Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Which law would you rather be subject to?

There's a lot of unfounded talk here at Bike Forums about how slowly moving vehicles have no duties to share laned roads, and bicyclists would be better off fighting bike specific laws, like bikes FRAP laws, which grant cyclists in most states more rights to take the lane than other slowly driven vehicles.

there are some elements of a fringe camp posting here that think bicyclists must fight 'discriminatory' FRAP laws before they can even ride like a vehicle in most states.


Everyone's entitled to their opinion, I guess.

However, in the interests of objectivity and debate, i am going to post two typical slow moving vehicle statutes from the plains state of South Dakota.

I wonder, on reading these two different statutes - one is for bicyclists, the other for all other slowly driven vehicles - which law would you as a cyclist rather be subject to?

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.

.....this poll doesn't even need answering, does it?

There's a lot of unfounded talk here at Bike Forums about how slowly moving vehicles have no duties to share laned roads, and bicyclists would be better off fighting bike specific laws, like bikes FRAP laws, which grant cyclists in most states more rights to take the lane than other slowly driven vehicles.

there are some elements of a fringe camp posting here that think bicyclists must fight 'discriminatory' FRAP laws before they can even ride like a vehicle in most states.


Everyone's entitled to their opinion, I guess.

However, in the interests of objectivity and debate, i am going to post two typical slow moving vehicle statutes from the plains state of South Dakota.

I wonder, on reading these two different statutes - one is for bicyclists, the other for all other slowly driven vehicles - which law would you as a cyclist rather be subject to?

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.

The South Dakota SMV law is not typical of such laws and disagrees with the recommendations in the Uniform Vehicle Code. The general wording requires drivers of slow-moving vehicles to operate in "the right-hand lane available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway." Bek has put up a total vehicular FRAP law against a cyclist FRAP law with exceptions, which ain't a legitimate national choice. Typical of Bek's ideological frenzy, this. Had he made the poll between a cyclist FRAP law with exceptions and a law giving both slow motorists and cyclists the right to use the right-hand lane, with no need for specific exceptions, the result would have been different.

john, in south dakota, as a bicyclist,

what law grants you more rights? which law would you prefer as a bicyclist?

you get no leeway to idealize the law in your notion. just as it is written. which law is more permissive, john forester?


the South Dakota laws are representative of states SMV FRAP laws, if not the exact wording. Most every state has quite restrictive traffic laws for indistinct slowly driven vehicles that are far more restrictive than the SMV laws for bicyclists.

john, in south dakota, as a bicyclist,

what law grants you more rights? which law would you prefer as a bicyclist?

you get no leeway to idealize the law in your notion. just as it is written. which law is more permissive, john forester?


the South Dakota laws are representative of states SMV FRAP laws, if not the exact wording. Most every state has quite restrictive traffic laws for indistinct slowly driven vehicles that are far more restrictive than the SMV laws for bicyclists.

Considering the error rate in Bek's previous claims, he will have to provide really persuasive evidence before his claim should be believed.

can't look at a simple poll, two laws, and come up with a decision? this seems a chronic problem, john.

if you think understanding traffic laws is too complicated ( I recall you felt you wouldn't be able explain "practicable" in a courtroom in one of our recent conversations), I suggest a League of American Bicyclists BIKES 123 class to start, get the remedial stuff out of the way first.

can't look at a simple poll, two laws, and come up with a decision? this seems a chronic problem, john.

if you think understanding traffic laws is too complicated ( I recall you felt you wouldn't be able explain "practicable" in a courtroom in one of our recent conversations), I suggest a League of American Bicyclists BIKES 123 class to start, get the remedial stuff out of the way first.

Here's Bek's immediately prior statement: "the South Dakota laws are representative of states SMV FRAP laws, if not the exact wording. Most every state has quite restrictive traffic laws for indistinct slowly driven vehicles that are far more restrictive than the SMV laws for bicyclists." I stated that if Bek's claim were to be credible, he would have to provide proof of it. He has avoided doing so.

Bek's claim that I wrote that I was unable to explain the meaning of "practicable" in a courtroom is just one more of Bek's lies. I would never write such a foolish thing.

almost all states SMV-FRAP laws have far less exceptions for traveling away from the right than BIKES FRAP laws in most states.

the laws of South Dakota are representative of the differences between SMV FRAP laws and BIKES FRAP laws in many states. Bikes are the only traffic allowed full use of a lane when unsafe to share; other slowly driven, narrow vehicles have no such allowance (motorcyclists in some states excepted). South Dakota also embodies most of the standard allowances for full lane use held by bicyclists in most states, conditions including left turns and passing and but not limited to surface conditions, fixed or moving objects, etc.

These allowances are explicitly held by bicyclists, and bicyclists alone, in most states. This is what I mean when I state SD SMV laws are representative of the SMV laws in other states.

...I'm suprised you don't remember our conversation where you admitted defining fundamental road users responsibilities such as keeping a proper lookout and operating as far right as practicable would be difficult for you, and i was offering up quite simple explanations. I don't recall the exact words, but you had been telling me you'd face incredible difficulties sussing these fundamental traffic concepts out in a courtroom.

As to the original topic - perhaps you could now choose which law you, as a cyclist, would prefer to be governed under while riding in the state of South Dakota.

almost all states SMV-FRAP laws have far less exceptions for traveling away from the right than BIKES FRAP laws in most states.

the laws of South Dakota are representative of the differences between SMV FRAP laws and BIKES FRAP laws in many states. Bikes are the only traffic allowed full use of a lane when unsafe to share; other slowly driven, narrow vehicles have no such allowance (motorcyclists in some states excepted). South Dakota also embodies most of the standard allowances for full lane use held by bicyclists in most states, conditions including left turns and passing and but not limited to surface conditions, fixed or moving objects, etc.

These allowances are explicitly held by bicyclists, and bicyclists alone, in most states. This is what I mean when I state SD SMV laws are representative of the SMV laws in other states.

...I'm suprised you don't remember our conversation where you admitted defining fundamental road users responsibilities such as keeping a proper lookout and operating as far right as practicable would be difficult for you, and i was offering up quite simple explanations. I don't recall the exact words, but you had been telling me you'd face incredible difficulties sussing these fundamental traffic concepts out in a courtroom.

As to the original topic - perhaps you could now choose which law you, as a cyclist, would prefer to be governed under while riding in the state of South Dakota.

Dear Bek, how you do get things mixed up. I remember the discussion about keeping a proper lookout. You were saying that this is a simple concept, but I told you that you were in deeper than you anticipated because the subject was much more complicated than you appeared to realize. As you way, "I [Bek] was offering up quite simple explanations." Indeed you were, and that is the problem with so much of your thought.

Again, you have attempted to make South Dakota the standard by which traffic law is to be judged. I have told you, several times, I think, that you need to produce convincing evidence of your claim before there is any reason to believe it. Again, simple expressions of simple examples indicate a very shallow thinking process. I deal with the general questions that are generally important, while you try to pin people down with atypical questions.

.....to the rest of the forum,

please, choose which law you, as a cyclist, would prefer to be governed under while riding in the state of South Dakota.

.....to the rest of the forum,

please, choose which law you, as a cyclist, would prefer to be governed under while riding in the state of South Dakota.

That's not a matter of general interest, and, Bek, you have only yourself to blame for this. I won't answer your question simply because I have good reason to believe that you will misquote my answer to suit your own agenda.

bwahahahaha.

asking a bike forum what south dakota law about road use they would prefer is not a matter of general interest? in the interest of bicycling advocacy, it most assuredly is a case of the general interest.

It is clear that South Dakota has more permissive laws for bicyclists.

The incessant drive to repeal bike laws in all states might not be as worthy of a tactic as some suggest.

bwahahahaha.

asking a bike forum what south dakota law about road use they would prefer is not a matter of general interest? in the interest of bicycling advocacy, it most assuredly is a case of the general interest.

It is clear that South Dakota has more permissive laws for bicyclists.

The incessant drive to repeal bike laws in all states might not be as worthy of a tactic as some suggest.

That depends on the typical laws of the various states, which is a matter that Bek has studiously avoided demonstrating.

Certainly not the law of the various states like SOUTH DAKOTA......

still waiting...... how about south dakota, glibster?

Which law is explictly more statutorily permissive as a slow moving vehicle law?

which law would explicitly allow bicyclists more leeway in making a safe road positioning choice in South Dakota, john?

Certainly not the law of the various states like SOUTH DAKOTA......

still waiting...... how about south dakota, glibster?

Which law is explictly more statutorily permissive as a slow moving vehicle law?

which law would explicitly allow bicyclists more leeway in making a safe road positioning choice in South Dakota, john?

I repeat, Bek, I'm not playing your game by providing answers which you are sure to misquote and misuse.

not playing my game, a look at the laws of South Dakota and determining which provides better protections for cyclists?

hardly my 'game' john. Tis only a game to those that duplicitously seek to take away cyclists rights with misleading or incomplete position statements.

I take protecting American Road Bicyclists rights to the road stuff quite seriously, john....the same can't be said for some who bother to post here.

This is the advocacy and safety forum at Bike Forums, where cyclists can discuss safe road cycling techniques and bicycling advocacy.

Sometimes there is a necessity to discuss BAD ADVOCACY.

Wow.

Bek presents the comparative laws from one state, asks which is better for bikes? JF, as he is wont to do, dedicates himself to punching holes in the argument without even giving a QUALIFIED answer -- can't be bothered to answer, but can waste EONS in correcting and reshaping the question.

I'm not going to take up my time in comparing the minutae of language between those classes of laws for all 50 states; for one, I'm not in the legal field, for another, I have a life.

I'll just say this: my experience with SMV laws is that SMVs must pull off the road when traffic builds up behind them (here in IN, it's 3 cars); bike-FRAP laws do not. The difference to me is: bikes are legitimate road users, SMVs are CONDITIONAL road users.

FRAP just colors in the details of the rights we as cyclists enjoy, and detail the responsibilities that go along with those rights (hey, every right we enjoy, constitutional and otherwise, come with attached responsibilities). I think FRAP is unnecessary, but I guess there are a lot of people out there who need the gov't to SPELL OUT "C-A-T" for them before they know it says "cat"....

Wow.

Bek presents the comparative laws from one state, asks which is better for bikes? JF, as he is wont to do, dedicates himself to punching holes in the argument without even giving a QUALIFIED answer -- can't be bothered to answer, but can waste EONS in correcting and reshaping the question.

I'm not going to take up my time in comparing the minutae of language between those classes of laws for all 50 states; for one, I'm not in the legal field, for another, I have a life.

I'll just say this: my experience with SMV laws is that SMVs must pull off the road when traffic builds up behind them (here in IN, it's 3 cars); bike-FRAP laws do not. The difference to me is: bikes are legitimate road users, SMVs are CONDITIONAL road users.

FRAP just colors in the details of the rights we as cyclists enjoy, and detail the responsibilities that go along with those rights (hey, every right we enjoy, constitutional and otherwise, come with attached responsibilities). I think FRAP is unnecessary, but I guess there are a lot of people out there who need the gov't to SPELL OUT "C-A-T" for them before they know it says "cat"....

DXMan makes erroneous statements. He correctly writes that a slowly-moving driver with traffic backed up behind him is required to move off the roadway at the first safe place to allow overtaking. He then states that the bike-FRAP law does not require this. The following is Indiana Vehicle Code:

IC 9-21-5-7
Reduction of speed; impeding normal and reasonable movement; right-of-way to other vehicles
... A person who is driving at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles are blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off to the right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable opportunity and allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.

DXMan is wrong when he claims that this does not apply to persons riding bicycles, who are given the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. Therefore, his argument that this demonstrates that drivers of SMVs are conditional road users while cyclists are legitimate road users has no validity. Both of these drivers are legitimate road users, as Indiana, so far as I can find, has no cyclist-FRAP statute.

Indiana's SMV statute is typical, except that it explicitly arranges the two choices of lateral position in different clauses:

IC 9-21-8-2
Roadways; use of right half; exceptions; traveling at reduced speeds

(b) Upon all roadways, a vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions then existing shall be driven:
(1) in the right-hand lane then available for traffic; or
(2) as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway;

Indiana statutes out of the way, DXMan argues that I should not have avoided answering Bek's question. I avoided providing an answer to a specific and unusual statute pair because Bek is a liar. If I had stated that my answer applied to only one state, Bek would have still given my answer as if it applied generally. Bek has only his own conduct to answer for as the source of my refusal to play his game.

Indiana statutes out of the way, DXMan argues that I should not have avoided answering Bek's question. I avoided providing an answer to a specific and unusual statute pair because Bek is a liar. If I had stated that my answer applied to only one state, Bek would have still given my answer as if it applied generally. Bek has only his own conduct to answer for as the source of my refusal to play his game.

John, this is once again getting childish. If you want to withhold your opinion, fine. Otherwise, just be specific and say something about the specific law in question. If anyone wants to misquote you he or she can just make something up out of thin air.

John, this is once again getting childish. If you want to withhold your opinion, fine. Otherwise, just be specific and say something about the specific law in question. If anyone wants to misquote you he or she can just make something up out of thin air.

I do not consider it childish to suspect Bek of creating the chance to apply an answer of mine to a far wider field than I intended it. He already does it with other statements.

.....to the rest of the forum,

please, choose which law you, as a cyclist, would prefer to be governed under while riding in the state of South Dakota.

Both those laws suck. I'd prefer not to be subject to either of those laws.

The safety of the bicyclist is surely not the point of the bicycle FRAP law you quote, exceptions in the fine print notwithstanding. Just read the title, "Riding close to right-hand curb required--Violation as misdemeanor."

It's a misdemeanor and not just a traffic violation for a bicyclist in South Dakota not to curb hug.

Bek's cheerleading for such laws is truly disturbing (even if maybe not as disturbing as some of the "shoot yourself in the foot" positions Forester and his minions have taken over the years).

My recollection of bicycle-specific FRAP laws I've studied over the years, is that some are not as bad as the South Dakota law (although none is what I would write).

Bicycle FRAP laws are not all that great in general but, if Forester is suggesting trying to get bicycle FRAP laws repealed, he's tilting at windmills (not the first time for him). It's not going to happen. And it probably wouldn't make a lot of difference anyway. The best bicyclists can hope for is getting the wording improved although, with 50 states with potentially different wording, getting the worst language removed is sure to be a frustating game of whack-a-mole.

The pissing contest between Bek and Forester is one of the silliest things I've ever seen. They're both quite wrong. A pox on both their houses. Bek's rantings at Forester are no more helpful than Forester's attacks on cyclist who accept neither his radical political ideas nor his fantasies about the psychology of cyclists who ride in a way that differs from the way he, in his infinite wisdom, has decreed is the only correct way.

The irony is that both sides seem to be in general agreement that curb-huging is not a good thing and that the law should not require it. Sadly, that is exactly what some laws require.

Strangely, Bek applauds laws that require curb-hugging while accusing Forester of favoring curb-hugging for opposing such laws (although that may have more to do with Bek's dislike of forester than anything else).

I never thought anyone would equal Forester but Bek's postion on FRAP laws seems every bit as crackpot as some of Forester's ideas.

I'm tempted to say that both Bek and Forester are nuts but it's barely possible that both are more misguided than nuts. They represent extreme ideologies, to be sure. A rational position would be somewhere in between and a rational plan of action would not be purely ideological.

Personally, I'm closer to Bek regarding facilities and closer to Forester regarding to bicycle-specific FRAP laws (although I couldn't disagree more with Forester on other subjects and I'm not all that close to either of them).

Both those laws suck. I'd prefer not to be subject to either of those laws.

The safety of the bicyclist is surely not the point of the bicycle FRAP law you quote, exceptions in the fine print notwithstanding. Just read the title, "Riding close to right-hand curb required--Violation as misdemeanor."

It's a misdemeanor and not just a traffic violation for a bicyclist in South Dakota not to curb hug.

Bek's cheerleading for such laws is truly disturbing (even if maybe not as disturbing as some of the "shoot yourself in the foot" positions Forester and his minions have taken over the years).

My recollection of bicycle-specific FRAP laws I've studied over the years, is that some are not as bad as the South Dakota law (although none is what I would write).

Bicycle FRAP laws are not all that great in general but, if Forester is suggesting trying to get bicycle FRAP laws repealed, he's tilting at windmills (not the first time for him). It's not going to happen. And it probably wouldn't make a lot of difference anyway. The best bicyclists can hope for is getting the wording improved although, with 50 states with potentially different wording, getting the worst language removed is sure to be a frustating game of whack-a-mole.

The pissing contest between Bek and Forester is one of the silliest things I've ever seen. They're both quite wrong. A pox on both their houses. Bek's rantings at Forester are no more helpful than Forester's attacks on cyclist who accept neither his radical political ideas nor his fantasies about the psychology of cyclists who ride in a way that differs from the way he, in his infinite wisdom, has decreed is the only correct way.

The irony is that both sides seem to be in general agreement that curb-huging is not a good thing and that the law should not require it. Sadly, that is exactly what some laws require.

Strangely, Bek applauds laws that require curb-hugging while accusing Forester of favoring curb-hugging for opposing such laws (although that may have more to do with Bek's dislike of forester than anything else).

I never thought anyone would equal Forester but Bek's postion on FRAP laws seems every bit as crackpot as some of Forester's ideas.

I'm tempted to say that both Bek and Forester are nuts but it's barely possible that both are more misguided than nuts. They represent extreme ideologies, to be sure. A rational position would be somewhere in between and a rational plan of action would not be purely ideological.

Personally, I'm closer to Bek regarding facilities and closer to Forester regarding to bicycle-specific FRAP laws (although I couldn't disagree more with Forester on other subjects and I'm not all that close to either of them).

JRA, you have chosen to make some interesting comments; I think that you might well devote some deeper consideration to them.

"Motorist propaganda, continued for sixty years, is what has put cyclists on sidewalks..." - John Forester - a great sociologist in his own mind.'
When I cycled 1500 miles in England in 1985, the only cyclists I saw using the sidewalk were a group of tourists from Connecticut. The principle difference in this respect between the nations is that American motoring organizations have run a long campaign of both propaganda and laws saying that cycling on the roadway was very dangerous and cyclists' prime duty, for their own safety, is to stay out of the way of cars. Britain had never had such a campaign; whenever the motorists tried such, they were fought to a standstill. Do you, JRA, have a better argument to support your apparent criticism of my view?

"There are no rules of the road on MUPs.' -John Forester" - Helmet Head (quoting The Great One)."
The rules of the road apply to roadway, shoulder, and sidewalk use. UVC 11-101: The provisions of this chapter relating to the operation of vehicles refer exclusively to the operation of vehicles upon highways ... MUPs are not highways.

"It may even be that motoring is more healthful than not motoring; death rates were certainly higher in the pre-motoring age."- John Forester"
Upon what basis, and with what data, do you, JRA, argue that the advent of motor transportation has increased the death rate?

JRA complains about my "radical political ideas". I consider that my prime position that cyclists should obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is a profoundly conservative one. I also consider that another of my leading positions, that people should be free to choose locations in which to live is also a profoundly conservative one. What does JRA consider to be my radical political ideas?

JRA opposes my theory about the emotions by which many cyclists consider themselves to be inferior to motorists with the need to act subservient to them. Considering that these emotions appear very frequently in both cycling discussions and motoring discussions, why does JRA consider that they do not exist?

JRA proclaims that I have decreed that vehicular cycling is the only correct way.
Well, vehicular cycling is the way that is required by the first traffic law for cyclists, giving them the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. What could be more correct than that? That is a decree issued by the law; I have no power to issue decrees. But I do argue that obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is better than disobeying those rules. What's wrong with that? But it appears that JRA's objection is to my description of the emotions of those who argue vehemently that obeying those rules is dangerous. But that returns us to the issue next above: how else is one to explain that people fear obeying the rules that make cycling safe?

As I say, these issues deserve some deeper thought.

JRA, you have chosen to make some interesting comments; I think that you might well devote some deeper consideration to them.

I doubt there are many who have considered your opinions more than I have. I have been studying your ideas for years and devoting far more time to them than they deserve. Your have raised the term "crapotism" to a new level. You should thank Bek for making such absurd attacks on you that you almost seem a sympathetic character.

I take no pleasure in criticizing you. It's sad that some bicyclists have such a visceral negative reaction to the mere mention of your name that they throw out the baby with the bathwater and dismiss all of your opinions without acknowledging that you and your VC-ist followers are actually right about some things.

You have made so many attacks on other bicyclists that I really can't blame some of them for despising you. You have brought it upon yourself. What goes around comes around.

Both those laws suck. I'd prefer not to be subject to either of those laws.

The safety of the bicyclist is surely not the point of the bicycle FRAP law you quote, exceptions in the fine print notwithstanding.


.... And since you won't be ABLE to find a state that does not have a FRAP requirement of some form or other, JRA,
which of the South Dakota statutes would you prefer to be regulated under?

The safety of the bicyclist is the reason for the bicyclist FRAP law in South Dakota - the BIKES FRAP law and its exceptions are on the books in South Dakota specifically to enumerate those explicit rights to bicyclists - additional rights other indistinct slowly driven vehicle operators do not possess in South Dakota.

this is serious business, JRA. there are fringe elements within the bicycling community committed to taking away cyclists rights. I've long ago given up on 'attacking' john - i am concerned about the message and where the muddle lies.

.... And since you won't be ABLE to find a state that does not have a FRAP requirement of some form or other, JRA,
which of the South Dakota statutes would you prefer to be regulated under?

The safety of the bicyclist is the reason for the bicyclist FRAP law in South Dakota - the BIKES FRAP law and its exceptions are on the books in South Dakota specifically to enumerate those explicit rights to bicyclists - additional rights other indistinct slowly driven vehicle operators do not possess in South Dakota.

this is serious business, JRA. there are fringe elements within the bicycling community committed to taking away cyclists rights. I've long ago given up on 'attacking' john - i am concerned about the message and where the muddle lies.

Where does the muddle lie? It lies in Bek's strong preference for what the motoring officials say about bicycle traffic over what the statutes say is the law.

Where does the muddle lie? It lies in Bek's strong preference for what the motoring officials say about bicycle traffic over what the statutes say is the law.

Are you talking about South Dakota? This thread is a comparison of SMV FRAP law and the BIKES FRAP law in the state of South Dakota.

Vague aspersions about 'motoring officials' and what they 'say' about bicycle traffic ARE quite funny, however. thanks for the laugh! it might make a person wonder if john is referring to the regulatory agencies like states' departments of transportation or the entire system of traffic regulation.

.... And since you won't be ABLE to find a state that does not have a FRAP requirement of some form or other, JRA,
which of the South Dakota statutes would you prefer to be regulated under?

I've found a state that has a bicycle specific ride right law I like. In fact, I live there.

It would be impossible to obey South Dakota law and ride safely, so I'm going to stay out of South Dakota.

I'll take the Missouri FRAS law (MoRS 307.190) - (Far Right As Safe - the obfuscating word practicable does not appear at all).

Bicyclists are better off with a bicycle specific ride right law with exceptions than without one. Bike-specific FRAP laws should not be reapealed. That's a really bad idea that can only make things worse.

Is South Dakota's FRAP law the worst in the country? I hope so. Yikes! That law needs to be changed.

I've found a state that has a bicycle specific ride right law I like. In fact, I live there.

It would be impossible to obey South Dakota law and ride safely, so I'm going to stay out of South Dakota.

I'll take the Missouri FRAS law (MoRS 307.190) - (Far Right As Safe - the obfuscating word practicable does not appear at all).

Bicyclists are better off with a bicycle specific ride right law with exceptions than without one. Bike-specific FRAP laws should not be reapealed. That's a really bad idea that can only make things worse.

Is South Dakota's FRAP law the worst in the country? I hope so. Yikes! That law needs to be changed.

I find your high approval of the Missouri statute interesting, in more ways than one. The nearest official definition of "practicable", provided by the executive director of the National Committee for Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances many years ago, was "practical, safe, and reasonable". In preferring only "safe" you have given up the advantages of practical and reasonable. If if it safe for a cyclist to occupy the furthest right position, the statute requires that he occupy that position; whether that position is not practical or not reasonable for cycling is irrelevant according to the statute.

I find your high approval of the Missouri statute interesting, in more ways than one. The nearest official definition of "practicable", provided by the executive director of the National Committee for Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances many years ago, was "practical, safe, and reasonable". In preferring only "safe" you have given up the advantages of practical and reasonable. If if it safe for a cyclist to occupy the furthest right position, the statute requires that he occupy that position; whether that position is not practical or not reasonable for cycling is irrelevant according to the statute.

Slight correction: the definition of "practicable" should be "possible, safe, and reasonable". (Didn't realize my error until after I hit send.) Therefore, the statute requires that the cyclist occupy the furthest right position that is possible and safe; whether or not it is reasonable for bicycle travel is irrelevant according to the statute.

I find your high approval of the Missouri statute interesting...
It's interesting to me, too. Considering the quality of many laws that come from the Missouri legislature, my expectations are fairly low. But I do like the Missouri law, especially when comparing it to the South Dakota law. I'm not claiming that it's perfect but, then, perfect is surely too much to expect.


In preferring only "safe" you have given up the advantages of practical and reasonable.I'm good with 'safe' because that would be the basis of the argument I would make for my lane position away from the curb in a lane too narrow to share. 'Practical' is a much weaker argument and 'reasonable' can be argued even if not explicitly stated in the law. If "safe" is the argument, then that's what the law should say.

Laws should be written in plain English. Few people know what the heck 'practicable' means. My Webster's Unabridged Dictionary says it means 'feasible' or 'capable of being done.' It could be argued that something that isn't safe isn't feasible, but why hide the real point behind a word nobody understands?

I'd strongly oppose attempts to repeal bike specific FRAP laws because it would be a waste of time and effort for no gain.

But I might join efforts to have the word "practicable" removed from all FRAP laws. To me it's gobbledegook.

---

gobbledegook n. Prententious and scarcely intelligible language, esp. of the sort attributed to bureaucrats, sociologists, etc. (coined in 1944 by Representative Maury Maverick of Texas) - from American Slang, edited by Robert L. Chapman, Harper & Row, New York, 1987.

It's interesting to me, too. Considering the quality of many laws that come from the Missouri legislature, my expectations are fairly low. But I do like the Missouri law, especially when comparing it to the South Dakota law. I'm not claiming that it's perfect but, then, perfect is surely too much to expect.

I'm good with 'safe' because that would be the basis of the argument I would make for my lane position away from the curb in a lane too narrow to share. 'Practical' is a much weaker argument and 'reasonable' can be argued even if not explicitly stated in the law. If "safe" is the argument, then that's what the law should say.

Laws should be written in plain English. Few people know what the heck 'practicable' means. My Webster's Unabridged Dictionary says it means 'feasible' or 'capable of being done.' It could be argued that something that isn't safe isn't feasible, but why hide the real point behind a word nobody understands?

I'd strongly oppose attempts to repeal bike specific FRAP laws because it would be a waste of time and effort for no gain.

But I might join efforts to have the word "practicable" removed from all FRAP laws. To me it's gobbledegook.

---

gobbledegook n. Prententious and scarcely intelligible language, esp. of the sort attributed to bureaucrats, sociologists, etc. (coined in 1944 by Representative Maury Maverick of Texas) - from American Slang, edited by Robert L. Chapman, Harper & Row, New York, 1987.

Laws cannot be properly understood as if written in plain English; there have to be words and definitions of words that are not used in plain English.

I fear, JRA, that if you had to argue, or have argued for you, the case that you outline above, you would lose. Say that the lane is too narrow to share and you were near its center. You could have traveled closer to the curb without incurring danger to yourself. Therefore, you lose. The argument that you were protecting yourself from possible unlawful actions of others won't carry much weight.

...I'm suprised you don't remember our conversation where you admitted defining fundamental road users responsibilities such as keeping a proper lookout and operating as far right as practicable would be difficult for you, and i was offering up quite simple explanations. I don't recall the exact words, but you had been telling me you'd face incredible difficulties sussing these fundamental traffic concepts out in a courtroom.

This is different than "unable to explain the meaning of 'practicable'".

In a courtroom, this would be insane. How do you define "practicable"? 80% of the people on the streets do it; the other 20% are stupid. There's a bike lane, it's obviously practicable to ride in it, it's 3 inches wide. I ride on a wide-enough bike lane here, but dead in the middle is road-gutter border, which means riding my 700c x 32 wheel in the bike lane presents a challenge due to uneven surface ... yet the city has apparently decided that it is "practicable" to ride there. The bike lane is perfectly well maintained, and thus works as designed; I disagree with the local jurisdiction's idea of what's "practicable" here and ride in the lane.

So, in court, can I assert that it's not "practicable" to ride in the 3 inch wide bike lane? It's wider than my elbow's width on the bike, when you measure from the line to the curb; but between the line and the rough border between asphalt and concrete, it's only 3 inches, and I find that untenable to travel on due to severe stability issues and a sharply increased likelihood to lose control (especially to wobble closer to the curb instead of traffic, pedal strike, and fall into traffic). Also the lane of traffic next to it only allows at best 18 inches of passing space, while state law is 3 feet; therefor I am interfering with motor traffic anyway, and it's better for me to just ride halfway into the lane of motor traffic.

However, the state decided I'm wrong when they laid it. The lane is of adequate width and is well maintained. Hundreds of people use it every day without a problem. How will this work in court?

Vague concepts are hard to define. Humans work a lot on "I'm not comfortable with this."

bluefoxicy, (three inch wide bikelane) :roflmao: really? - what's the complaint again? suffragism about an imagined court debate on avoiding unsafe riding conditions?

you avoid unsafe conditions, don't you?

I can explain practicable in 60 seconds, and make it make sense in a court of law.

Practicable - able to be safely done or executed, without endangering self or others. it's possible to stand behind a swinging door, but it isn't safe. If it's possible but not safe, it isn't practicable to do so. Practicable is what a reasonable person would be able to safely put into practice.

THIS thread is a simple comparision of two SMV FRAP laws of the state of South Dakota.

-both require FRAP of slowly driven vehicles regulated by them - which law in the state of South Dakota would you prefer to be regulated under, bluefoxicy, while bicycling in that state?

Laws cannot be properly understood as if written in plain English; there have to be words and definitions of words that are not used in plain English.
Who told you that? It's wrong. So incredibly wrong.

There are areas of the law that, because of the techinical nature of the subject, contain terms that aren't common English but we're talking about traffic law for goodness sake. Your theory that laws can't be understood as if written in plain English is poppycock.

statutory clarity is a commonplace, even universal goal of governance.

The drive towards greater statutory clarity is what led to the word 'safe' replacing 'practicable' in many states' bicycle laws. To more clearly define the law.

There IS a fair amount of statutory obfuscation here at bike forums, by posters intent on misframing bicyclists' legal protections.

Now the following statement is a bad read of the laws...


It would be impossible to obey South Dakota law and ride safely, so I'm going to stay out of South Dakota.

I'm sorry you think so. South Dakota is quite permissive with the five standard exceptions for full lane use. Bicyclists there are widely allowed to choose a safe road position for any number of specifically enumerated and broadly inclusive reasons, and to 'take the lane.'

Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. 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

only in the presence of other traffic,can move left to facilitate passing, making left turns, avoiding intersections, moving or stationary hazards, other road users, surface hazards, or lanes too narrow to share.


Cyclists have an easy time riding legally and safely in that state pursuant to the legal protections afforded by the BIKES FRAP law. I know you'd do fine, JRA, it'd be a lot like riding in Missouri. nearly identical legal operating requirements of bicyclists.

(strictly speaking, JRA, SD laws are MORE permissive than MO- the bikelaws of SD only require a lane sharing position in the presence of other traffic at time and place and under conditions then existing, MO laws are more strict as to adherence to staying to the right by bicyclists. I won't belabour you with the details, but you might want to check it out)

Cyclists have an easy time riding legally and safely in that state pursuant to the legal protections afforded by the BIKES FRAP law...
The South Dakota law may not be as bad as I initially thought.

The first problem I have is the heading, which gives the wrong impression of what the S.D. law says. The bigger problem is the fact that a violation is a crime and conviction (or pleading guilty) gives a person a criminal record. In Missouri, violation of the ride-right law is a traffic infraction with a maximum fine of $25.

So, let's see. In South Dakota, speeding or running a stop sign or red light is a traffic violation while riding a bicycle a foot or two 'too far' away from the curb is a crime? Somebody involved in writing the South Dakota FRAP law does not like bicyclists.

In Missouri, I'm not required to take a lane-sharing position if the lane is too narrow to share, which covers many situations. I'm not worried about what the laws requires if there's no traffic behind me. A ticket for riding too far left in the absence of traffic would be pretty bogus.

So, let's see. In South Dakota, speeding or running a stop sign or red light is a traffic violation while riding a bicycle a foot or two 'too far' away from the curb is a crime?
Is there any indication that the SD bicycle law is classified differently than the other laws? Or are you just making this up?

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

Indeed, as should not surprise anyone, they are both "Class 2 misdemeanors".

http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=32-20B

http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=32-29-2.1

I submit to no mere mortal laws. FREEDUMB!

I'm sorry you think so. South Dakota is quite permissive with the five standard exceptions for full lane use. Bicyclists there are widely allowed to choose a safe road position for any number of specifically enumerated and broadly inclusive reasons, and to 'take the lane.'

The SD law isn't substantially different than most other bicycle FRAP laws. (Though, one could argue that it's better worded.)

http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=32-20B-5


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.

DXMan makes erroneous statements. He correctly writes that a slowly-moving driver with traffic backed up behind him is required to move off the roadway at the first safe place to allow overtaking. He then states that the bike-FRAP law does not require this. The following is Indiana Vehicle Code:

IC 9-21-5-7
Reduction of speed; impeding normal and reasonable movement; right-of-way to other vehicles
... A person who is driving at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles are blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off to the right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable opportunity and allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.

DXMan is wrong when he claims that this does not apply to persons riding bicycles, who are given the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. Therefore, his argument that this demonstrates that drivers of SMVs are conditional road users while cyclists are legitimate road users has no validity. Both of these drivers are legitimate road users, as Indiana, so far as I can find, has no cyclist-FRAP statute.

Indiana's SMV statute is typical, except that it explicitly arranges the two choices of lateral position in different clauses:

IC 9-21-8-2
Roadways; use of right half; exceptions; traveling at reduced speeds

(b) Upon all roadways, a vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions then existing shall be driven:
(1) in the right-hand lane then available for traffic; or
(2) as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway;

Indiana statutes out of the way, DXMan argues that I should not have avoided answering Bek's question. I avoided providing an answer to a specific and unusual statute pair because Bek is a liar. If I had stated that my answer applied to only one state, Bek would have still given my answer as if it applied generally. Bek has only his own conduct to answer for as the source of my refusal to play his game.

Sorry to spoil your salad, JF, but DXMan is not wrong here. There is no requirement in Indiana for bicycles to pull over under the SMV law. That is all I intend to say about it, JF; I'm not going to engage you any further, as your verbose and circuitous arguments are headache-inducing. Perhaps you should research a bit more into IN law, as I have. (And NO, I'm not going to all the trouble of giving you chapter-and-verse; find it yourself.)

Is there any indication that the SD bicycle law is classified differently than the other laws? Or are you just making this up?

I made it up. Or, rather, guessed. My bad.

Sorry to spoil your salad, JF, but DXMan is not wrong here. There is no requirement in Indiana for bicycles to pull over under the SMV law. That is all I intend to say about it, JF; I'm not going to engage you any further, as your verbose and circuitous arguments are headache-inducing. Perhaps you should research a bit more into IN law, as I have. (And NO, I'm not going to all the trouble of giving you chapter-and-verse; find it yourself.)

DX-Man asserts that IC-9-21-5-7 does not apply to persons riding bicycles, but he refuses to provide the legal support for this legal claim. There is no reason to believe such people.

I made it up. Or, rather, guessed. My bad.
Interesting. It was a bad guess. That is, what you guessed would be the case wasn't likely to be true. The (traffic) law generally works fairly reasonably and regularly.

It would be bizarre if a FRAP-failure was treated as more severe than running a red light. You recognized that that would be bizarre but you didn't take it as a hint that your guess wasn't likely a good one.

here is no requirement in Indiana for bicycles to pull over under the SMV law.
Of course, there is a requirement IF the preconditions that the law specifies occur. The IN SMV law applies to all vehicles!



IC 9-21-5-7
Reduction of speed; impeding normal and reasonable movement; right-of-way to other vehicles
... A person who is driving at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles are blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off to the right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable opportunity and allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.

It would, of course, be unlikely that vehicles would not be able to pass a bicyclist. (Keep in mind that a SMV would not be required to pull-off if it was not safe to do so.)

Indiana is a state with archaic bicycle laws that regulate bikes under SMV laws and requires FRAP at nearly all times on the part of a bicyclist.

Indiana's law regulating a bicyclists road position is similar to the South Dakota SMV law. These SMV laws are uniformly interpreted by several states to require slowly driven bicycles to operate to the right, as far to the right as practicable, except (in Indiana) 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.

Indiana bike laws are LOUSY compared to South Dakota's.

If bicyclists had a choice of Indiana or South Dakota as a template for bicycle statutes, the South Dakota bicycle laws are far, far more permissive.


what does indiana traffic law have to do with a consideration of South Dakota laws?

This thread is a comparison of the regulations governing South Dakotas' slowly driven vehicles, wether South Dakota's SMV FRAP law or the BIKES FRAP law is more permissive.

DX-Man asserts that IC-9-21-5-7 does not apply to persons riding bicycles, but he refuses to provide the legal support for this legal claim. There is no reason to believe such people.

Simple, JF; a BICYCLE is NOT defined as a "motor vehicle". And I TOLD you I wasn't doing this FOR you. Believe me or don't, I really don't care. I DO regret wasting my time coming to this sub-forum, and allowing myself to be sucked in; trust me, it WON'T happen again.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title9/ar21/ch5.html


IC 9-21-5-7
Reduction of speed; impeding normal and reasonable movement; right-of-way to other vehicles
Sec. 7. A person may not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with the law. A person who is driving at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles are blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off to the right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable opportunity and allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.9.

The issue is whether "motor vehicle" applies to the second sentence.

The issue is whether "motor vehicle" applies to the second sentence.
That's one issue. Another issue is that the heading of IC 9-21 refers to "other vehicles," implying that the section applies to vehicles. For the purposes of IC 9-21, a bicycle is not a vehicle:

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title9/ar13/ch2.html


IC 9-13-2-196
Vehicle

(c) For purposes of IC 9-20 and IC 9-21, the term does not include devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

What lawmakers intended is unclear but it could be argued that IC 9-21 does not apply to bicycles.

That's one issue. Another issue is that the heading of IC 9-21 refers to "other vehicles," implying that the section applies to vehicles. For the purposes of IC 9-21, a bicycle is not a vehicle:

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title9/ar13/ch2.html

What lawmakers intended is unclear but it could be argued that IC 9-21 does not apply to bicycles.

Not exactly.

Note that IC 9-21 is the general "rules of the road" section, which we know bicyclists have to adhere to (it includes the "stopping at a stop sign" law).

=========

Indiana defines "bicycle" as a "vehicle". (Not all states do that.)


IC 9-13-2-14
Bicycle
Sec. 14. "Bicycle" means any foot-propelled vehicle, irrespective of the number of wheels in contact with the ground.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.1.

But they say this (as you pointed out).


IC 9-13-2-196
Vehicle

(c) For purposes of IC 9-20 and IC 9-21, the term does not include devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

And they say this too (like every state does):

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title9/ar21/ch11.html


IC 9-21-11-2
Roadways; rights and duties
Sec. 2. A person riding a bicycle upon a roadway has all the rights and duties under this article that are applicable to a person who drives a vehicle, except the following:
(1) Special regulations of this article.
(2) Those provisions of this article that by their nature have no application.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.9.

Basically, Indiana is saying that the state doesn't care about bicycles as objects. They do care about other vehicles (motor vehicles) as objects. (This is the same in every state.) Thus, for example, motor vehicles have to be registered but bicycles do not. The IN law is set up to allow the treatment of these two classes of objects differently.

Like every state, Indiana cares about the operation of bicycles on the roadway. And, like every state, a bicyclist has the same "rights and duties" of a driver of a vehicle.

Thus, "a person who is driving" applies to bicyclists too.