Which law would you rather be subject to?

[Bekologist]

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.

[Bekologist]

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

[John Forester]

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.

[Bekologist]

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 Forester]

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.

[Bekologist]

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.

[John Forester]

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.

[Bekologist]

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.

[John Forester]

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.

[Bekologist]

.....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.

[John Forester]

.....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.

[Bekologist]

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.

[John Forester]

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.

[Bekologist]

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?

[John Forester]

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.

[Bekologist]

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.

[DX-MAN]

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"....

[John Forester]

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.

[gcottay]

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 Forester]

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.

[JRA]

.....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).

[John Forester]

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]

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.

[Bekologist]

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.

[John Forester]

.... 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.