Vehicular Cycling (VC) - FRAP case law anyone?

There seem to be a lot of threads in the VC sub-forum dedicated to what the law requires regarding as far right as practicable (FRAP). Various people seem to disagree, sometimes passionately, and sometimes, as far as I can tell, both passionately and irrationally, what the law means and what judges will "most certainly" rule. I'm a practical person and view the law as something that is subject to interpretation not on internet forums but in the courts of law that have been designated to actually interpret the law. In all these threads I have only rarely (if at all) seen any reference to an actual case let alone a comprehensive analysis of case law concerning FRAP. So I am starting this thread asking for examples of case law involving cyclists and failure to ride FRAP. The cases could be either criminal (that is a traffic citation) or civil (for example a cyclist was hit but unable to collect damages because they were found to be not FRAP).

So does anyone have actual legal cases involving FRAP they would like to share?

it would depend, akohekohe.

are you talking about BIKES-FRAP laws, or SMV-FRAP laws?

all slowly driven vehicles in all states have a duty to FRAP.

here's an example of two different FRAP laws. one is for bicyclists, one is for other vehicles not bicycles, in south Dakota.

32-20B-5. Operation on roadway--Riding close to right-hand curb required--Violation as misdemeanor. Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. However, a person operating a bicycle may move from the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway to overtake and pass another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction, to prepare for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or roadway or to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.


and for the rest of the vehicles in south dakota


Use of right half of highway required--Slow-moving vehicles--Overtaking and passing excepted--Violation as misdemeanor. Upon all highways of sufficient width, except upon one-way streets, the driver of a vehicle shall drive the same upon the right half of the highway and shall drive a slow-moving vehicle as closely as possible to the right-hand edge or curb of such highway, unless it is impracticable to travel on such side of the highway and except when overtaking and passing another vehicle subject to the limitations applicable in overtaking and passing set forth in §§ 32-26-26 to 32-26-39, inclusive. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

when you ask about FRAP laws, its good to clarify which you are asking about.

which FRAP laws are you asking about?

it would depend, akohekohe.

are you talking about BIKES-FRAP laws, or SMV-FRAP laws?



Both, I'm interested in any case law applying to cyclists and FRAP regardless of whether it arises from Bike-FRAP or SMV-FRAP. If anyone has a SMV-FRAP case that applied to a non-cyclist that might have established case law relevant to cyclists that would be welcome as well, although the poster should make the case for why it is relevant to cyclists.

i think it would be more valuable if anyone could provide a case citation for a ruling that a two lane road has both a right hand lane and a left hand lane for traffic so FRAP provisions in SMV laws don't apply, to be perfectly honest.

I know of a case in Texas where the rider was uncompromisingly riding in the center of the roadway of a divided highway. He thought he was protected by that states FRAP laws, but he got convicted of RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT.

I know of a case in Ohio where the rider was not guilty of impeding traffic, but it was the finding of the court that the rider would have been convicted of failing to operate FRAP if that would have been the charge.

i think it would be more valuable if anyone could provide a case citation for a ruling that a two lane road has both a right hand lane and a left hand lane for traffic so FRAP provisions in SMV laws don't apply, to be perfectly honest.

I know of a case in Texas where the rider was uncompromisingly riding in the center of the roadway of a divided highway. He thought he was protected by that states FRAP laws, but he got convicted of RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT.

I know of a case in Ohio where the rider was not guilty of impeding traffic, but it was the finding of the court that the rider would have been convicted of failing to operate FRAP if that would have been the charge.

These statements require greater detail. In the Bates case in Texas, Bates was riding near the center of the right-hand lane of a four-lane divided highway, during a time of rather low traffic. The police and prosecutors discovered that they could not prosecute him under normal law, for his position was lawful, so they framed him for something else, acting dangerously. Possibly endangering rabbits scurrying across the roadway? But accurately for endangering the superior attitudes of motorists.

Bek makes much of the judge's unfounded opinion that the Ohio rider would have been convicted of not riding FRAP, but that issue was never discussed in court, no relevant arguments were presented by either side, so that "opinion" is not an official opinion but merely an expression of prejudice.

San Diego... The case of Andrew Woolley. Cited for violation of 21202(a).

Blog with links regarding the case:
http://www.bikesd.org/2009/12/city-attorneys-office-finally-clarifies-cvc-21202a/

The original court transcript:
http://www.bikesd.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/People-of-CA-v-AWooley.pdf

The legal brief and opinion to overturn:
http://www.bikesd.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Respondents-Brief.pdf

Key sentence in the original court transcript showing the biased notion by the ticketing officer: "It's -- I think that this certainly shows the hazards that are out here in the roadway, even though this section doesn't say "hazardous" or anything about it. you've got to ride to the right. It just says you've got to ride to the right."

More from the officer: "His obligation on the bicycle is to ride down this right-hand side of the road and to avoid things."

San Diego... The case of Andrew Woolley. Cited for violation of 21202(a).

Blog with links regarding the case:
http://www.bikesd.org/2009/12/city-attorneys-office-finally-clarifies-cvc-21202a/

The original court transcript:
http://www.bikesd.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/People-of-CA-v-AWooley.pdf

The legal brief and opinion to overturn:
http://www.bikesd.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Respondents-Brief.pdf

Key sentence in the original court transcript showing the biased notion by the ticketing officer: "It's -- I think that this certainly shows the hazards that are out here in the roadway, even though this section doesn't say "hazardous" or anything about it. you've got to ride to the right. It just says you've got to ride to the right."

More from the officer: "His obligation on the bicycle is to ride down this right-hand side of the road and to avoid things."

I thought that this was the case that it turned out to be.

You know I just "love" it when LEO's substitute their judgement for what the law actually says. And how when they think that something is "unsafe" that it most therefore also be "illegal." And therefore they have the "right" to cite the person in question for a violation of their interpretation of the law.

Do you know if Mr. Wooley ever had the money that he paid for the fine returned to him?

I thought that this was the case that it turned out to be.

You know I just "love" it when LEO's substitute their judgement for what the law actually says. And how when they think that something is "unsafe" that it most therefore also be "illegal." And therefore they have the "right" to cite the person in question for a violation of their interpretation of the law.

Do you know if Mr. Wooley ever had the money that he paid for the fine returned to him?

I have no idea of any other than the posted outcome. I tried to contact him but never got a response.

Yeah that "judgement issue" by both the cop and the judge show their strong anti-bike bias.

Would this one (http://labikes.blogspot.com/2009/05/as-far-right-as-is-practicable-dwight.html) count?


Dwight Tovey is a League Cycling Instructor in Idaho. He was pulled over for not riding far enough right, and cited when he contested the officers advice to ride farther right then Dwight thought appropriate. In light of recent discussion in the Monitor, here is what happened when he had his day in court.

ETA: There's also a list here (http://bikelaws.org/Rt2Road.htm).

...an interesting case in Idaho, one wonders what would have been the outcome if the bicyclist would have been unable to present bicyclist specific rights to the lane, and have instead been subject to Idaho's more strict SMV FRAP law......

...an interesting case in Idaho, one wonders what would have been the outcome if the bicyclist would have been unable to present bicyclist specific rights to the lane, and have instead been subject to Idaho's more strict SMV FRAP law......

The following is the Idaho statute regarding slow-moving vehicles. Note that this is entirely devoted to farm and construction equipment, with nothing about bicycles and nothing about FRAP.
TITLE 49
MOTOR VEHICLES
CHAPTER 6
RULES OF THE ROAD
49-619.Slow moving vehicles -- Restrictions and exceptions, equipment -- Emblems on certain machinery -- Limited exemption. (1) It shall be unlawful to operate a slow moving vehicle on the highways at the following times and under the following circumstances:
(a) From one-half (1/2) hour after sunset to one-half (1/2) hour before sunrise, unless the vehicle or equipment is equipped with lights as required by section 49-916 (http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title49/T49CH9SECT49-916.htm), Idaho Code;
(b) At a speed in excess of twenty-five (25) miles per hour, unless the vehicle or equipment, including towed units of farm equipment, is designed to safely travel at speeds in excess of twenty-five (25) miles per hour, but no such vehicle or equipment shall exceed the posted maximum speed limit and shall be operated by a licensed driver;
(c) In such a manner as to obstruct the free movement of traffic on the highways.
(2) A slow moving vehicle shall be equipped with a braking system and with a mechanical signaling device as required for other similarly constructed vehicles.
(3) All slow moving vehicles, farm tractors, road rollers and implements of husbandry shall have affixed at the rear of the vehicle an emblem identifying them as slow moving equipment. The Idaho traffic safety commission shall recommend to the board the minimum standards for the emblem.
(4) Emergency and snow removal vehicles owned and operated by the state or its political subdivisions when en route to, from, or in the performance of activities essential to the public safety, shall be exempt from the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection (1) of this section.

I have no idea of any other than the posted outcome. I tried to contact him but never got a response.

Yeah that "judgement issue" by both the cop and the judge show their strong anti-bike bias.

In general, if one was convicted of a minor offense paid the fine, and later won on appeal what is the recourse for getting the fine returned? I mean if one wins on appeal than shouldn't they get the fine returned to them?

Yep, both of them showed that they were not very supportive of bicycles and thought that even though the cyclist was traveling faster than traffic at that given time that he still had to "hug the right hand curb/edge" of the road. Ironically if I remember correctly in the case of Tortwood v. Selz that was basically the same thing. A cop playing father/mother knows best, and think that because the cyclist was doing something that the cop thought was unsafe that it was therefore illegal.

Even after she had had the law explained to her in court she still got it wrong saying that she would still cite a cyclist for engaging in "unsafe/illegal" behavior. Those cops need to be removed from the road and given a desk job. Particularly if they've been re-trained multiple times and are still getting it wrong.

In general, if one was convicted of a minor offense paid the fine, and later won on appeal what is the recourse for getting the fine returned? I mean if one wins on appeal than shouldn't they get the fine returned to them?

Yep, both of them showed that they were not very supportive of bicycles and thought that even though the cyclist was traveling faster than traffic at that given time that he still had to "hug the right hand curb/edge" of the road. Ironically if I remember correctly in the case of Tortwood v. Selz that was basically the same thing. A cop playing father/mother knows best, and think that because the cyclist was doing something that the cop thought was unsafe that it was therefore illegal.

Even after she had had the law explained to her in court she still got it wrong saying that she would still cite a cyclist for engaging in "unsafe/illegal" behavior. Those cops need to be removed from the road and given a desk job. Particularly if they've been re-trained multiple times and are still getting it wrong.

It is the cyclist FRAP law (CVC 21202 in California) that both provides the motivation and produces the false reasoning that enables the law enforcement system to bring false prosecutions that are no more than harassment. Some people argue that the exceptions written into the modern versions of the cyclist FRAP law powerfully allow cyclists to escape from the FRAP requirement, but there would be no need for exceptions to the FRAP law if the FRAP law did not exist to impose its basic principle upon cyclists.

The following is the Idaho statute regarding slow-moving vehicles. Note that this is entirely devoted to farm and construction equipment, with nothing about bicycles and nothing about FRAP.


john foresters' willing deceit of the bicycling community does not go unnoticed.

John, are you continuing to mislead the American Bicyclist with your insatiable fatuity?

Why even try to make such obviously transparent and misleading claims that states like Idaho have no SMV-FRAP law? just cunning wordsmithery, deceit oozing out over the sophistry, that the slow moving equipment statute is different than the lane position statute in Idaho.

Wild, unsubstantiated claims two lane roads have multiple lanes for same direction traffic is bad enough, but this deceit?

for the forums edification and if any one is genuinely interested in cycling advocacy, Idaho most assuredly has a SMV-FRAP law, it is distinct from the SMV equipment law, and it is much less permissive than the BIKES FRAP law in Idaho.

AS is the case in most states.

john foresters' willing deceit of the bicycling community does not go unnoticed.

John, are you continuing to mislead the American Bicyclist with your insatiable fatuity?

Why even try to make such obviously transparent and misleading claims that states like Idaho have no SMV-FRAP law? just cunning wordsmithery, deceit oozing out over the sophistry, that the slow moving equipment statute is different than the lane position statute in Idaho.

Wild, unsubstantiated claims two lane roads have multiple lanes for same direction traffic is bad enough, but this deceit?

for the forums edification and if any one is genuinely interested in cycling advocacy, Idaho most assuredly has a SMV-FRAP law, it is distinct from the SMV equipment law, and it is much less permissive than the BIKES FRAP law in Idaho.

AS is the case in most states.

Bek claimed that the Idaho Slow Moving Vehicle law required FRAP. I looked it up and presented it, and it doesn't. So now Bek claims that there is another Idaho statute regarding slow-moving vehicles. I looked it up, discovered it, and I present the relevant parts here:
49-630.Drive on right side of roadway -- Exceptions. ...
(2) Upon all highways any vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing, shall be driven in the right-hand lane available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the highway, 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.

Bek's new asservation doesn't get us any further than we have been. The Idaho slow-moving vehicle statute has the rather standard requirement for use of the right-hand lane available for traffic, or FRAP. As we have been discussing, Bek claims that the phrase "right-hand lane available for traffic" has its application legally restricted to multi-lane roads, but while Bek has made a great noise about the legal force of his claim, he has never been able to produce documentary evidence of that law.

john, you first quoted the SMV equipment requirements. not the SMV FRAP law of Idaho! :rolleyes:

it is rank sophistry and utterly fatuous to suggest that two lane roads have a right hand lane and a left hand lane for same direction traffic.

Ignoring ones' own previously held reasonableness and committed to print belief about SMV FRAP laws is deceit.

Sophistic claims about FRAP law not applying on two lane roads completely ignores the development of paved roads in America, the historical basis for center lines on roads and the laws of all states regulating traffic under 'right half of road' laws that reserve the other half of the road for opposite direction traffic.

The side over the center line on a two lane road is NOT a 'left lane", it is the opposite lane, for traffic travelling in the oposite direction, giving vehicles in both directions a single lane in each direction. This, under the right half of roadway laws, the other half of a two lane road is generally useable only to pass and not as a 'left hand lane'

Under "Right half of road, SMV vehicles use right hand lane or frap laws" similar to Idahos partially quoted by John (see, john, you found it - Idaho DOES have a SMV FRAP law :rolleyes:) on two lane roads the slowly driven vehicle being passed has requirements to facilitate that pass along two lane roads.

there is only one reasonable explanation for 'right hand lane or FRAP' language in SMV FRAP laws.


suggestions to the contrary, and obtusely attempting to mislead the forum in multiple posts about states SMV FRAP laws, make it clear someone is having a dishonest conversation here.

In most all states, BIKE FRAP laws are far more permissive than SMV FRAP laws. some states like California have SMV FRAP laws that would even make operating a bike away from the right evidence usable in court as expression of guilt, absent the BIKES FRAP law that allows California cyclists broad leeway in choosing a safe road position.

it is rank sophistry and utterly fatuous on your part to suggest that two lane roads have multiple lanes for same direction traffic.

Well, Bek, do you support your argument that, on two-lane roads, the left-hand lane is solely for opposing-direction traffic? That is the other consequence of your foolish play on words. Just give it up and admit that, for each direction of traffic, the left-hand lane is available, indeed expected, for use when overtaking is necessary and safe. That's the fact of the matter about which we all agree, but you are pretending that this is not so, not when it suits your argument, but is so when the opposite result suits you better.

the laws are clear, john. right half of road laws, bub. there aren't left hand lanes on two lane roads.

no amount of sophistry is going to make that whopper ring true. why do you keep derailing threads at bike forums with unreasonable insistence of the contrary?

.....like serge and his obsessive 'conspicuity' obstructionism.

the laws are clear, john. right half of road laws, bub. there aren't left hand lanes on two lane roads.

no amount of sophistry is going to make that whopper ring true. why do you keep derailing threads at bike forums with unreasonable insistence of the contrary?

.....like serge and his obsessive 'conspicuity' obstructionism.

So Bek disparagingly and sneering dismisses the argument that a two-lane road has two lanes, while vigorously and vociferously claiming that a two-lane road has only one lane.

It is significant that the defense of FRAP laws and the bikeways to enforce them has been forced, by the application of reason, into relying on arguments as peculiar as Bek's. This kind of descent is the natural consequence of discussions in which there is great overbalance between the scientific evidence for the two sides.

john should cease uttering unreasonable and unsupportable radicalism that haplessly or duplicitously aims to restrict cyclists.

Feigning the equipment laws for Idaho SMV are operating dictates, what a comedian!!!



The drivers who must comply with the statute are given the choice of lateral position on the roadway, the two options being: "in the right-hand lane for traffic" or "as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb." It is reasonable to conclude that "the right-hand lane for traffic" means that two or more lanes are available for traffic in that direction (if this is not the assumption, the phrase would have no relevance). Therefore, while the cyclist has the choice, he is lawful if occupying the right-hand lane for traffic if there are two or more lanes for traffic in his direction, and is required, on road with only one lane for traffic in his direction, to ride as close as practicable to the right-hand edge.

any newfangled notions that two lane roads have left hand lanes is out to lunch, "no relevance", to quote a cycling author. Unreasonable!

FRAP. Winter v Perz, michigan. cyclist not guilty of not operating FRAP on two lane road in michigan.

FRAP is expected on two lane roads by all vehicles, in every state by my research (even Massachusetts has a do not unnecessarily delay, turn out to right law) that can readily move further to the right and operate FRAP to positively affect the pass.

john should cease uttering unreasonable and unsupportable radicalism that haplessly or duplicitously aims to restrict cyclists.

Feigning the equipment laws for Idaho SMV are operating dictates, what a comedian!!!




any newfangled notions that two lane roads have left hand lanes is out to lunch, "no relevance", to quote a cycling author. Unreasonable!

FRAP. Winter v Perz, michigan. cyclist not guilty of not operating FRAP on two lane road in michigan.

FRAP is expected on two lane roads by all vehicles, in every state by my research (even Massachusetts has a do not unnecessarily delay, turn out to right law) that can readily move further to the right and operate FRAP to positively affect the pass.

Bek, read my website again. What you say is there is no longer there, because I have realized that it is incorrect. Same goes for Effective Cycling, when you get to read the next edition, scheduled for next spring.


Bek claims: "FRAP is expected on two lane roads by all vehicles, in every state by my research." So you believe that, Bek. However, since your belief is conditioned by your peculiar belief that two-lane roads have only one lane, there is no reason for others to place credibility in your belief, but only in the evidence that you present. You make this claim for all states; then you are obliged to present the evidence for all states, so that we may examine and evaluate the strength of that evidence.

how unreasonable of you. REDACTED? Hilarious.

right half of road laws, standard in all states, authorize a single lane each direction of travel on two lane roads, prohibit travel across on the other half of the road except as allowed for passing, in the opposite lane authorized for opposite direction travel, under FRAP laws applicable to facilitate that pass on a single lane each direction road.

this is standard statutory construction, in all states. suggestions to the contrary are just so, so, unreasonable.

do you want to discuss FRAP laws like the Hawaii professor asked for, or continue your unsubstantiations? just above you were flailingly feigning Idaho had no SMV-FRAP laws that vehicles are subject to. What a waste of this forums bandwidth and other posters intelligence.

how unreasonable of you.

right half of road laws, standard in all states, authorize a single lane each direction of travel on two lane roads, prohibit travel across on the other half of the road except as allowed for passing, in the opposite lane authorized for opposite direction travel, under FRAP laws applicable to facilitate that pass on a single lane each direction road.

this is standard statutory construction, in all states. suggestions to the contrary are just so, so, unreasonable.

do you want to discuss FRAP laws like the Hawaii professor asked for, or continue your unsubstantiations?

Bek, only you think that there is debate about the standard use of two-lane roads. In fact, there is no such debate. However, the overtaking that is permitted on such roads does not depend on either FRAP laws or FRAP positioning. You claim that the laws require FRAP for overtaking, but your claim is based, or was based I suppose I should say, on your argument that two-lane roads have only one lane. Since you now appear to have given up that argument, I don't know on what basis you make your claim. And you have never demonstrated that overtaking on two-lane roads requires FRAP placement, rather natural to avoid that demonstration because overtaking obviously doesn't.

what??

laws governing overtaking and stipulating FRAP -like in Idaho, which clearly stipulate FRAP at times- do not govern overtaking and stipulating FRAP at times?


john. you need to let the topic ride. you have no demonstration for your claims, and all the laws as written disagree with your newfangled and unreasonble take on traffic standards. you have stooped to redacting your reasonable statements on road sharing by bicyclists that have withstood your critical edits thru two printings of your books and populated your website until last night.


what sophistic blather.


Yes, john. one more time:


there are duties on slowly driven narrow vehicles to operate safely right, as far right as practicable, on two lane roads in all states, to facilitate passing. A man on a horse, a man pushing a wheelbarrow, and a man on a bicycle all have a clear statutory duty to share a two lane road by operating as far to the right as is safe to facilitate a pass by faster traffic wishing to overtake.

As to a specious "left" lane on a two lane road? "THERE'S A BUS COMING STRAIGHT FOR US IN THIS LEFT LANE, LOU!!"


Insatiably contrarian, unsupportable unreasonableness is such a pox on meaningful dialogue in this day and age.

what??

laws governing overtaking and stipulating FRAP -like in Idaho, which clearly stipulate FRAP at times- do not govern overtaking and stipulating FRAP at times?


john. you need to let the topic ride. you have no demonstration for your claims, and all the laws as written disagree with your newfangled and unreasonble take on traffic standards. you have stooped to redacting your reasonable statements on road sharing by bicyclists that have withstood your critical edits thru two printings of your books and populated your website until last night.


what sophistic blather.


Yes, john. one more time:


there are duties on slowly driven narrow vehicles to operate safely right, as far right as practicable, on two lane roads in all states, to facilitate passing. A man on a horse, a man pushing a wheelbarrow, and a man on a bicycle all have a clear statutory duty to share a two lane road by operating as far to the right as is safe to facilitate a pass by faster traffic wishing to overtake.

As to a specious "left" lane on a two lane road? "THERE'S A BUS COMING STRAIGHT FOR US IN THIS LEFT LANE, LOU!!"


Insatiably contrarian, unsupportable unreasonableness is such a pox on meaningful dialogue in this day and age.

No, Bek, I refuse to agree to your view that cyclists must always, on two-lane roads, ride FRAP and therefore subservient in both act and feel to motorists. The reasonable principle is that FRAP is required only when riding FRAP enables safe overtaking that would not be possible with normal use of the lane. You support your argument by nothing more than semantic dodges, such as two-lane roads don't have right-hand lanes.

Your arguments, Bek, are those made by the motorists and the bikeway advocates for the inferiority of cyclists. You have your reasons, never stated, for adopting your position, but I believe that the better position is that cyclists are what the laws state, drivers of vehicles, no matter that there exist FRAP and bikeway laws enacted by motorists to make motoring more convenient without real consideration of proper traffic operation.

No, Bek, I refuse to agree to your view that cyclists must always, on two-lane roads, ride FRAP and therefore subservient in both act and feel to motorists. The reasonable principle is that FRAP is required only when riding FRAP enables safe overtaking that would not be possible with normal use of the lane. You support your argument by nothing more than semantic dodges, such as two-lane roads don't have right-hand lanes.

Your arguments, Bek, are those made by the motorists and the bikeway advocates for the inferiority of cyclists. You have your reasons, never stated, for adopting your position, but I believe that the better position is that cyclists are what the laws state, drivers of vehicles, no matter that there exist FRAP and bikeway laws enacted by motorists to make motoring more convenient without real consideration of proper traffic operation.

The law in CA states that cyclists are Riders of Human Powered Devices.... but that they have the rights and responsibilities of drivers of vehicles... a subtle yet "semantic dodge" by the lawmakers of the state. If the state can employ such "semantic dodges," why can't Bek?

This "semantic dodge" by the state allows the state to specify exactly what laws apply to cyclists vice motorists verses all vehicle laws applying equally.

The applicable laws are listed below:


231. A bicycle is a device upon which any person may ride, propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears, and having one or more wheels. Persons riding bicycles are subject to the provisions of this code specified in Sections 21200 and 21200.5.

21200. (a) ( )1 A person riding a bicycle or operating a pedicab 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, but not limited to, provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, and by Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000), Section 27400, Division 16.7 (commencing with Section 39000), Division 17 (commencing with Section 40000.1), and Division 18 (commencing with Section 42000), except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.

The law in CA states that cyclists are Riders of Human Powered Devices.... but that they have the rights and responsibilities of drivers of vehicles... a subtle yet "semantic dodge" by the lawmakers of the state. If the state can employ such "semantic dodges," why can't Bek?

This "semantic dodge" by the state allows the state to specify exactly what laws apply to cyclists vice motorists verses all vehicle laws applying equally.

The applicable laws are listed below:

Genec, you just don't understand how the law works. The argument you have presented about the power of what you call a semantic dodge has never, to my knowledge, been upheld by courts, while the opposite argument, that the statute giving cyclists the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles, has been upheld many times by courts holding that cyclists are to be held to the duties of drivers of vehicles and, also, that cyclists have the rights of drivers of vehicles. You need to recognize, Genec, that traffic law is not like maritime law. Maritime law gives vessels rights and duties, but traffic law gives drivers rights and duties.

The legal power to have laws for drivers of different types of vehicles is not limited to those drivers whose vehicles are not classed as "vehicles", such as horses or bicycles. Nobody would consider that the typical motor vehicle is not a vehicle, but drivers of motor vehicles are required to obey a law applicable to them alone: they are prohibited from following so close as to constitute a danger. So, it is in the legal power of the state to enact laws that apply only to operators of bicycles, whether bicycles are defined as vehicles or devices, or anything else.

This issue has been gone over for decades and there is no expert or court opinion to the contrary.

The reasonable principle is that FRAP is required only when riding FRAP enables safe overtaking that would not be possible with normal use of the lane.

if this isn't a stunning endorsement of sharing the lane by narrow, slow moving bicyclists, i don't know what is.


However, the cyclist should understand that because his vehicle is both narrower and, often, slower than the others, he has a duty to cooperate with faster drivers by facilitating their overtaking where that action is safe for both drivers.

slower, narrower vehicles do have a duty to facilitate overtaking. what is 'not be possible with normal use of a lane'? the laws of most state require slowly operated vehicles be driven as far to the right as practicable in certain conditions, not only when normal lane use precludes passing. it's not pull over if people can't pass, it's FRAP to facilitate passing, as you insinuate are duties, the duties ascribed under law.

cyclists in california, and only cyclists, not other slow moving road users, have the right to narrow lanes, avoiding upcoming right turns, surface conditions. these are explicit rights enumerated under law, in california and most states.

I'll post some more FRAP cases as soon as the grousing diminishes about such flagrantly misrepresented traffic fundamentals.

if this isn't a stunning endorsement of sharing the lane by narrow, slow moving bicyclists, i don't know what is.



slower, narrower vehicles do have a duty to facilitate overtaking. what is 'not be possible with normal use of a lane'? the laws of most state require slowly operated vehicles be driven as far to the right as practicable in certain conditions, not only when normal lane use precludes passing. it's not pull over if people can't pass, it's FRAP to facilitate passing, as you insinuate are duties, the duties ascribed under law.

cyclists in california, and only cyclists, not other slow moving road users, have the right to narrow lanes, avoiding upcoming right turns, surface conditions. these are explicit rights enumerated under law, in california and most states.

I'll post some more FRAP cases as soon as the grousing diminishes about such flagrantly misrepresented traffic fundamentals.

Bek's argument is very confused. It is obvious that Bek knows the truth, that typical two-lane roads have lanes too narrow to share, because he prates so much about that exception in the cyclist FRAP statute. More to the point, government itself recognizes that fact, because government itself produced the exceptions to the cyclist FRAP statute. Bek's argument about slow-moving vehicles of normal width is false. The mere use of the typical lane, be it near the center of the lane or FRAP, makes no difference to the opportunities to overtake. That is why the "or" between use of lane and FRAP allows the driver of that vehicle the choice, because his lateral position makes no difference to the opportunities to overtake. That is so obvious that the legislators didn't have to sort out the matter to any greater detail.

However, Bek's argument requires such drivers to drive FRAP simply because he says that's what the law requires, and Bek argues that this enables safe overtaking without regard to other traffic. That's nonsense, and he knows that it is.

When considering a narrow vehicle, such as a bicycle, the issue is exactly the same unless that right-hand lane is wide, meaning sufficiently wide for safe overtaking of bicycle traffic by typical motor vehicles. And Bek knows this, too, because of his continual prating about that exception in the cyclist FRAP statute.

Therefore, Bek has a preference for statutes that start out by declaring that cyclists must, simply because they are riding bicycles, ride FRAP, unless they can demonstrate that an exception exists. That's the way that motorists consider bicycle traffic. It would be much better not to have the cyclist FRAP laws and simply rely on the law giving cyclists the full rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. In short, Bek is vigorously and vociferously advocating the anti-cyclist cyclist-FRAP laws and the bikeways built to enforce them. But that is rather standard of these motorist-emulating types who have a political agenda that they fear would be upset were they to disagree with the motoring public.

I say that well-informed cyclists need to stand up for their rights as drivers of vehicles, even though that means disagreeing with the motorists.

johns inchoate rebuttal about traffic laws is quite flagrant.

John thinks he can use sophistry to erode the long standing common law and statutory duty of vehicles to share roads by turning out to the right, as far to the right as is safe. he has failed, utterly failed to form a convincing argument.

bluff denial of long standing traffic standards that are also codified as traffic laws really begs to wonder why?

why such a bluff misstatement of the laws governing traffic?

Why the incessant, forum disrupting drive to suborn cyclists to much more restrictive SMV laws?

Why so incessant with the deceit, john, in a thread asking about FRAP case law? What a waste.

johns inchoate rebuttal about traffic laws is quite flagrant.

John thinks he can use sophistry to erode the long standing common law and statutory duty of vehicles to share roads by turning out to the right, as far to the right as is safe. he has failed, utterly failed to form a convincing argument.

bluff denial of long standing traffic standards that are also codified as traffic laws really begs to wonder why?

why such a bluff misstatement of the laws governing traffic?

Why the incessant, forum disrupting drive to suborn cyclists to much more restrictive SMV laws?

Why so incessant with the deceit, john, in a thread asking about FRAP case law? What a waste.

Bek asks why I act in this matter as I do. Simple answer: "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." Laws enacted by motorists to require cyclists to ride FRAP and bikeways designed by motorists to compel such riding prohibit cyclists from exercising the rights of drivers of vehicles, rights and duties given by law but partially denied by the cyclist-inferiority laws. In short, cyclists should not be treated as second-class road users but should act and be treated just like other drivers of vehicles.

Bek prefers the restrictive FRAP laws and bikeways to enforce them, just as do the motoring interests who invented them to restrict cyclists. Bek has never elucidated his motive for preferring the motorists' solution to what motorists see as their problem with bicycle traffic. Since Bek won't bring his motivation into the open, he is reduced to trying to argue that the motorists' solution to their bicycle traffic problem is actually good for cyclists. But trying to argue that anti-cyclist laws are good for cyclists presents problems similar to arguing that mouse traps are good for mice or slavery is good for slaves. The effort of arguing what is not so produces absurd arguments; in the present case, such as that two-lane roads don't have a right-hand lane and the word "or" doesn't offer a choice.

It is reasonable to ask why I persist in demonstrating the absurdity of the FRAP and bikeways arguments. When reasonable criticism is directed at unreasonable arguments, those who present the unreasonable arguments are pressed into trying arguments that become more and more unreasonable. The seven-decade American policy of cyclist-FRAP and the four-decade American policy of bikeways to enforce cyclist FRAP so suit the American automotive public that people believe this nonsense whenever it is proclaimed, which is what Bek does. I see my task as proving expressions of this belief to be based on nothing more than motorists' desires and public superstition, whenever such expressions are published.

hardly my position on traffic laws of this country, bicyclists rights, safe road operation and 'taking the lane.'

maybe john forester can put a sock in it, stop his attempts at strawman army building and talk about the thread topic, instead of engaging in unsubstantiated, rancorous personal character smears.


When reasonable criticism is directed at unreasonable arguments, those who present the unreasonable arguments are pressed into trying arguments that become more and more unreasonable. a moment of introspection, perhaps.

Misleading with red herring obtusity about idaho traffic laws was flagrant.

Bek asks why I act in this matter as I do. Simple answer: "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." Laws enacted by motorists to require cyclists to ride FRAP and bikeways designed by motorists to compel such riding prohibit cyclists from exercising the rights of drivers of vehicles, rights and duties given by law but partially denied by the cyclist-inferiority laws. In short, cyclists should not be treated as second-class road users but should act and be treated just like other drivers of vehicles.

Bek prefers the restrictive FRAP laws and bikeways to enforce them, just as do the motoring interests who invented them to restrict cyclists. Bek has never elucidated his motive for preferring the motorists' solution to what motorists see as their problem with bicycle traffic. Since Bek won't bring his motivation into the open, he is reduced to trying to argue that the motorists' solution to their bicycle traffic problem is actually good for cyclists. But trying to argue that anti-cyclist laws are good for cyclists presents problems similar to arguing that mouse traps are good for mice or slavery is good for slaves. The effort of arguing what is not so produces absurd arguments; in the present case, such as that two-lane roads don't have a right-hand lane and the word "or" doesn't offer a choice.

It is reasonable to ask why I persist in demonstrating the absurdity of the FRAP and bikeways arguments. When reasonable criticism is directed at unreasonable arguments, those who present the unreasonable arguments are pressed into trying arguments that become more and more unreasonable. The seven-decade American policy of cyclist-FRAP and the four-decade American policy of bikeways to enforce cyclist FRAP so suit the American automotive public that people believe this nonsense whenever it is proclaimed, which is what Bek does. I see my task as proving expressions of this belief to be based on nothing more than motorists' desires and public superstition, whenever such expressions are published.

Perhaps it is more reasonable to ask why you persist in your quest in spite of the realization that " The seven-decade American policy of cyclist-FRAP and the four-decade American policy of bikeways to enforce cyclist FRAP so suit the American automotive public that people believe this nonsense whenever it is proclaimed." In light of this declaration, it seems that your views are quite counter to beliefs of the masses, and not hardly ever going to be accepted. Perhaps a different tack would be more productive.

Otherwise your quest is just as fruitless as that which you declare of Bek.

my quest isn't fruitless, Gene.

I was one of the primary advocates in our State instrumental in fending off a mandatory bikelane/shoulder law this spring, am a cycling instructor (not a disgraced one :eek:) , and working to institute much more effective dissemination of traffic safety for bicyclists at the Local Bike Shop level as well.

if anyone wants to steer this back to FRAP case law, i think that would be great.

Briggs V United Fruit and Produce, Wash 1941
Cyclist (deceased) avoiding gravel on state highway found not negligent of
failure to operate practicably right while operating to avoid dangerous road
conditions.

Perhaps it is more reasonable to ask why you persist in your quest in spite of the realization that " The seven-decade American policy of cyclist-FRAP and the four-decade American policy of bikeways to enforce cyclist FRAP so suit the American automotive public that people believe this nonsense whenever it is proclaimed." In light of this declaration, it seems that your views are quite counter to beliefs of the masses, and not hardly ever going to be accepted. Perhaps a different tack would be more productive.

Otherwise your quest is just as fruitless as that which you declare of Bek.

You misunderstand my purpose, Gene, but this is not an unusual view. There is much criticism of vehicular cyclists as being unable to persuade the masses and then admitting that they don't really intend to do so. That criticism comes from those with the purpose of switching a transportationally significant amount from motor to bicycle transport. That's not to say that vehicular cyclists do not have a societal purpose.

Vehicular cyclists have two general purposes, individual and societal. The individual purpose is to teach cyclists to ride according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, because that is good for those who learn. The societal purpose is to protect vehicular cyclists from the oppression of government, oppression exercised by laws requiring cyclists to ride FRAP and by the bikeways designed to enforce FRAP, all designed by motorists to make motoring more convenient.

The defense of vehicular cycling against governmental oppression is best done by showing that vehicular cycling agrees with the standard traffic-engineering knowledge (in its widest sense) while the American policy regarding bicycle traffic has little, and its advocates have shown zero, intellectual validity. Even if American society desires cyclists to operate as motorists desire, that is contrary to traffic-engineering knowledge and cannot produce an intellectually valid reason for prohibiting those cyclists who choose to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. In short, no superstition, no matter how popular, can provide the basis for prohibiting a minority from operating by the same rules that the majority of drivers have found to be best suited for drivers of vehicles. Vehicular cycling is the only intellectually respectable way to operate a bicycle for transportation, and as such, prohibiting such operation is a discriminatory injustice that is outside the proper bounds of the police power.

what soapboaxing. should be a violation of the forum decorum if you ask me. this is about frap case law, not john pretending frap laws don't exist in idaho and his incessant spiel about 'rules of the road for drivers of vehicles' coupled to a generally insulting tonality.

..What I find interesting in the Briggs V United Produce ruling from the 1940's is that it:

mentioned a duty to FRAP on two lane roads,

and that surface conditions not safe for bicyclists made operating away from the right not a violation of the frap requirement.

I, John Forester, offer the following, not as an official interpretation of CVC 21202, but as an example of how it is administered, and may well result in an appellate opinion.


I was cited for violating CVC 21202(A) by SDPD and then was found guilty at the trial.
My story here:
http://www.bikesd.org/2011/06/another-wrongful-cvc-21202-a-citation/

Scott Dion

my quest isn't fruitless, Gene.

I was one of the primary advocates in our State instrumental in fending off a mandatory bikelane/shoulder law this spring, am a cycling instructor (not a disgraced one :eek:) , and working to institute much more effective dissemination of traffic safety for bicyclists at the Local Bike Shop level as well.

if anyone wants to steer this back to FRAP case law, i think that would be great.

Briggs V United Fruit and Produce, Wash 1941
Cyclist (deceased) avoiding gravel on state highway found not negligent of
failure to operate practicably right while operating to avoid dangerous road
conditions.

I never said your quest was fruitless... I said that John Foresters quest was as fruitless as that which he declares your effort is.

Pending 21202 case.

http://www.bikesd.org/2011/06/another-wrongful-cvc-21202-a-citation/

John take your "seven decades of effort... against governmental oppression" and do something real with it...

Go provide testimony in court for the above case, and go offer your services to the local PD to better inform LEOs of the laws.

Pending 21202 case.

http://www.bikesd.org/2011/06/another-wrongful-cvc-21202-a-citation/

John take your "seven decades of effort... against governmental oppression" and do something real with it...

Go provide testimony in court for the above case, and go offer your services to the local PD to better inform LEOs of the laws.

I was not informed of this case until after trial. As I have stated on the local advocacy list, for cases in which the legal rights of the cyclist as a driver of a vehicle have been challenged, I charge only expenses. In this San Diego case, expenses would have been zero. I have always considered this to be my duty to my fellow cyclists.

I was not informed of this case until after trial. As I have stated on the local advocacy list, for cases in which the legal rights of the cyclist as a driver of a vehicle have been challenged, I charge only expenses. In this San Diego case, expenses would have been zero. I have always considered this to be my duty to my fellow cyclists.

He is an LCI, therefore something of a leader in the cycling community... and he is planning on appealing the case.

Sounds as if you still have time to make a point.

maybe the LCI doesn't WANT John's help.

maybe the LCI doesn't WANT John's help.

Maybe, but that is a local issue, between John and the LCI. Since John apparently did not even know of the trial, he could not offer.

john said he'd made his offer clear on some SD bike advocacy site. That is neither here nor there, however.

This thread is about FRAP case laws.

Regarding FRAP case laws, it does sound like there has been a miscarriage of justice in San Diego county with a failure of lower courts to abide by appellate court rulings regarding bicyclists use of substandard width lanes; These recent convictions are sure to be rescinded if justice is not blinded by the polluted haze southern californians live under..

john said he'd made his offer clear on some SD bike advocacy site. That is neither here nor there, however.

This thread is about FRAP case laws.

Regarding FRAP case laws, it does sound like there has been a miscarriage of justice in San Diego county with a failure of lower courts to abide by appellate court rulings regarding bicyclists use of substandard width lanes; These recent convictions are sure to be rescinded if justice is not blinded by the polluted haze southern californians live under..

I think that substand width of lane was not the issue in this case; it certainly did not appear so from the photos presented. The problem was that 21202 existed at all, because it was the existence of 21202 that enabled the cop to bring a charge. Without 21202, he would have had no basis for charging.

that has nothing to do with a potential miscarriage of justice in San Diego County from its lower courts failing to use appellate court rulings to guide a judgement.

pfft. Absent a bikes-frap laws, states still uniformly regulate bikes under (far more restrictive) SMV FRAP laws. stop the deceit anytime.

Antagonistic police would certainly be able to harass bicyclists in San Diego and ticket them for 'failure to operate to the right' if they started any talking back, under CVC 21654.

Do you mind stopping the deceit and keeping unsupportable opinions out of the discussions already - its really a waste of everyones voice and time here.

FRAP case laws, anyone? I'm thinking of one involving a bicycling in the 1950's in Michigan that also involved legal requirements of FRAP on bicyclists, and the cyclist being found not culpable for not operating frap. unfortunately, the bicyclist was deceased as he had been killed while riding away from the edge so had nothing to gain from being found not culpable.

Extraneous material snipped

pfft. Absent a bikes-frap laws, states still uniformly regulate bikes under (far more restrictive) SMV FRAP laws. stop the deceit anytime.

Antagonistic police would certainly be able to harass bicyclists in San Diego and ticket them for 'failure to operate to the right' if they started any talking back, under CVC 21654.

Do you mind stopping the deceit and keeping unsupportable opinions out of the discussions already - its really a waste of everyones voice and time here.


I do not practice the deceit that Bek accuses me of doing. Deceit means knowingly making false statements in order to serve some other interest. Bek, please provide your evidence for false statements and the interest you suppose they serve.

The discussion centers around two issues. One issue is whether the phrase "right-hand lane for traffic" applies to two-lane roads. The other issue is whether the word 'or' offers a choice between two lawful actions, as in use the right-hand lane for traffic or operate as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. In these discussions I have adopted the standard interpretation of these issues, saying that two-lane roads have a right-hand lane for traffic and saying that 'or' offers a choice between lawful actions. I think that these are entirely respectable positions on these two issues. Bek claims that I know that my position on one or both of these issues is false, and that I make false statements to support some other interest.

Furthermore, consider the opposite arguments. The main argument appears to be that the phrase "right-hand lane for traffic" is fine for multi-lane roads, but when applied to two-lane roads it duplicates the normal law of traveling on the right-hand half of the roadway. Since it duplicates that law, it is unnecessary, so that the legislators could not have meant it to apply to two-lane roads. I regard this as tortured reasoning. I know of no legal principle that prohibits duplication of laws. Indeed it is often argued that prosecutors often have the choice of which law to use in prosecution. And those who maintain this non-duplication argument have never provided any support for their view. And, if the legislators intended that the phrase "right-hand lane for traffic" did not apply to two-lane roads, the appropriate words to express that view would have been easily written, which they weren't. Therefore, I conclude that the legislators intended that the phrase "right-hand lane for traffic" apply to all roads that have lanes. That's the simplest way to consider the wording and there is no evidence of any contrary intent.

Bek also claims that I make the statements that I do to serve some hidden interest. I have always stated that my motive is the welfare of cyclists, and that is true. But considering that Bek makes tortured arguments trying to demonstrate that the general traffic laws require cyclists to ride FRAP and more tortured arguments advocating laws that specifically require cyclists to ride FRAP unless some special circumstance exists, it is reasonable to consider that Bek's motive is just what he advocates. Cyclists should be, and should be considered to be, subservient to motorists by having their greatest duty to stay out of the way of motorists by riding FRAP. In this respect, Bek is advocating what has always been the motorists' position regarding bicycle traffic.

Since when does FRAP make a cyclist think the 'P' in FRAP means absolutely instead of 'practicable' or 'possible'?

By the use of either one of those words in the law, law enforcement courtesy of state legislatures' continually keeps a chasm of ambiguity(instead of specificity) in the state's traffic code open for misuse of interpretation by law enforcement thinking it means 'absolute'. Because what is 'practicable' or 'possible', is not a judgment call on the part of the motorist....it is a judgement call on the part of the cyclist!!!!

Since when does FRAP make a cyclist think the 'P' in FRAP means absolutely instead of 'practicable' or 'possible'?

By the use of either one of those words in the law, law enforcement courtesy of state legislatures' continually keeps a chasm of ambiguity(instead of specificity) in the state's traffic code open for misuse of interpretation by law enforcement thinking it means 'absolute'. Because what is 'practicable' or 'possible', is not a judgment call on the part of the motorist....it is a judgement call on the part of the cyclist!!!!

Not quite. The judgement call is initially by the cyclist. Then it may be disputed by a police officer. It is finally settled, if things go that far, by a court.