nuisance that should be kept out of the way of motorists unless a cyclist can prove the need to stray away from the edge of the roadway. In short, it is a law based on the concept that cyclists are second-class roadway users. The interpretation starts with the "principle" that cyclists are required to say out of the way of motorists, and goes on from there. That's what's wrong with it. It's like requiring everyone bearing a name that came from the Near East to prove that he or she is not a terrorist. The general SVL does not start with any such presumption. If you are driving slower than the rest, you are required to use either the right-hand lane or be as far right as practicable. The slow driver has the choice, where there is a right-hand lane, of using all of it or squeezing as right as practicable, but when there are no lanes, of squeezing as far right as practicable. There is no such presumption of guilt, and the law, because it applies to all drivers of vehicles, must be enforced in ways that are just for all drivers of vehicles, be they powered by hay, hamburgers, or petroleum.

While a "cyclist inferiority complex" may or may not be the reason for pushing for bike lanes, surely you don't think that that's a requirement for those pushing bike lanes? Do car-poolers suffer from a similar complex if they push car-pool lanes? Having a bike lane isn't a necessity, merely a convenience...

I think that the great majority of American opinion holds that bike lanes and bike side paths are necessary for cyclist safety. That's what every survey that I have seen has reported, and the need is commonly expressed, to use my phrasing, as the need for protection from same-direction motor traffic. That's the cyclist-inferiority complex at work, and when it progresses into advocacy of cyclist-inferiority cycling it meets the definition of a phobia as being driven by fear to take actions contrary to one's interest.

Of course, motorists have their own reason for advocating bike lanes and bike side paths, which they try to justify by using the other side of that psychological condition, the motorist-supremacy side.

The idea that bikeways are no more than conveniences provided by a beneficent government to make cycling faster or more convenient is a rare one, more suited to persons who think that in most cases "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." But that's not the way that society considers them.

...you are expressing a common misconception. You have been confused by the specific permissions of the cyclist FRAP law to fail to see its basic principle of guilty unless proved innocent. The cyclist FRAP law says that bicycle traffic is a nuisance that should be kept out of the way of motorists unless a cyclist can prove the need to stray away from the edge of the roadway. In short, it is a law based on the concept that cyclists are second-class roadway users. The interpretation starts with the "principle" that cyclists are required to say out of the way of motorists, and goes on from there. That's what's wrong with it. It's like requiring everyone bearing a name that came from the Near East to prove that he or she is not a terrorist.

I agree strongly with this observation. Here in NC, roadways that are wide enough for safe passing of bicyclists without changing lanes are the exception rather than the rule. Why have a law that treats the exceptional case as the general rule, and write exceptions for the normal case? The existing bicyclist-specific FRAP laws are completely backwards and should be scrapped.

I think it's reasonable to discuss the merits, or lack thereof, of a fairer law that spells out cyclists' right to the full lane by default but requires cyclists to stay right on the exceptional two lane road that is wide enough for motorists to pass safely without moving into the oncoming lane. Cyclists almost always do this voluntarily under conditions where it is practical and makes a difference for motorists' convenience. They do this not because they feel legally compelled to, after all many of these are the same cyclists who often roll through stop signs at speed (and in NC cyclists have the legal right to a full lane), or because they fear being run down from behind, because they regularly ride two abreast on narrow roads. They do it as a courtesy according to the Golden Rule.

What is to be gained by making the voluntary, standard operating behavior by most cyclists a legal requirement? Mostly it would be a step back from having the full right to a lane of any width, allowing riding two abreast regardless of lane width, for instance. However, some cyclists have expressed a desire for a law that clearly indicates their responsibilities in travel lanes, if those responsibilities are fair, to help inoculate them from prejudiced enforcement actions and judgments against them. I don't oppose such a law in principle, but having witnessed the ugly process of legislation, I cannot imagine my own legislature creating language I would find acceptable; it would almost certainly be derailed by attempts to eliminate cyclists' existing right to the travel lanes, prohibit riding two abreast, etc. I would prefer that it never comes up here, but I invite cyclists in other states to take a stab at it.....

I think it's reasonable to discuss the merits, or lack thereof, of a fairer law that spells out cyclists' right to the full lane by default but requires cyclists to stay right on the exceptional two lane road that is wide enough for motorists to pass safely without moving into the oncoming lane. Cyclists almost always do this voluntarily under conditions where it is practical and makes a difference for motorists' convenience. They do this not because they feel legally compelled to, after all many of these are the same cyclists who often roll through stop signs at speed (and in NC cyclists have the legal right to a full lane), or because they fear being run down from behind, because they regularly ride two abreast on narrow roads. They do it as a courtesy according to the Golden Rule.

What is to be gained by making the voluntary, standard operating behavior by most cyclists a legal requirement? Mostly it would be a step back from having the full right to a lane of any width, allowing riding two abreast regardless of lane width, for instance. However, some cyclists have expressed a desire for a law that clearly indicates their responsibilities in travel lanes, if those responsibilities are fair, to help inoculate them from prejudiced enforcement actions and judgments against them. I don't oppose such a law in principle, but having witnessed the ugly process of legislation, I cannot imagine my own legislature creating language I would find acceptable; it would almost certainly be derailed by attempts to eliminate cyclists' existing right to the travel lanes, prohibit riding two abreast, etc. I would prefer that it never comes up here, but I invite cyclists in other states to take a stab at it.....


Steve, you are continuing to misstate cyclists duties in North Carolina. Cyclists have a statutory duty in North Carolina under NC 20-146, the general SMV-FRAP law, to operate their bike as far to the right as practicable, on all roads regardless of lane width, unless the bicyclist is making a left turn, avoiding unsafe road conditions or debris, or going the same speed as the rest of traffic.

all other interpretations of cyclists duties in North Carolina are contrary to the laws of the state. Here is a 2009 pdf clarifying these duties and responsibilities from your state department of Transportation.

http://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/download/bikeped_safety_materials_handout_RightsNResp.pdf

North Carolina Department of TRansportation cyclists rights and responsibilities fact sheet (http://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/download/bikeped_safety_materials_handout_RightsNResp.pdf)




Cyclists are well advised to steer well clear of any advocacy that claims cyclists have no duty to cycle FRAP under SMV-FRAP laws, or that cyclists would be better off without cyclists specific legal protections.

Cyclists have a duty to share the road, have a duty to share two lane roads. in states like North Carolina, state DOTs consider that cyclists have to stay as far to the right as practicable on all roads.

Cyclists that live in states with BIKES-FRAP laws have, generally speaking, far more explicit legal protections to take the lane than cyclists in North Carolina. Cyclists should not buy into advocacy that seeks to take away cyclists rights while promoting an unsupportable position on the nature of SMV-FRAP duties of slow moving traffic. The reason BIKES-FRAP laws are better (take california or Hawaii as examples) than SMV-FRAP laws is that BIKES-FRAP laws are more permissive and generally have more enumerated rights to take the lane.

Slowly driven vehicles are not alleviated of operating FRAP simply because there is a dividing line on a highway. That position about SMV-FRAP laws is wholly unsupportable.

Any advocacy that suggests cyclists fight to repeal BIKES-FRAP laws is quite dubious. Any advocacy that suggests cyclists have no statutory duty under SMV-FRAP laws to share two lane roads is quite dubious.

Beck is arguing strongly that cyclists should cringe along at the edges of roadways to facilitate overtaking by motorists......


bogus rancor and a strawman army for me!

Cyclist need always ride safely, John. Only as far to the right as is safe to safely share the road with faster traffic wishing to overtake. Absent faster traffic, cyclists are free to choose a road position well away from the edge of the road, and i strongly recommend they do so.

Steve, you are continuing to misstate cyclists duties in North Carolina. Cyclists have a statutory duty in North Carolina under NC 20-146, the general SMV-FRAP law, to operate their bike as far to the right as practicable, on all roads regardless of lane width, unless the bicyclist is making a left turn, avoiding unsafe road conditions or debris, or going the same speed as the rest of traffic.
Surely if that had been the intent of the people who drafted Section 20-146(b) they would not have included the "or" in their wording:
"... any vehicle proceeding at less than the legal maximum speed limit shall be driven in the right‑hand lane then available for thru traffic, or as close as practicable to the right‑hand ..."

Legal language can frequently seem verbose and confusing, but it is generally very precise about the use of words like 'and' and 'or'. A statute that you do Action A *or* Action B cannot be deemed to be violated by the individual who chooses to do A but not B.

As for your cite of the NC DOT brochure, I'd note two things:
1) it's not uncommon for such supplementary information to include some discrepancies from the actual wording of the statutes - in such cases the statute is what is legally binding (although a judge may well show leniency in a case where a citizen was misled by inaccurate supplementary materials);
2) the 'FRAP' phrase is included as something that a bicyclists 'should' do, which is usually an indication of a recommendation rather than a strict requirement, and it is not listed in the section enumerating what NC traffic laws require a cyclist to do. The same page also says that a bicyclist 'should' always ride courteously - but that is not enforceable absent a specific violation of the vehicle code.

prath, as much as i admire the eagerness with which you pursue that incorrect legal interpretation of the phrase 'or' in SMV-FRAP laws, your interpretation remains incorrect.

also, "should" is not an interpretation of a legal option, prathman. it denotes duty. shall do, should do. not optional. anyway,

bicycling advocacy that relies on that interpretation of the wording 'or' in SMV-FRAP laws like those in North Carolina is dubious and should be steered well clear of.

the phrase 'or' does not denote as condition from SMV-FRAP laws whereby vehicles are alleviated from operating FRAP anytime there are lane stripes. that is a wholly unsupportable interpretation of duties of slowly driven vehicles on two lane roads.

The DOT is consistent in north Carolina as to the duties of cyclists. even the phrase sgoodri hangs his interpretation of cyclists duties in the DMV manual explicitly mentions lane sharing by bicyclists. as does the DOT in other instructions to bicyclists.

you can go to the official DOT NC DOT Bike Ped website (http://www.ncdot.org/bikeped/), and you can find the laws affecting cyclists in North Carolina.. and the DOT thinks this about cycling in North Carolina


When riding on a roadway, a bicyclist must ride in
the same direction as other traffic. Also, the bicyclist
must travel in the right-hand lane and should (shall) ride
as close as practicable to the right-hand edge of
the highway. [§20-146(a)] Exceptions to this
law are provided when the bicyclist is making
these maneuvers:
• Passing another vehicle moving in the same
direction [§20-146(a)(1)]
• Avoiding a dangerous obstruction
[§20-146(a)(2)]
• Riding on a one-way street [§20-146(a)(4)]
• Preparing for a left turn. [§20-146(e)]

The North Carolina DOT interprets the laws differently than prathman and sgoodri. the NC DOT reads the phrase 'or' to indicate 'if a vehicle is narrow and can more easily share' and requires cyclists to operate FRAP on all roads at all times, even multiple laned roads, in the state of North Carolina.

idle walter mitty fantasies about SMV-FRAP laws aside, the official interpretation of SMV-FRAP laws in North Carolina are a far cry from the siren songs of the 'bicycle drivers' wild claims cyclists have no duty to operate FRAP in North Carolina.

Going to the phrase sgoodri relies on to claim cyclists have the right to the full lane, always, in the drivers ed handbook, it also states.....


A bicyclist staying to the right in their lane is
accommodating following drivers by making it
easier to see when it is safe to pass, and easier to
execute the pass.

the DMV of North Carolina also recognizes the statutory duty of cyclist under SMV-FRAP laws to stay to the right of a lane to facilitate passing. this is a far cry from the dubious notion cyclists have the right to the full lane, always, in North Carolina, and are only required to FRAP on an unlaned roadway. Wholly unsupportable interpretation of the laws affecting SMV operation in North Carolina.


Cyclists are not alleviated from operating FRAP on roads with lane stripes. however, in states with BIKES-FRAP laws, cyclists commonly have more enumerated right to take the lane for safety, unshareable lane width, etc, none of which are explicitly entertained by cyclists in North Carolina.

Avoid advocacy that suggests this fantasy of road rights.

prath, as much as i admire that legal interpretation of the phrase 'or' in SMV-FRAP laws, it has been consistently considered to apply to those more narrow vehicles such as bicycles that can more easily share two lane roads by operating not full in the lane, but as far right as practicable.

In that case I'm sure you can enlighten us with the series of legal decisions by North Carolina courts that have led to this consistent application. I look forward to perusing them in your next post.



the phrase 'or' does not denote as condition from SMV-FRAP laws whereby vehicles are alleviated from operating FRAP anytime there are lane stripes. that is a wholly unsupportable interpretation of duties of slowly driven vehicles on two lane roads.
It is a single word, not a phrase, and the meaning is quite clear. Drivers of slower vehicles must do A or B. You are the one claiming that this wording somehow requires such drivers to do B. That appears to be an unsupportable interpretation of a simple English language sentence.

North Carolina Department of Transportation promotes a differing read of the law. that is not the only thing 'or' could denote in the SMV law. "Or, if the vehicle is narrow, as far to the right as practicable". such an interpretation is consistent with a reading of that statute and its intent.



sorry but NC DOT disagrees with you. Standards of statutory construction disagree with you. A consistent interpretation of that states laws, from the DOT to the DMV, disagrees with you. The common law duty to share the road by turning out to the right disagrees with you. the intent of SMV laws to facilitate overtaking disagree with you.



No judge is going to rule that cyclists have no duty to share laned roads in North Carolina under the SMV-FRAP laws of that state.

Cyclists should steer well clear of any advocacy that suggests cyclists would have no duty to share laned roads under SMV-FRAP laws, and that bicyclists would be better off absent cyclist specific FRAP laws in most states.

Avoid this sham advocacy.

North Carolina Department of Transportation promotes a differing read of the law. that is not the only thing 'or' could denote in the SMV law. "Or, if the vehicle is narrow, as far to the right as practicable". such an interpretation is consistent with a reading of that statute and its intent.

Only if you insert words into the statute that aren't there. But since the statute as written doesn't have the words "if the vehicle is narrow" there is no additional obligation placed on drivers of narrow vehicles.



sorry but NC DOT disagrees with you. Standards of statutory construction disagree with you. A consistent interpretation of that states laws, from the DOT to the DMV, disagrees with you. The common law duty to share the road by turning out to the right disagrees with you. the intent of SMV laws to facilitate overtaking disagree with you.

You have provided no evidence for any of this. I've already dealt with your NC DOT brochure which a) doesn't list FRAP as a requirement and b) isn't legally binding. Standards of statutory construction are quite specific on the difference between 'or' and 'and' and also between 'should' and 'shall'. Statutes are written with quite precise language and it is you who is trying to find something in a simple sentence of the statute that simply isn't there.


No judge is going to rule that cyclists have no duty to share laned roads in North Carolina under the SMV-FRAP laws of that state.

I'm still waiting for your listing of all the North Carolina court cases supporting your previous claim that they have consistently upheld your interpretation. I presume it was just an oversight that you didn't include them in your post above. But, on the off chance that you don't have such a list of court citations, then please stop claiming that the courts rule according to your interpretation.[/QUOTE]

The interpretation on the duties of cyclists in North Carolina is fairly consistent across government agencies and the laws of that state. I am merely reiterating the long stated and published position by North Carolina government on the duties of cyclists there under their states SMV-FRAP laws.

I have stated my case, with references to varied official state agencies, and actually clarify sgoodri's phrase in the DMV manual he hangs his wrongful interpretation of his states laws on as also clearly indicating FRAP on roads shall be a requirement of bicyclists.

North Carolina and the statutory duty of cyclists to operate as far to the right as practicable notwithstanding,

Bicycle advocacy that relies on faulty interpretation of laws is suspect and should be avoided. Advocacy that suggests SMV-FRAP laws only predicate FRAP on an unlaned road should be avoided at all costs.

a far fetched position that the standard wording of SMV-FRAP laws alleviates drivers from operating FRAP on any laned roadway is unsupportable, and yet this is the position advanced by some of the posters.

assertions that SMV FRAP laws, like they are written in North Carolina, describe FRAP as only being required on unlaned roads is unsupportable.

steer clear of advocacy that suggests this. there is a dangerous astroturf advocacy movement afoot in California that also plays hard and loose with the facts in opposing BIKES-FRAP laws in favor of general SMV laws.

A far fetched suggestion California bicyclists would be better off without cyclist specific provisions to take the lane in favor of a Walter Mitty fantasy of bicyclists being better protected under the SMV-FRAP laws of that state, is to be avoided at all costs.

SMV-FRAP laws in California dictate an prima facie evidence of breaking the law in the simple act of not operating to the right. This is a far worse situation if bicyclists were to be governed in California under SMV-FRAP law and not the far better BIKES-FRAP law.

A suggestion that SMV laws requiring vehicles driven slower than other traffic shall be driven in the right hand lane for traffic or as far to the right as practicable somehow describes a condition whereby on any laned road a slowly driven vehicle has no duty to FRAP, is laughable.

and yet this is the position advanced by the bicycle drivers while deluding in their dangerous trajectory to remove cyclist protections under law.

Avoid advocacy that suggests cyclists have or would have no duty to operate FRAP to safely share two lane roads with faster traffic wishing to overtake under SMV-FRAP laws.

I'm sorry, Sudo, but you are expressing a common misconception. You have been confused by the specific permissions of the cyclist FRAP law to fail to see its basic principle of guilty unless proved innocent. The cyclist FRAP law says that bicycle traffic is a nuisance that should be kept out of the way of motorists unless a cyclist can prove the need to stray away from the edge of the roadway. In short, it is a law based on the concept that cyclists are second-class roadway users. The interpretation starts with the "principle" that cyclists are required to say out of the way of motorists, and goes on from there. That's what's wrong with it. It's like requiring everyone bearing a name that came from the Near East to prove that he or she is not a terrorist. The general SVL does not start with any such presumption. If you are driving slower than the rest, you are required to use either the right-hand lane or be as far right as practicable. The slow driver has the choice, where there is a right-hand lane, of using all of it or squeezing as right as practicable, but when there are no lanes, of squeezing as far right as practicable. There is no such presumption of guilt, and the law, because it applies to all drivers of vehicles, must be enforced in ways that are just for all drivers of vehicles, be they powered by hay, hamburgers, or petroleum.

No, John, I absolutely understand and even agree with the principle of what you are saying. 21202 Starts with the assumption that a cyclist must stay right until a condition is met, while 21654 says that a cyclist may use a full (right) lane, or can share with no obligation. This is what I mean when I say I agree with 21654 as a better law in theory.

My fear is that in practice, 21654 will be misinterpreted to the way Bek (and others) see it, which is that a cyclist must stay far right.


I think that the great majority of American opinion holds that bike lanes and bike side paths are necessary for cyclist safety. That's what every survey that I have seen has reported, and the need is commonly expressed, to use my phrasing, as the need for protection from same-direction motor traffic. That's the cyclist-inferiority complex at work, and when it progresses into advocacy of cyclist-inferiority cycling it meets the definition of a phobia as being driven by fear to take actions contrary to one's interest.

Of course, motorists have their own reason for advocating bike lanes and bike side paths, which they try to justify by using the other side of that psychological condition, the motorist-supremacy side.

The idea that bikeways are no more than conveniences provided by a beneficent government to make cycling faster or more convenient is a rare one, more suited to persons who think that in most cases "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." But that's not the way that society considers them.

Fair enough.

The interpretation on the duties of cyclists in North Carolina is fairly consistent across government agencies and the laws of that state. I am merely reiterating the long stated and published position by North Carolina government on the duties of cyclists there under their states SMV-FRAP laws.
On the contrary, the statute provides a very straight forward sentence specifying the duties of drivers of slow-moving vehicles and you insist that we shouldn't read that sentence for what it plainly says. Sggoodri has been working with the police and DMV in that state and indicates that they have no problem with the statute as written: i.e. clearly allowing for two ways that such drivers can comply with the law, by being in the right hand lane or by being as FRAP.



This is a far worse situation if bicyclists were to be governed in California under SMV-FRAP law and not the far better BIKES-FRAP law. But cyclists in California already *are* governed by the general SMV law in addition to being subject to the bicycle specific law. Under 21200, bicyclists are subject to all the rights and responsibilities of vehicle drivers; one of which is to comply with the SMV statute, section 21654. Bicyclists in California can currently be cited under either 21202 or 21654.

No, John, I absolutely understand and even agree with the principle of what you are saying. 21202 Starts with the assumption that a cyclist must stay right until a condition is met, while 21654 says that a cyclist may use a full (right) lane, or can share with no obligation. This is what I mean when I say I agree with 21654 as a better law in theory.

My fear is that in practice, 21654 will be misinterpreted to the way Bek (and others) see it, which is that a cyclist must stay far right.



Fair enough.

no, not fair enough. i also firmly rally for cyclists right to the full lane. However, CVC 21654, the SMV-FRAP law has far less allowances for full lane use by bicyclists and would make cyclists provide evidence of guilt by simply riding away from the right.

if SMV-FRAP law were to again be applied to bicyclists absent CVC 21202 the BIKES-FRAP law, California could simply look to a state with only SMV-FRAP laws and interpret that cyclists would be expected, as in North Carolina, to be required to keep as far to the right as practicable on all roads no matter the number of stripes or lanes on the road.

In california, cyclists riding under CVC 21654 would, indeed, have to be governed by the statute. and the wording is far, far more onerous to cyclists.

On the contrary, the statute provides a very straight forward sentence specifying the duties of drivers of slow-moving vehicles and you insist that we shouldn't read that sentence for what it plainly says. Sggoodri has been working with the police and DMV in that state and indicates that they have no problem with the statute as written: i.e. clearly allowing for two ways that such drivers can comply with the law, by being in the right hand lane or by being as FRAP.

But cyclists in California already *are* governed by the general SMV law in addition to being subject to the bicycle specific law. Under 21200, bicyclists are subject to all the rights and responsibilities of vehicle drivers; one of which is to comply with the SMV statute, section 21654. Bicyclists in California can currently be cited under either 21202 or 21654.

incorrect on several counts. the state provides, and has consistently provided, an official interpretation of cyclists duties to FRAP on all roads, not just two lane ones, in the state of North Carolina. Legal sophistry in a bike forum or by a bicyclist opposed to the laws of the state doesn't negate the decades of interpretation the state of North Carolina has provided in its interpretation of SMV-FRAP laws and the duties of cyclists under law.

The state has defined the duties of cyclists in North Carolina for nearly 40 years that operating as a slowly driven vehicle requires a cyclist to FRAP to facilitate passing, on all roads of all number of stripes. This is a long defined and standing duty of cyclists in North Carolina. That the phrase 'or' somehow negates the intent of the state of North Carolina in its depiction of the duties of cyclists is laughable.

Steve has not been 'working' with the DMV, he is misinterpreting a paragraph out of the DMV manual about the duties of cyclists to FRAP to share the road in NC, and misleading Raleigh police in his cyclists ed module.

as to the West Coast - Cyclists have far more enumerated rights under CVC 21202. CVC 21654 does not apply to bikes, as CVC 21202 is the law governing slowly driven bicycles. Cyclists could be citied only incorrectly under CVC 21654, a far more restrictive law.

cyclists need to be VERY WARY of any advocacy that suggests cyclists have no duties to share two lane roads and that cyclists would be better of without BIKES-FRAP laws. avoid this astroturf advocacy that seeks to constrain cyclists. in California, it would subject cyclists to a law that predicates evidence of a violation of the law simply by operating away from the right.

this far, far worse situation is being lobbied to cyclists under the guise of 'promoting' cyclists rights. it would, as the statutes show, be a far worse situation for cyclists absent BIKES-FRAP laws. Cyclists may start deluding themselves about the very nature of SMV-FRAP laws, as has happened in North Carolina.

Avoid cycling advocacy that pretends to protect cyclists rights while engaged in a fight to remove them.

incorrect on several counts. the state provides, and has consistently provided, an official interpretation of cyclists duties to FRAP on all roads, not just two lane ones, in the state of North Carolina. Legal sophistry in a bike forum or by a bicyclist opposed to the laws of the state doesn't negate the decades of interpretation the state of North Carolina has provided in its interpretation of SMV-FRAP laws and the duties of cyclists under law.

The state has defined the duties of cyclists in North Carolina for nearly 40 years that operating as a slowly driven vehicle requires a cyclist to FRAP to facilitate passing, on all roads of all number of stripes. This is a long defined and standing duty of cyclists in North Carolina. That the phrase 'or' somehow negates the intent of the state of North Carolina in its depiction of the duties of cyclists is laughable.
Even if your interpretation of some DMV brochure were correct (and I've already provided reasons to question that), it would be irrelevant since the language of the actual statutes determine what is legally binding and in this case the statute language is very clear. A requirement for a driver to 'do A or B' gives him the choice of either doing A or doing B. Any claim that it requires him to do B is going against the very plain language of the statute. Reading the actual language of the vehicle code and applying normal English language interpretation to it is hardly "legal sophistry."


CVC 21654 does not apply to bikes, as CVC 21202 is the law governing slowly driven bicycles. Cyclists could be citied only incorrectly under CVC 21654, a far more restrictive law.Since bicyclists are assigned all the rights and responsibilities of vehicle operators (under 21200) in California, all sections of the vehicle code that assign responsibilities to vehicle operators clearly apply to bicyclists. That includes section 21654 while excluding some sections of the code that explicitly only apply to "motor vehicle operators." It is certainly not the case that only code sections that specifically mention bicyclists can be used to cite cyclists for violations. Otherwise cyclists could not be cited for things like running red lights, speeding, etc. Any slow-moving cyclist who moves left out of the right lane and is not passing other traffic or preparing for a left turn can be cited under 21654.

your interpretation of the applicability of the laws of California is incorrect.

CVC 21654 is supplanted by CVC 21202 in the case of bicyclists operating slower than traffic wishing to overtake.

you interpretation of the laws of North Carolina is also incorrect.

Sophistry about the word 'or' in NC 20-146 is at odds with North Carolina's official government position on the laws of their state.

prathman, before you keep restating your continued sophistry, clarify one thing first:

do you agree with the far fetched position that some posting here possess, that SMV-FRAP laws containing the words 'right hand lane or as far right as practicable' indicates right hand lane for traffic covers a simple, two lane road and that FRAP only applies on unlaned roads?

that untenable position is one used by those seeking to take away cyclists rights.

do you agree with that position?

or do you accept the more standard and long standing position that 'right hand lane available for traffic' indicates conditions along a road with multiple lanes for same direction travel, and that on two lane, single lane for each direction of travel slowly moving vehicles must FRAP?

please clarify.

Cyclist need always ride safely, John. Only as far to the right as is safe to safely share the road with faster traffic wishing to overtake. Absent faster traffic, cyclists are free to choose a road position well away from the edge of the road, and i strongly recommend they do so.

The proper road position should be irrespective of other traffic, no? The time when proper road position would most make a difference in safety is when there is heavy or overtaking traffic. Either the road is wide and safe enough to split or overtaking vehicles need to leave the lane of travel to pass you and riding further right as a courtesy will only encourage unsafe passing. What you are suggesting sets up a dangerous catch-22 since the time cyclists most need the room is when they are least able to command it.

The proper road position should be irrespective of other traffic, no? The time when proper road position would most make a difference in safety is when there is heavy or overtaking traffic. Either the road is wide and safe enough to split or overtaking vehicles need to leave the lane of travel to pass you and riding further right as a courtesy will only encourage unsafe passing. What you are suggesting sets up a dangerous catch-22 since the time cyclists most need the room is when they are least able to command it.

I'm not setting up a dangerous catch 22 with the duties of smv frap laws. there is nothing onerous.

the proper road position is dependent on if there is faster traffic wishing to overtake pursuant to the SMV-FRAP or BIKES -FRAP laws of all states, and the duties of slowly driven vehicles are to share the road. proper lane position when there is faster traffic is uniformly FRAP.

especially on two lane roads.

Either the lane is wide enough to share safely or not. If the lane is not wide enough to share how does changing position help except to encourage unsafe passing?