Helmet Head

Can one of the forum members who is a lawyer please answer this question about this Missouri law:

THE LAW:

Riding to right, required for bicycles and motorized bicycles.

307.190. Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, except when making a left turn, when avoiding hazardous conditions, when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle, or when on a one-way street. Bicyclists may ride abreast when not impeding other vehicles.


THE LINK:
https://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes...3070000190.htm

THE QUESTION:
Ignoring the exceptions listed after the word "except", does the law mean that the cyclists required to "ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe" are those who operate

1. at less than the posted speed OR slower than the flow of traffic (i.e. to be further left they must be at or above posted speed AND at or above flow of traffic)
2. at less than the posted speed AND slower than the flow of traffic (i.e. to be further left they must be at or above posted speed OR at or above flow of traffic)

A or B? Please indicate your occupation, particularly if you are a lawyer, when answering this question.

Thanks

CaptainCool

There's no way they expect a vehicle to move significantly faster than the flow of traffic.

edit: wait, let me understand. Where's your confusion? The law says "or", and you wonder if it means "or" or "and"?

I say: if you're moving below the posted speed, you need to keep right. If you're moving slower than traffic, you need to keep right. If either of the above is not true, you can move left.

deputyjones

Hmmm, tough legal question there. Does that fact that the law says "or" answer it? Traffic law is simply not that difficult. The law means what it says, nothing more or less.

Helmet Head

What do you think the law says?

Helmet Head

a or b?

DevLaVaca

Second-year law student here, so this isn't really "legal advice".

You're right, there is some ambiguity there. The statute says you have to do such-and-such if your speed is:
A) Slower than the posted speed limit;
OR
B) Slower than the flow of traffic.

But it doesn't tell you whether you have to fulfill both conditions or just one to ignore the rest of the statute.

One possible reading is that both A and B have to be fulfilled at the same time: you have to be as fast or faster than both the speed limit and traffic. That doesn't make sense to me; why should a cyclist be permitted to take the lane if traffic was fast, but refused the option when traffic was slow, and it would be safer for him to be in the lane than out of it? This idea goes against common sense.

A more sensible reading is that the "or" marks a situational divide: i.e., if there is not a flow of traffic, you must be traveling at or above the speed limit; if there is a flow of traffic, you must be travelling at that speed.

There's also a parallel on freeways: if you only travel at 45 mph, you are required to be in the far right lane. However, if all of the traffic is moving at 45 mph, you can be anywhere he wants on the freeway.

So I vote A. As for what the actual case law is, I can't tell you. One, I'm not an attorney, two, I'm not interested enough to look it up, three, this is pretty commonsense (most laws are, when you get down to it).

Helmet Head

Any chance you could print out the question and ask one of your professors?

deputyjones

Tell you what. You tell us what the "HH lesson of the day", preconceived notion is behind this thread and I will give you a straight answer.

DevLaVaca

No.

deputyjones

Helmet Head

I don't understand why you think "you have to be as fast or faster than both the speed limit and traffic" (which is what I think the law requires) means "a cyclist [would] be permitted to take the lane if traffic was fast, but refused the option when traffic was slow".

I think they meant exactly what they wrote:

• As long as the cyclist is below the speed limit, they don't want him in the lane, even if traffic is currently slow for some reason and he can keep up with it (rationale: "after all, at any moment traffic might speed up again").
• As long as the cyclist is below the speed of traffic, they don't him in the lane, even if he's going the speed limit (rationale: "if everyone's going 35 in the 25, we don't want some Lance wannabe goin' 30 mph slowin' us down").

The Lance Armstrong exception, if you will, only applies to the cyclist who can ride the speed limit AND keep up with traffic.

It does not seem like common sense from our perspective as cyclists, but to some yahoo state legislator who teaches his kids to ride against traffic I can see how this would make perfect sense.

Helmet Head

There are pages of my opinion on this question in the Forester/Hurst thread under VC. But, bottom line, I think the answer is a, I think it's reasonable to believe that is says and means exactly what they intended (see previous post), and I don't understand how anyone can parse the law to make it mean b. But I want to know what a lawyer will say.

zeytoun

So who specifically was the state legislator who drafted this?
Is he/she a yahoo?
Do you have an article talking about how this legislator teaches his kids to ride against traffic?

Or is this just a Helmet Head conclusion, decided before the facts?
You know, a lot of Midwesterners are pro-bicycling.
For example, did you know that the mayor of Columbia, Missouri (Darwin Hindman) is an avid transportational cyclist?

Have you heard of Occam's Razor? The explanation with more variables tends to be less likely than the one with fewer variables..... Your explanation requires a legislator who is a yahoo and dumber then us (despite the fact that he/she writes laws for a living) who would draft a law with the implicit intent of preventing a cyclist from taking the lane in 3mph traffic.

If you say you believe that tripe, I think that even the baby Jesus would vomit with enraged frustration.

Bekologist

mr. head: are you really this dense?

you think "OR" means "AND"?

no wonder you can break traffic laws and still consider yourself "Vehicular"

Helmet Head

I agree that's a more "sensible" interpretation, but it's not a more sensible reading, because I don't see how you can read this interpretation from the way the law is written.

This seems like the wishful thinking interpretation.

Helmet Head

I seriously believe they don't want cyclists in the lane even if they can keep up with traffic unless that traffic is going at least the speed limit, because slow traffic can speed up at any time and they probably believe that a cyclist might get stuck "out there", and that's dangerous. I believe this because that's what the law means when I parse it in the only way it can be parsed. I suspect they didn't even consider 3 mph traffic.

Bekologist

I think you're a fool, mr. head, if that's how you 'parse' this clear legal statute.


"slower than the speed limit OR slower than the flow of traffic" allows a bicyclist to be in traffic when the traffic is slow.

the A&S sophist knows no bounds....

CaptainCool

That was my interpretation of the law posted. If you're moving at the posted speed, or at the speed of traffic, the phrase you bolded is not true.

Helmet Head

Really?

That's interesting. The phrase I bolded is:What if it is a shirt 'n shoes rule:Do you think that bolded phrase is true if you're wearing a shirt, or if you're wearing shoes?
So if you're wearing a shirt, but no shoes, you don't have to leave?

Or do you have to be wearing both a shirt and shoes for "without a shirt or without shoes" to be true?

What if the law said:

any cyclist ... at less than the posted speed and slower than the flow of traffic... shall ride as near to the right...

Bekologist

and you talk about reading comprehension issues!

denser than plutonium....

CaptainCool

I shouldn't have phrased it so absolutely. I realize the boolean logic doesn't hold, but that's still my interpretation. It's silly to keep bikes out of the way of 3mph traffic. And I'm sure the law is not meant to punish anyone for traveling at the speed limit even if everyone else is going faster.

Helmet Head

You have more faith in their intent than I do.
You have more faith in their understanding the realities of traffic cycling than I do.

I have more faith in their ability to accurately codify their intent than you do.

I guess that's the difference.

Anyway, I still want to hear from a lawyer.

Fair enough, and good night!

Bekologist

but head, the law clearly states "OR" and not "AND".

what a basket case.

Raiyn

What else would you expect from the VC's Tom Cruise?

deputyjones

I often wonder how people like this manage to even stay alive.

*HH approaching a sign that reads: STOP AHEAD*

Stop ahead, hmmmmm *thoughtful pose* Where does "ahead" mean? Right here, or just ahead of the sign, or in front of the sign, and where should I stop? In the road or on the shoulder? Who will tell me when to start up again? How will I receive instruction??!!! *begins sweating* I have checked through all of Effective Cycling and the index and found NOTHING on STOP AHEAD signs! *begins panting, rolls down window for fresh air* O my, this is quite a quandry. Ok, I will stop and pull out my laptop to see if I can get a wifi signal to start a poll on BF to find what to do at this type of sign. Ok laptop out, booting windows, OMG No SIGNAL!!!!! O, John Forester! Why have thou forsaken me!

**HH spends his last few minutes on Earth composing a 50 page letter to his State Senator describing in painstaking detail the correct size, placement, color, shape and type font that should be used on future STOP AHEAD signs. He then promptly explodes**