Advocacy & Safety - FRAP law -- say what?

Uh, what about citizens arrest?


Good luck effecting a citizens arrest from your bike.

Uh, what about citizens arrest?In Texas at least, a citizens arrest can only be done if the crime is a felony or it disturbs the peace. (relevant law (http://law.onecle.com/texas/criminal-procedure/14.01.00.html).) Most moving violations don't qualify ...

In any event, citizens arrest is a big box of worms that I'd suggest that nobody ever open.

Uh, what about citizens arrest?
For a traffic violation? Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest

Not really. The average citizen is not a trained law enforcement officer in a vehicle equipped for stopping speeders. If it's safe to do so, you should allow faster traffic to pass.

Up to a point. On a bike it's usually easy but if these FRAP rules relate to "slow moving traffic" when "slow moving" means "slower that whatever is behind" then it means a car doing 50mph through a 25 zone is required to pull over to let the greater fool behind trying to do 75 get past.


Assume for a moment that it is a recklessly fast driver who cares nothing for your safety. Which is safer -- letting the reckless driver speed down the left lane, or having the reckless driver weave in and out of traffic in multiple lanes?

The reckless driver will do whatever they feel will gain them those precious few seconds. I'm not going to try and prove a point when I'm the soft squidgy bit on a bike and the speeder is driving a 2-ton SUV unless I really don't have anywhere else to go. Even having said that there's a world of difference between minor motoring infractions (speeding, tailgating etc) and deliberately mowing down a cyclist (which would most likely count as attempted murder in many areas)


Unless you're equipped to stop a speeder, you should get out of their way if it is safe to do so.

This comes down to a question over what counts as "safe to do so". Again from a cyclists perspective it's usually pretty easy to keep to one side, my question was how the language of FRAP (or at least the language posted here) could be seen as vague and applying to motor traffic as well as what most people would think of as "slower" traffic.

Up to a point. On a bike it's usually easy but if these FRAP rules relate to "slow moving traffic" when "slow moving" means "slower that whatever is behind" then it means a car doing 50mph through a 25 zone is required to pull over to let the greater fool behind trying to do 75 get past.
No, the FRAP laws typically talk about "normal" traffic. And 50 mph in a 25 mph zone is not "normal" (75 mph is even less so). And do you really want to be a car driving 25 mph with a car coming up from behind you going 75? It is possible that a competent driver might think that not moving moving to the right is the safest choice. But the situation is still not "normal".


The reckless driver will do whatever they feel will gain them those precious few seconds. I'm not going to try and prove a point when I'm the soft squidgy bit on a bike and the speeder is driving a 2-ton SUV unless I really don't have anywhere else to go. Even having said that there's a world of difference between minor motoring infractions (speeding, tailgating etc) and deliberately mowing down a cyclist (which would most likely count as attempted murder in many areas)
What the heck are you talking about here?


This comes down to a question over what counts as "safe to do so".
If you can't trust your competence in making this determination for yourself, then, maybe, you should give up driving or riding.


my question was how the language of FRAP (or at least the language posted here) could be seen as vague and applying to motor traffic as well as what most people would think of as "slower" traffic.
It doesn't seem that drivers or riders really have any problem dealing with these laws.

required to pull over to let
Where is there a law that requires anyone to pull over because there is one speeding vehicle behind them?

Where is there a law that requires anyone to pull over because there is one speeding vehicle behind them?

There is no law that requires moving over for a speeding vehicle. The law may require you to move over for a faster vehicle (and whether that vehicle is speeding isn't really relevant).

And, how would you (generally) be able to tell if that vehicle was speeding (note that car speedometers often are set to read lower than the actual speed)?

Your obligation to follow the law is not suspended if someone else is breaking some other law.

It should be clear that the two parties could both be breaking the law.

http://www.drivers.com/article/542/


The Chief of the Minnesota State Patrol says that two wrongs don't make a right when it comes to driving in the left lane. Col. Anne Beers argues that speeding in the left lane is wrong, but it's also wrong to camp there and refuse to move to the right so faster-moving traffic can pass. "We know there is aggressive behavior out on the highways. Why contribute to that?" she said. "Let someone who wants to go faster go by you and your stress stays under control." According to the article in the Star Tribune, drivers in Minnesota, USA, are not consistently moving to the right lane when possible to allow others to pass--as required by state law. Highway signs indicating "Slower traffic keep right" have not helped, and some drivers responded to a recent article by stating their objection to being pushed from behind by speeders and asking "where are the police?" One driver asked: "If I am going 70 in a 60 zone in the left-hand lane, why am I considered a 'camper'?" However, Beers said that the force has little spare time or budget to spend on speed enforcement. "At our normal staffing levels we are losing the battle." See more on this hot topic on the Drivers.com Discussion board.

There is no law that requires moving over for a speeding vehicle. The law (may) require you to move over for a faster vehicle (and whether that vehicle is speeding isn't relevant).
I know. But others here keep writing 'pull over'. The only pull over law I am aware of (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00704.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS)applies to vehicles traveling below normal speed of traffic when safe passing is not possible and five or more vehicles are following.

I know.
Some people in this thread think it's "odd".


But others here keep writing 'pull over'. The only pull over law I am aware of (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00704.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS)applies to vehicles traveling below normal speed of traffic when safe passing is not possible and five or more vehicles are following.
I think they mean move to the right. The "pull out" laws don't typically apply (at least in any practical way) to bicyclists anyway.

(My mind is still reeling from somebody's "belief" in another thread that bicyclist become pedestrians when they ride in the shoulder and that pedestrians don't have to obey any laws.)

'Moving to the right' only has practical implications if
1. Traveling on a road that has multiple lanes for the same direction of travel.
2. The only or right most lane is substantially wider than the vehicle being driven.

Which means that if one is driving a car on a typical street with one lane for each direction of travel and there is a vehicle approaching from the rear traveling faster than you, then you most likely are required to do nothing.

Good luck effecting a citizens arrest from your bike.

True, it could be fun. ;)


In Texas at least, a citizens arrest can only be done if the crime is a felony or it disturbs the peace. (relevant law (http://law.onecle.com/texas/criminal-procedure/14.01.00.html).) Most moving violations don't qualify ...

In any event, citizens arrest is a big box of worms that I'd suggest that nobody ever open.

That is true, as I would presume that an ordinary citizen wouldn't have the same protections as a LEO would.

For a traffic violation? Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest

No, maybe not a "simple" traffic violation. But as others have pointed out if more motorists realized that they are or could be videoed they might, might, think twice before engaging in aggressive behavior.

No, the FRAP laws typically talk about "normal" traffic. And 50 mph in a 25 mph zone is not "normal" (75 mph is even less so). And do you really want to be a car driving 25 mph with a car coming up from behind you going 75? It is possible that a competent driver might think that not moving moving to the right is the safest choice. But the situation is still not "normal".[/quiote]

The whole point of raising the issue was that if a cyclist doing 23-25 in a 25 zone is still considered "slower traffic" if the prevailing speed is 35 or more (as a previous poster suggested) then the question is raised whether a car driving at 25 under the same circumstances is also classed as "slower traffic" and required to keep over to let faster traffic pass.

[QUOTE]If you can't trust your competence in making this determination for yourself, then, maybe, you should give up driving or riding.

Thanks for the lesson. I'm quite capable of deciding for myself whether I consider something to be safe but if the law takes a different view I might still get a ticket.


It doesn't seem that drivers or riders really have any problem dealing with these laws.

From the fact we're having this discussion when I was simply trying to figure out just what the scope of this FRAP lark is suggests it's not as clear as it might be, or that different people interpret it different ways.

Where is there a law that requires anyone to pull over because there is one speeding vehicle behind them?

Don't ask me, I was just querying what this FRAP lark actually means. Someone mentioned that if a bike is travelling at the speed limit it is still required to keep right as far as possible to allow speeding traffic behind it to pass.

'Moving to the right' only has practical implications if
1. Traveling on a road that has multiple lanes for the same direction of travel.
2. The only or right most lane is substantially wider than the vehicle being driven.

Which means that if one is driving a car on a typical street with one lane for each direction of travel and there is a vehicle approaching from the rear traveling faster than you, then you most likely are required to do nothing.



incorrrect; the widespread, near universal duty to 'turn out to the right' as 'far right as practicable or safe' for overtaking traffic does not go away on single lane roads; indeed, it is on single lane or two lane roads sharing the road becomes most crucial for smooth traffic flow.

I recently took a great american road trip across the US; there was a lot of 'turning out to the right' of slowly driven motor vehicles along two lane highways. its a long standing traffic standard -slowly driven vehicles, turn out to the right when sharing the road. QED.

noisebeam is right though - 'driving a car' may require different lane positioning than if on a bike......but we're in a bike forum, usually on bikes.......... we're NOT talking about driving cars down two lane roads, are we?


Unless the state you're in state has a specific law that allows bikes to take entire lanes unsafe to share, a rider is generally required to ride safely right to share a two lane road regardless of the shareability of the individual lane.

overtaking traffic in most states is allowed to partially change lanes to pass bike traffic.

The whole point of raising the issue was that if a cyclist doing 23-25 in a 25 zone is still considered "slower traffic" if the prevailing speed is 35 or more (as a previous poster suggested) then the question is raised whether a car driving at 25 under the same circumstances is also classed as "slower traffic" and required to keep over to let faster traffic pass.
What action is more like the "move right when traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic"?

(You follow the law to the best of your ability and you can't use other people's illegal actions as an excuse for not doing that.)

A motor vehicle travelling at the posted speed limit is not a "slow moving vehicle". If there are two lanes (going in the same direction), vehicles are commonly required to move to the right lane if driving slower than other vehicles (even if those other vehicles are speeding).


Thanks for the lesson. I'm quite capable of deciding for myself whether I consider something to be safe but if the law takes a different view I might still get a ticket.
If you really need to do something to be safe, then the possible (and unlikely) ticket is a much better deal than getting into an accident.


From the fact we're having this discussion when I was simply trying to figure out just what the scope of this FRAP lark is suggests it's not as clear as it might be, or that different people interpret it different ways.
From what some people said here, riding a bicycle requires Talmudic arguments about what "normal" and "traffic" means and requires knowing the precise speed of overtaking vehicles. The behavior of people in the real world (not A&S) says otherwise.

incorrrect; the widespread, near universal duty to 'turn out to the right' as 'far right as practicable or safe' for overtaking traffic does not go away on single lane roads; indeed, it is on single lane or two lane roads sharing the road becomes most crucial for smooth traffic flow..
If you noted I said 'practical'. If driving a car in a single lane road of typical width there is no safe option to move further right.
What specifically was incorrect about what I wrote?

incorrrect; the widespread, near universal duty to 'turn out to the right' as 'far right as practicable or safe' for overtaking traffic does not go away on single lane roads; indeed, it is on single lane or two lane roads sharing the road becomes most crucial for smooth traffic flow.

I recently took a great american road trip across the US; there was a lot of 'turning out to the right' of slowly driven motor vehicles along two lane highways. its a long standing traffic standard -slowly driven vehicles, turn out to the right when sharing the road. QED.

noisebeam is right though - 'driving a car' may require different lane positioning than if on a bike......but we're in a bike forum, usually on bikes.......... we're NOT talking about driving cars down two lane roads, are we?


Unless the state you're in state has a specific law that allows bikes to take entire lanes unsafe to share, a rider is generally required to ride safely right to share a two lane road regardless of the shareability of the individual lane.

overtaking traffic in most states is allowed to partially change lanes to pass bike traffic.

In short, in some states the cyclist-positioning law is badly written, while in other states it is written to emphasize and protect the FRAP requirement by listing exceptions to it. In short, again, neither law should exist. Why not say so, Bek?

how will bicyclists be alleviated of the duty to share the road safely?

only ride in arkansas? :roflmao:

If you noted I said 'practical'. If driving a car in a single lane road of typical width there is no safe option to move further right.
What specifically was incorrect about what I wrote?

vehicle traffic is generally required to operate FRAP on single lane each direction roadways; indeed, it is on those types of roads that road sharing by turning out to the right is most obviously beneficial.

there is typically no safe option to move further right, but only if already operating FRAP. Sometimes the shoulder is safe to pull onto to share the road. i've done it in my car plenty of times on two lane roads, certainly on my bicycle, wether legally required (only 3 states) or as a courtesy.

share the road. its not an onerous duty.

how will bicyclists be alleviated of the duty to share the road safely?

only ride in arkansas? :roflmao:

Under the typical slow-moving vehicle statute, which requires cyclists to use the right-hand lane when such exists, and otherwise to ride as close as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway.

john, this is a tired topic you can't obfuscate.

States with SMV-FRAP laws uniformly regulate bike traffic to ride FRAP on all roads regardless of number of lanes.

you can check it out, i certainly have. internet bluffoonery about being only required to operate in the right hand lane of traffic is NOT how Kentucky, for example, regulates bicycle traffic.





The operator of any vehicle when upon a highway shall travel upon the right side of
the highway whenever possible, and unless the left side of the highway is clear of
all other traffic or obstructions for a sufficient distance ahead to permit the
overtaking and passing of another vehicle to be completed without interfering with
the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle
being overtaken. The overtaking vehicle shall return to the proper traffic lane as
soon as practicable and, if the passing vehicle enters the oncoming traffic lane,
before coming within two hundred (200) feet of any approaching vehicle.
(2) The operator of any vehicle moving slowly upon a highway shall keep his vehicle as
closely as practicable to the right-hand boundary of the highway, allowing more
swiftly moving vehicles reasonably free passage to the left.

NONE of the states that regulate bikes under general SMV laws allow bikes to take the right hand lane of traffic unequivocally; they regulate FRAP under nearly every circumstance, with limited legal cause to take the lane.

sorry, but your assertions about SMV laws are groundless.

FRAP law say WHAT?

share the road, safely.

vehicle traffic is generally required to operate FRAP on single lane each direction roadways; indeed, it is on those types of roads that road sharing by turning out to the right is most obviously beneficial.

there is typically no safe option to move further right, but only if already operating FRAP. Sometimes the shoulder is safe to pull onto to share the road. i've done it in my car plenty of times on two lane roads, certainly on my bicycle, wether legally required (only 3 states) or as a courtesy.

share the road. its not an onerous duty.
Sure as a courtesy, but show me a law that a motor vehicle needs to leave the roadway if a faster vehicle is approaching from the rear.

Sure as a courtesy, but show me a law that a motor vehicle needs to leave the roadway if a faster vehicle is approaching from the rear.

dude - not 'leave the roadway' - rather, the law requires turning out to the right to operate as far right as practicable in most every state.

a subtle but required obligation.

dude - not 'leave the roadway' - rather, the law requires turning out to the right to operate as far right as practicable in most every state.

a subtle but required obligation.
But moving into the shoulder as you suggested is leaving the roadway. Again if driving in the only or a rightmost lane that is not substantially wider than the vehicle one is driving there is nothing in practice that a driver needs to do if a faster vehicle is approaching from rear. That is the statement I made that you continue to disagree with.

But moving into the shoulder as you suggested is leaving the roadway. Again if driving in the only or a rightmost lane that is not substantially wider than the vehicle one is driving there is nothing in practice that a driver needs to do if a faster vehicle is approaching from rear. That is the statement I made that you continue to disagree with.


you said there's no opportunity to typically share two lane roads. no, under the standard SMV-FRAP laws, you are obligated to share the road, to operate FRAP, regardless if the lane is wide or not.

a vehicle must operate safely right, as far right as is safe and practicable, to share the road with faster traffic wishing to overtake. this duty does not go away on single lane roads, it is at this time it is its most crucial.

making airs that 'typical lanes' don't allow FRAP is misleading, as the duty persists on two lane roads, of all widths.

john, this is a tired topic you can't obfuscate.

States with SMV-FRAP laws uniformly regulate bike traffic to ride FRAP on all roads regardless of number of lanes.

you can check it out, i certainly have. internet bluffoonery about being only required to operate in the right hand lane of traffic is NOT how Kentucky, for example, regulates bicycle traffic.






NONE of the states that regulate bikes under general SMV laws allow bikes to take the right hand lane of traffic unequivocally; they regulate FRAP under nearly every circumstance, with limited legal cause to take the lane.

sorry, but your assertions about SMV laws are groundless.

FRAP law say WHAT?

share the road, safely.

The discussion concerns my suggestion that none of the cyclist-positioning laws should exist, so that cyclists would be regulated under the typical laws for slow-moving vehicles, which require that slow drivers use the right-hand lane for traffic, for roads with lanes, or as close to the right-hand edge as practicable, which applies to roads without lanes. This is the wording of the recommended law in the UVC, 11-301(b).

Bek replied with two irrelevant statements. He first quoted the oddball, probably unique version in Arkansas law.

He then stated that: "NONE of the states that regulate bikes under general SMV laws allow bikes to take the right hand lane of traffic unequivocally; they regulate FRAP under nearly every circumstance, with limited legal cause to take the lane." This is obviously a fraudulent reply, because the general SMV law, as recommended in the Uniform Vehicle Code, does not regulate cyclists as different from other drivers. The object of my suggestion is to have cyclists regulated according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles rather than under the discriminatory restrictions of the specific cyclist-positioning laws.

Bek quite obviously, continuously, vehemently, argues that cyclists should be regulated as second-class road users just as motorists desire, rather than under the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

john, that is not how the general SMV-FRAP laws regulate traffic, and that is not the way SMV-FRAP laws, fairly uniformly interpreted across state lines, regulate bike traffic.


states that use the standard SMV-FRAP law that states 'right hand lane then available for traffic OR as far right as practicable' uniformly regulate bikes to operate FRAP on all roads when slowly driven. i suspect this is a concession to bicyclists narrow profile and ease of facilitating passing.

Iowa, North Carolina, Mississippi, all these states DOTs regulate bike traffic to ride FRAP on most every road and not as john idealizes the SMVFRAP provisions.

you said there's no opportunity to typically share two lane roads. no, under the standard SMV-FRAP laws, you are obligated to share the road, to operate FRAP, regardless if the lane is wide or not.

a vehicle must operate safely right, as far right as is safe and practicable, to share the road with faster traffic wishing to overtake. this duty does not go away on single lane roads, it is at this time it is its most crucial.

making airs that 'typical lanes' don't allow FRAP is misleading, as the duty persists on two lane roads, of all widths.
You don't get it. Of course 'the duty' exists when far to the right as practicable is law is is mostly is. However in practice there is nothing a driver needs to do when operating a car in a typical width lane.

At this point the discussion is meaningless as it has lost the context in which I brought it up, which was the example a few pages ago when driving a car when faster vehicles approach. Generally, in practice this means making sure one is in the right most lane . In practice it does not mean placing edge of car on fog line so that for example instead of 2' on each side of the car (for a car centered in lane) that there is 0' on one side and 4' on the left.

a vehicle must operate safely right, as far right as is safe and practicable, to share the road with faster traffic wishing to overtake. this duty does not go away on single lane roads, it is at this time it is its most crucial.

making airs that 'typical lanes' don't allow FRAP is misleading, as the duty persists on two lane roads, of all widths.

You're riding your bike along a narrow two lane, two way road. (One lane each direction.) Let's say, this one (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.856557,-73.802161&spn=0.02479,0.060339&gl=us&t=m&z=15&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=42.856576,-73.802294&panoid=baJJS8DQHfqgUkbfPmTjkg&cbp=12,102.23,,1,3.49). Where do you position yourself?

A car traveling 35 mph comes up behind you. Where do you position yourself?

as far to the right as is safe.


riding frap when it is unsafe to pass predicates taking the lane. frap does not preclude taking the lane.

nonetheless, riders must generally operate FRAP. in a state with a bike specific FRAP law allowing bikes to take the lane unsafe to share, a rider in the conditions posted by benjdm would have no obligation to share the road.

in kentucky, however, a rider has less explicit legal protection to take the lane as pictured.

in texas? allowed to take the full lane. (bikes FRAP law with explicit lane width exception)

in kentucky? required to operate FRAP to pass. (no bikes FRAP law, just SMV FRAP law)

You're riding your bike along a narrow two lane, two way road. (One lane each direction.) Let's say, this one (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.856557,-73.802161&spn=0.02479,0.060339&gl=us&t=m&z=15&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=42.856576,-73.802294&panoid=baJJS8DQHfqgUkbfPmTjkg&cbp=12,102.23,,1,3.49). Where do you position yourself?

A car traveling 35 mph comes up behind you. Where do you position yourself?
If I was driving that black car in the photo I would not drive in that rightmost position they are in. I would stay centered in the lane. If that faster car started to pass me (legally or not) and only after they started a real passing maneuver I would move to the right a bit as close to the fog line as my speed/conditions safety allowed to facilitate a pass.

If I was instead driving my bicycle in place of that black car, I would be centerish/right track in lane to start, perhaps directly in line with that black cars license plate. When the faster vehicle came from behind I would only move right after I noted that they showed real intent to partly change lanes to pass me. Otherwise I would not move right unless closing speed was very high and there was no indication they see me.

you said there's no opportunity to typically share two lane roads. no, under the standard SMV-FRAP laws, you are obligated to share the road, to operate FRAP, regardless if the lane is wide or not.

a vehicle must operate safely right, as far right as is safe and practicable, to share the road with faster traffic wishing to overtake. this duty does not go away on single lane roads, it is at this time it is its most crucial.

making airs that 'typical lanes' don't allow FRAP is misleading, as the duty persists on two lane roads, of all widths.

Bek, caught you out in another ideological lie. There are not such things as "single lane roads." "UVC 1-133 Laned Roadway--a road which is divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for vehicular traffic."

"under the standard SMV-FRAP laws, you are obligated to share the road, to operate FRAP, regardless if the lane is wide or not."

Ohio law says this
4511.55 Operating bicycles and motorcycles on roadway.
(A) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable obeying all traffic rules applicable to vehicles and exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.

(B) Persons riding bicycles or motorcycles upon a roadway shall ride not more than two abreast in a single lane, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles or motorcycles.

(C) This section does not require a person operating a bicycle to ride at the edge of the roadway when it is unreasonable or unsafe to do so. Conditions that may require riding away from the edge of the roadway include when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it otherwise is unsafe or impracticable to do so, including if the lane is too narrow for the bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane."

Prior to the addition of the (C) section in 2006, I argued that "practicable" means "reasonable and safe" and that 2 cyclists riding side by side had the right to take the entire lane. IN 2006, Section (C) was added to try to add some meat to the meaning of the word "practicable" That last portion adds the "too narrow" language. What does THAT mean? Well, that's open for argument. But it clearly allows a BMUFL concept to fly.

john, that is not how the general SMV-FRAP laws regulate traffic, and that is not the way SMV-FRAP laws, fairly uniformly interpreted across state lines, regulate bike traffic.


states that use the standard SMV-FRAP law that states 'right hand lane then available for traffic OR as far right as practicable' uniformly regulate bikes to operate FRAP on all roads when slowly driven. i suspect this is a concession to bicyclists narrow profile and ease of facilitating passing.

Iowa, North Carolina, Mississippi, all these states DOTs regulate bike traffic to ride FRAP on most every road and not as john idealizes the SMVFRAP provisions.

One more mass of mendacious prevarications. While Bek's actual wording is ambiguous, presumably deliberately trying to hide the facts, Bek's statement makes the reader say that Iowa, North Carolina, and Mississippi regulate slow-moving vehicles. All of them use the standard of use of right-hand lane or FRAP. (Iowa 321.297.2; NC 20-146 (b); MS 63-3-603 (d). If the specific cyclist-positioning laws were repealed in these states, which is the issue being discussed, then cyclists would be regulated according to the SMV laws.

But Bek obviously hates this possibility. He actively and vehemently advocates that cyclists be regulated in the way that motorists desire, that cyclists should be shoved aside whenever possible, as roadway users whose rights are subordinate to those of motorists.

John, do you think there is a realistic chance that FRAP laws, or other bicycle-specific road laws stand a chance of being repealed? Is there a move afoot in your state, or in any, to get this done? There must be HUGE political obstacles -

You don't get it. Of course 'the duty' exists when far to the right as practicable is law is is mostly is. However in practice there is nothing a driver needs to do when operating a car in a typical width lane.

At this point the discussion is meaningless as it has lost the context in which I brought it up, which was the example a few pages ago when driving a car when faster vehicles approach. Generally, in practice this means making sure one is in the right most lane . In practice it does not mean placing edge of car on fog line so that for example instead of 2' on each side of the car (for a car centered in lane) that there is 0' on one side and 4' on the left.

noisebeam, that is not an expression of practicably right. in most every state, a slowly driven motorist DOES have the duty to move towards the right, as far right as practicable to facilitate passing on two lane roads.

that is when this road sharing is most crucial, it is the road condition the law regulate FRAP most frequently on, and is the law.

nothing a car must do on a typical road?

Au contraire -

a slow vehicle must move right, as far right as practicable.

.............. mendacious prevarications.............

you should stop those, its bad for your skin.

and this? that i supposedly suggest
..........that cyclists should be shoved aside whenever possible, as roadway users whose rights are subordinate to those of motorists.


is that your idea of a bad joke? SO far off the mark from my position, its boilerplate objection by rote :roflmao:




All of them use the standard of use of right-hand lane or FRAP. (Iowa 321.297.2; NC 20-146 (b); MS 63-3-603 (d). If the specific cyclist-positioning laws were repealed in these states, which is the issue being discussed, then cyclists would be regulated according to the SMV laws.

Iowa, north carolina and mississippi don't have cyclist positioning laws, they already regulate bike traffic and lane position under SMV-FRAP laws, john. :rolleyes:

Under SMV-FRAP laws of the states,

when it comes to narrow, slowly driven vehicles or other authorized road users like bicyclists, wheelbarrow operators, or men on horseback, the SMV-FRAP regulations in states like North Carolina and Iowa obligate these narrow vehicles to share the road by operating FRAP.

The requirement of bike traffic riding safely right in states with SMV-FRAP laws is easy to find.

It is expressed at the Iowa and the North Carolina DOT pages about bike traffic if anyone wants to look. bikes ARE required to ride safely right at all times on all roads, with limited exception to "take the lane" under general SMV-FRAP laws.

Bikes ride right under SMV-FRAP laws is uniformly expressed across state lines in the handful of states that regulate bike traffic this way. it is fair to say SMV-FRAP laws do NOT allow riders to 'choose the lane OR frap' on any laned road - that is a ludicrous assertion about traffic laws of the states.

its not even that onerous a duty. However, many states have more expansive and permissive bike specific laws allowing greater use of the full lane than states that regulate bikes under SMV-FRAP laws.

John, do you think there is a realistic chance that FRAP laws, or other bicycle-specific road laws stand a chance of being repealed? Is there a move afoot in your state, or in any, to get this done? There must be HUGE political obstacles -

Steve -

Its quite quixotic, but john's been haplessly rallying cyclists to repeal bike specific FRAP laws for thirty years, despite these laws allowing bike traffic much greater explicit exceptions for full lane use. This is especially clear when one looks at states with progressive laws for bicyclists like the recently passed Colorado 'bikes use full lane, share if safe' law.

you can find this haplessly reckless cry echoed at various 'vehicular cycling' websites and user groups i would have thought you were already familiar with like the chainguard group at yahoo or the lab reformer bliviot internet group.

Cyclists and cycling advocates need to resist any specious (or duplicitous) siren songs about repealing bicyclists legal protections.

FRAP law - say what?

ride safely right to share the road with faster traffic wishing to overtake.

ride smart, ride safe- share the road when safe to do so, its the traffic savvy thing to do as a bicyclist.

49 of the 50 states have road sharing requirements of bicyclists..... share the road, safely.

its NOT onerous. FRAP - say WHAT?

You don't get it. Of course 'the duty' exists when far to the right as practicable is law is is mostly is. However in practice there is nothing a driver needs to do when operating a car in a typical width lane.
Yes, the "keep to the right side" rule for cars and trucks is rather moot. I wonder if anybody has actually ever gotten a ticket for it!

The law about moving into the right lane (if there are two or more going in the same direction) is different.

The discussion concerns my suggestion that none of the cyclist-positioning laws should exist, so that cyclists would be regulated under the typical laws for slow-moving vehicles, which require that slow drivers use the right-hand lane for traffic, for roads with lanes, or as close to the right-hand edge as practicable, which applies to roads without lanes. This is the wording of the recommended law in the UVC, 11-301(b).
This is merely an opinion in the guise of a fact.

You have changed your original interpretation of this law. I don't think your current interpretation is correct and you haven't provided any support for it (nor have you explained why you changed your interpretation).

Ohio law says this
4511.55 Operating bicycles and motorcycles on roadway.
(A) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable obeying all traffic rules applicable to vehicles and exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.

(B) Persons riding bicycles or motorcycles upon a roadway shall ride not more than two abreast in a single lane, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles or motorcycles.


A contradiction: bicyclists have to "as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable" as the default position but they are also allowed to ride next to another bicyclist without any restriction (not "as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable"). Weird.

This is merely an opinion in the guise of a fact.

You have changed your original interpretation of this law. I don't think your current interpretation is correct and you haven't provided any support for it (nor have you explained why you changed your interpretation).

Yes, I changed my opinion about the typical SMV law quite a long time ago, once I started to pay close attention to the overtaking situation. Before this, I did not consider the overtaking situation to be very significant, simply because the faster traffic just goes by the cyclist; so what? But since I have realized that the overtaking situation to be a focus of controversy, I paid attention to it, both from the engineering and the legal views.

The recommended wording for the SMV law is quite simple. "UVC 11-301 (b). Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, 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, alley, or driveway."

Also relevant is "UVC 1-133. Laned roadway. A roadway which is divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for vehicular traffic."

The phrase "right-hand lane then available for traffic" can apply only to a road that has lanes, which, by 1-133 has to have at least two marked lanes. In that case, the slow driver must use the right-hand lane then available for traffic, which is a sufficient requirement. The other condition obviously applies to roads with no lanes, and requires as close to the right-hand edge as practicable.

The engineering consideration shows that, in most cases, lanes are not sufficiently wide for a typical motor vehicle to be driven alongside a bicycle. Because that is so, the overtaking motor vehicle must occupy space in the adjacent lane. Its driver is allowed to occupy space in that lane only when that lane is clear of traffic. Since he is allowed to do so only when that lane is clear of traffic, requiring him to change lanes to overtake does not decrease his opportunities for lawful, safe overtaking. In short, encouraging motorists to squeeze by, which involves too little overtaking clearance and endangers the traffic in the adjacent lane, encourages dangerous and unlawful driving.

Yes, I changed my opinion about the typical SMV law quite a long time ago, once I started to pay close attention to the overtaking situation. Before this, I did not consider the overtaking situation to be very significant, simply because the faster traffic just goes by the cyclist; so what? But since I have realized that the overtaking situation to be a focus of controversy, I paid attention to it, both from the engineering and the legal views.

The recommended wording for the SMV law is quite simple. "UVC 11-301 (b). Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, 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, alley, or driveway."

Also relevant is "UVC 1-133. Laned roadway. A roadway which is divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for vehicular traffic."

The phrase "right-hand lane then available for traffic" can apply only to a road that has lanes, which, by 1-133 has to have at least two marked lanes. In that case, the slow driver must use the right-hand lane then available for traffic, which is a sufficient requirement. The other condition obviously applies to roads with no lanes, and requires as close to the right-hand edge as practicable.


You need some sort of independent support for this claim. I haven't been able to find anything to support either side.

As you understood originally, "right hand lane" is a lane to the right of a lane going in the same direction. Now, you understand the same exact "quite simple" wording to mean something very different (which "quite simply" doesn't make any logical sense, in my opinion and in your opinion originally).

Without independent support, it's still just an opinion.

You need some sort of independent support for this claim. I haven't been able to find anything to support either side.

As you understood originally, "right hand lane" is a lane to the right of a lane going in the same direction. Now, you understand the same exact "quite simple" wording to mean something very different (which "quite simply" doesn't make any logical sense, in my opinion and in your opinion originally).

Without independent support, it's still just an opinion.

This is a question of the legal meaning of a statute. The only type of support beyond the wording of the statute itself would be a court opinion providing a more detailed definition. Apparently, no court has considered the issue. Therefore, the meaning of the statute, at the present time, has to be based on its own words, in the context of traffic law, of course.

The issue is whether the phrase "right-hand lane" can apply to two-lane roads or must be limited only to multi-lane roads.

A road with lanes has to have at least two lanes (UVC 1-133); it may have more than two. Roads with more than two lanes are termed multi-lane roads. Given the fact that a laned road may have only two lanes, then the phrase "right-hand lane" has to apply to all laned roads. That is standard legal construction. If the legislators intended to make this part of the statute apply only on multi-lane roads, they would have had to limit the phrase "right-hand lane" by applying the qualification "of a multi-lane road" or "of a road with four or more lanes", or "of a road with at least two lanes for travel in that direction". They did not provide any of these limitations. Therefore, the phrase "right-hand lane" must apply to both two-lane and multi-lane roads.

Any person who would like to have this statute limit the phrase "right-hand lane" to multi-lane roads had better present a far more compelling type of legal analysis than this. I haven't seen such. I admit that I did not bother, a long time ago, to make such a careful analysis, because I did not consider the situation to present important controversy. But not that it is recognized to do so, then careful analysis must be applied, and here it is.

Ohio law says this
4511.55 Operating bicycles and motorcycles on roadway.
(A) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable obeying all traffic rules applicable to vehicles and exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.

(B) Persons riding bicycles or motorcycles upon a roadway shall ride not more than two abreast in a single lane, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles or motorcycles.

(C) This section does not require a person operating a bicycle to ride at the edge of the roadway when it is unreasonable or unsafe to do so. Conditions that may require riding away from the edge of the roadway include when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it otherwise is unsafe or impracticable to do so, including if the lane is too narrow for the bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane."



This sure seems reasonable to me. What's wrong with it?

This sure seems reasonable to me. What's wrong with it?

The subject is the cyclist FRAP law. What's wrong with it? Plenty. This law is entirely unnecessary. It establishes bicycle riders as a second-level class of road users who are prohibited from exercising the normal rights of drivers of vehicles. In that way it provides the emotional justification for nasty discrimination by motorists and for more effective and equally nasty discrimination by police officers. And by providing this emotional justification for nasty discrimination it creates feelings of guilt and fear in cyclists, feelings that prevent them from cycling properly and safely in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

This is a question of the legal meaning of a statute.
Yes, which, at one time, you thought meant "white" and you now think means "black".


Therefore, the phrase "right-hand lane" must apply to both two-lane and multi-lane roads.
There is no evidence that "right-hand lane" is ever used to refer to the former.

There is no evidence that "right-hand lane" is ever used to refer to the former.

You are lying. Evidence has been presented to you.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/740523-the-statutory-duty-of-cyclists-to-share-two-lane-roads?p=12825841#post12825841
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/740523-the-statutory-duty-of-cyclists-to-share-two-lane-roads?p=12825862#post12825862
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/740523-the-statutory-duty-of-cyclists-to-share-two-lane-roads?p=12826901#post12826901
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/740523-the-statutory-duty-of-cyclists-to-share-two-lane-roads?p=12826994#post12826994