Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 84
  1. #1
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    can cyclists take the lane when there's no traffic in California?

    judging from the recent thread, there are some in the cycling education and advocacy community that would have cyclists believe that they are prohibited from travelling away from the edge absent a legal excuse.

    Well, this ec effective curbhug is marginal and potentially unsafe road positioning advice and does not recognize cyclists in most states are free, absent other faster traffic present at the time, to operate on the right hand side of the road, then pull safely right, as far right as is practicable when faster traffic is overtaking.

    this is the case in about two thirds of the states: there are only about a dozen, like ohio, that legally require cyclists to stay safely right, presumably in anticipation of faster traffic overtaking. most other states have no such constrainment, and cyclists are free to

    Quote Originally Posted by anon.
    .... clearly, if there is no same-direction traffic anywhere about, the cyclist is permitted to obey the standard rules of the road....."

    cyclists, cycling educators, or cycling authors that try to advise cyclists are constrained to curbhug as a default position unless there is an excuse, under their personal misinterpretation of cyclists rights, are doing cyclists a grave disfavor when they marginalize cyclists rights.

    do not listen to overly simplistic constrainments to operate at the edge of the road using an EC, effective curbhugging method. it is unwise and it is potentially unsafe riding with a marginalized and false sense of where to position oneself on the road.

    check your state traffic codes. In california, cyclists are clearly and explicitly required to operate FRAP only when there is faster traffic present. the law only requires frap when there is faster traffic present at the time, otherwise simply riding on the right side of the middle of the road (generally) meets the legal demands of cyclists in California and a preponderate majority of other states.

    riding an effective curbhug is NOT the law in most states. Do not listen to those that marginalize with their misleading effective curbhugging advice.

    I live in washington state, another state that requires cyclists operate frap when other traffic is present. I am legally allowed to operate well away from the far right side of the road unless there is faster traffic present.

    This allows me on my daily rides to maximize my sightlines and visibility to oncoming, overtaking and cross traffic when there is no other faster traffic needing to overtake. I am allowed to position myself in the middle of unstriped neighborhood roads and collector streets without a middle line, and can legally position myself a foot from the center dividing line on striped, laned roads unless there is faster traffic present at the time.

    This style of vehicular cycling has been characterized by John Franklin as using primary/secondary road positioning - operating in a primary road & lane position absent overtaking traffic, and only moving to a secondary ,as far right as practicable position to allow faster traffic to pass. This reflects the laws in most states, the standards in the UVC as well as unwritten fair duties sharing roads with faster traffic.

    This primary/secondary positioning is legally allowed by bicyclists in both california and washington state - states that some bicycling educators would have cyclists believe are 'constrained to the edge' of roads unless a legal excuse is demonstrated.

    the 'legally constrained to the edge absent an excuse' EC curbhug is an inaccurate misrepresentation of cyclists rights in most states.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 07-04-10 at 09:50 PM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  2. #2
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,534
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    can cyclists take the lane when there's no traffic in California?

    Yes, can and do, all the time.

    The FRAP law in CA specifies:

    21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

    (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

    (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

    (3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

    (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

    (b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.
    Since this little clause exists right there in the beginning, "at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time," when I am the only traffic, obviously I must be the normal traffic, I can and do use any part of the road I chose to use.

    Who's to stop me or complain? This is sort of along the lines of "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound."

    Now bear in mind that due to the exceptions of the FRAP law, I also can and do chose to use any part of the lane/road any time I feel a need to do so... so about the only time I do ride to the right is when I feel that it is safe to do so.

    Where I ride on the road depends on how much road there is, rather than how much traffic or what speed the traffic is moving.

    I don't take the lane for any political cause celebre such as Chipseal in Texas, I take the lane for reasons of practicality and safety. Frankly, if there is a nice wide shoulder on a road, and I feel there are no safety concerns involved in the use of the shoulder, then I can, and do use that part of the roadway as freely and easily as any other part of the roadway. I see no reason to do otherwise and I have cycled and bike toured for well over 30 years successfully with that methodology.

    But again, to directly answer the question of the OP... YES!

  3. #3
    Fresh Garbage hairnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    10,737
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    I often take the lane even with traffic because many lanes are just too narrow to share.
    Last edited by hairnet; 07-05-10 at 09:18 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrodzilla View Post
    I'd rather ride a greasy bowling ball than one of those things.
    Bikerowave
    My Bikes

  4. #4
    JRA
    JRA is offline
    Senior Member JRA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm as free as a breeze
    And I ride where I please
    Saddle tramp, saddle tramp

    I can ride away from the edge of the road even when there is other traffic, the legal fantasies of others notwithstanding.
    "It may even be that motoring is more healthful than not motoring; death rates were certainly higher in the pre-motoring age."- John Forester
    "Laws cannot be properly understood as if written in plain English..."- Forester defending obfuscation.
    "Motorist propaganda, continued for sixty years, is what has put cyclists on sidewalks." - Forester, sociologist in his own mind
    "'There are no rules of the road on MUPs.' -John Forester" - Helmet Head quoting 'The Great One'

  5. #5
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    How cyclists interpret FRAP laws and how police interpret them are often two different things.

    I've been pulled over by police for riding in the center of an 11' lane on a 4-lane urban street; the officer thought I was supposed to hug the curb.

    Talking a cop out of a ticket (and avoiding being pulled over in the first place) would be easier if the traffic laws were worded so control of a travel lane was the rule and staying right within the lane the exception, rather than the other way around.

  6. #6
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,534
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sggoodri View Post
    How cyclists interpret FRAP laws and how police interpret them are often two different things.

    I've been pulled over by police for riding in the center of an 11' lane on a 4-lane urban street; the officer thought I was supposed to hug the curb.

    Talking a cop out of a ticket (and avoiding being pulled over in the first place) would be easier if the traffic laws were worded so control of a travel lane was the rule and staying right within the lane the exception, rather than the other way around.
    Agreed. I carry a copy of the laws with me, just to make it easier for the officer to find them... . Of course those wallet size cards are also handy for handing out to motorists too.

  7. #7
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sggoodri
    How cyclists interpret FRAP laws and how police interpret them are often two different things.
    oh absolutely. contrary to california's fairly weakly worded FRAP law, colorado's bike laws are about as strong as they can get.

    Cyclists should still share the roads when safe to do so. Colorado and California both codify that with a FRAP requirement for bicyclists if the lane is wide enough to share, same as most other states. Colorado not california offers strongly worded affirmation to the cyclists use of the right hand lane when travelling slower than other traffic.

    The colorado law may be the best US state law there is directing cyclists right to the travel lane. cyclists are still getting harassed by police and other officials in colorado. go figure.

    What's really unfortunate is cyclists telling other cyclists the incorrect information about the laws, egregiously misleading with their unsafe interpretations.

    can cyclists take the lane when there's no traffic in California? well, shucks, of course. same as with most states.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 07-06-10 at 08:56 PM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,402
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
    Yes, this means that cyclists can take the lane if they are the only thing on the road.

    It also means that "traffic" doesn't include "bicycles" and that bicycles cannot define/dictate/establish "normal speed".

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

    How the hell is this thread any different than the one that was locked?
    Last edited by njkayaker; 07-08-10 at 08:47 AM.

  9. #9
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    bicycles aren't 'traffic'? what?



    and as to the second point, what if there are more bicyclists than motor vehicles?
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,402
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    bicycles aren't 'traffic'? what?
    Clearly, in this law, the word "traffic" doesn't include bicycles. If it did, the law would be a logical absurdity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    and as to the second point, what if there are more bicyclists than motor vehicles?
    The law clearly establishes bicycles as not the thing that establishes "normal speed", be there one or many.

  11. #11
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    doubtful interpretations of law, as bicycles would be considered 'traffic' in most states and considered to have duties and rights of drivers of vehicles most places too.

    pedestrians, horseback riders, bicyclists, motor vehicles, Conastoga wagons are all 'traffic'. there's no basis that the wording 'normal traffic' doesn't include bicyclists.

    more bicyclists means bicyclists are the prevailing and normal traffic on a route, this is debatable yet arguably supported position, but off topic nonetheless.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 07-08-10 at 09:41 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  12. #12
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,534
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    Clearly, in this law, the word "traffic" doesn't include bicycles. If it did, the law would be a logical absurdity.


    The law clearly establishes bicycles as not the thing that establishes "normal speed", be there one or many.
    Uh, how does the law establish bicycles as "not traffic" or as not being able to establish "normal speed." I guess I missed this clause somewhere in that law. BTW a local judge tried that same "conclusion" in his judgment against a cyclist, and it was dismissed on appeal. Normal speed was ruled as speed of traffic, which included bicycles... and not the posted speed limit, which was what the judge had claimed.

    There is no implication in 21202 that bikes cannot establish either normal speed nor be traffic.

    As for logic absurdity... the law merely states "normal speed of traffic moving... " and doesn't establish that cyclists are not traffic. The laws that govern slow moving vehicles also uses similar phrasing...
    21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.
    Such phrasing does not suddenly render a slow moving vehicle as something other than "traffic."

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,402
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    Uh, how does the law establish bicycles as "not traffic" or as not being able to establish "normal speed." I guess I missed this clause somewhere in that law.
    "Traffic" in this law is not talking about bicycles. The term in this law refers to a group of vehicles that are not bicycles.

    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    There is no implication in 21202 that bikes cannot establish either normal speed nor be traffic.
    If a bicycle can establish "normal speed", then they can't be travelling at less than "normal speed".

    Keep in mind that we are not talking about the "no other vehicles around" case.
    Nor, are we talking about the "travelling at the same speed" case (which is explicitly allowed).

    That is, the CA law clearly is talking about two separate classes of vehicles: 1) bicycles and 2) traffic travelling faster than bicycles.
    Last edited by njkayaker; 07-08-10 at 10:26 AM.

  14. #14
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    but when one of many vehicles at a place and time, a cyclist may find themselves slower than the rest of the normal traffic!


    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  15. #15
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,534
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    "Traffic" in this law is not talking about bicycles. The term in this law refers to a group of vehicles that are not bicycles.



    If a bicycle can establish "normal speed", then they can't be travelling at less than "normal speed".



    Keep in mind that we are not talking about the "no other vehicles around" case.
    Nor, are we talking about the "travelling at the same speed" case (which is explicitly allowed).

    That is, the CA law clearly is talking about two separate classes of vehicles: 1) bicycles and 2) traffic travelling faster than bicycles.
    By your logic, a slow moving vehicle is then also "not traffic." Does 21656 also create two separate classes of vehicles?

    But by definition in CA law a bicycle is not a vehicle, hence the need for the 21202 law. Bicycles are defined as human powered devices.
    Last edited by genec; 07-08-10 at 10:52 AM.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,402
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    By your logic, a slow moving vehicle is then also "not traffic." Does 21656 also create two separate classes of vehicles?
    Yes, ones operating at "normal speed" and ones operating at slower speeds. The only property that distinguishes the two classes is speed. That is obvious.

    In the bicycle law, the law talks about bicycles.

    Turning Out of Slow-Moving Vehicles

    21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.
    ============

    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    But by definition in CA law a bicycle is not a vehicle, hence the need for the 21202 law. Bicycles are defined as human powered devices.
    But bicycles have to be operated like vehicles. Traffic laws applying to vehicles also applies to bicycles (being operated).

    21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including
    This indicates that laws talking about the operation of vehicles applies to bicyclists (operators of bicycles). (Unless an exception is made for bicycles/bicyclists.)
    Last edited by njkayaker; 07-08-10 at 03:26 PM.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,402
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    but when one of many vehicles at a place and time, a cyclist may find themselves slower than the rest of the normal traffic!


    This doesn't make any sense.

    It's not "normal traffic" in the law. It's "normal speed".

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    California Vehicle Code 620: The term 'traffic' includes pedestrians, ridden animals, vehicles, street cars, and other conveyances, either singly or together, while using any highway for purposes of travel.

  19. #19
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks, John Forester for finding the relevant definition.


    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    This doesn't make any sense.

    It's not "normal traffic" in the law. It's "normal speed".
    HEY! YOU said bicyclists aren't traffic, but we are normal traffic, sometimes operating at speeds slower than the normal speed of all the rest of the normal traffic out there.



    In most states the laws are clearly written that other traffic certainly has to be present to require a cyclist or any other normal vehicle to operate FRAP.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 07-08-10 at 10:52 PM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,402
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    HEY! YOU said bicyclists aren't traffic, but we are normal traffic, sometimes operating at speeds slower than the normal speed of all the rest of the normal traffic out there.
    The bicycle law doesn't say "normal traffic". It says "normal speed". It does not any faster speed.

    A bicycle or car driving at 10 mph isn't likely to be interpreted as a "normal speed" for a 55 mph road (ignoring conditions, like fog or snow, that might cause people to travel slower).

    Note that the law does not require cyclists to move to the right for any faster traffic.

    What does "normal speed" mean? How does a cyclist determine whether they are travelling slower than the "normal speed"?

    Motor vehicles define the "normal speed" for bicycles (not vice versa). (Note that "speeding" is not likely to be considered "normal speed". This means the speed limit provides a cap to the "normal speed".)

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    California Vehicle Code 620: The term 'traffic' includes pedestrians, ridden animals, vehicles, street cars, and other conveyances, either singly or together, while using any highway for purposes of travel.
    You mean people walking in the middle of the lane can determine "normal speed"?
    Last edited by njkayaker; 07-09-10 at 12:17 PM.

  21. #21
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,534
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    The bicycle law doesn't say "normal traffic". It says "normal speed". It does not any faster speed.
    It says normal speed of traffic... The normal speed of traffic is NOT dictated by the posted speed LIMIT. This is a concept that far too many motorists fail to understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post

    A bicycle or car driving at 10 mph isn't likely to be interpreted as a "normal speed" for a 55 mph road (ignoring conditions, like fog or snow, that might cause people to travel slower).

    Note that the law does not require cyclists to move to the right for any faster traffic.

    What does "normal speed" mean? How does a cyclist determine whether they are travelling slower than the "normal speed"?

    Motor vehicles define the "normal speed" for bicycles (not vice versa). (Note that "speeding" is not likely to be considered "normal speed". This means the speed limit provides a cap to the "normal speed".)

    Motor vehicles do not determine the normal speed... traffic determines the normal speed. If the road is filled with walking people, all traffic will move at the speed of walking people. If the road is filled with cyclists, cyclists as traffic determine the normal speed. If the road is filled with motor vehicles... then they as traffic determine the normal speed... and if they are moving at a snail's pace as in "bumper to bumper traffic," then a cyclist may indeed pass on the left and leave the slower traffic to the right.

    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    You mean people walking in the middle of the lane can determine "normal speed"?
    Yup, if they make up the majority of traffic... happens quite often when people take to the streets... and this is the very heart of what CM** is... when cyclists make up the majority of traffic, they determine the normal speed.


    **now that said, understand that CM has in fact in many places deteriorated to an event that is tangential to the original concept. (I am not a supporter of CM for that reason)

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,402
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    It says normal speed of traffic... The normal speed of traffic is NOT dictated by the posted speed LIMIT. This is a concept that far too many motorists fail to understand.
    As I said, the "normal speed" is limited by the speed limit. That is, the "normal speed" can't really be higher than the speed limit because then the law would be allowing an illegal act.


    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    Motor vehicles do not determine the normal speed... traffic determines the normal speed. If the road is filled with walking people, all traffic will move at the speed of walking people. If the road is filled with cyclists, cyclists as traffic determine the normal speed.
    No, all of these example, while they force the speed, define an abnormal speed.

    Keep in mind that you are required to be in control of your vehicle and be able to stop for obstacles (that means you can't run into things or over people even if they are acting illegally).

    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    and if they are moving at a snail's pace as in "bumper to bumper traffic," then a cyclist may indeed pass on the left and leave the slower traffic to the right.
    We aren't talking about passing (which is allowed by another law).

    Anyway, cyclists would not be travelling slower than the "normal speed", which means the law we are talking about doesn't apply.
    Last edited by njkayaker; 07-09-10 at 01:48 PM.

  23. #23
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,534
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    As I said, the "normal speed" is limited by the speed limit. That is, the "normal speed" can't really be higher than the speed limit because then the law would be allowing an illegal act.



    No, because any speed would be "normal".

    A car travelling at 10 mph on an otherwise empty 55 mph highway doesn't define "normal speed".


    We aren't talking about passing (which is allowed by another law).
    If the highway is empty... except for one car moving at 10MPH... what is the normal speed of traffic, at that time? Bear in mind that both 21202 and 21656 both use the term "at that time."

    How can the normal speed of traffic at that time be anything but the speed that the only traffic at that time is moving?

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,402
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    If the highway is empty... except for one car moving at 10MPH... what is the normal speed of traffic, at that time? Bear in mind that both 21202 and 21656 both use the term "at that time."

    How can the normal speed of traffic at that time be anything but the speed that the only traffic at that time is moving?
    Clearly, traffic has to exist at that time. 10 mph on a highway isn't "normal" (ignoring conditions that might require low speeds).

    The law doesn't say "any speed". It doesn't say "faster speed". It says "slower than normal speed" (ie, "normal" means "usual, typical").
    Last edited by njkayaker; 07-09-10 at 01:51 PM.

  25. #25
    Fresh Garbage hairnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    10,737
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    Clearly, traffic has to exist at that time. 10 mph on a highway isn't "normal"
    pretty normal on the 405
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrodzilla View Post
    I'd rather ride a greasy bowling ball than one of those things.
    Bikerowave
    My Bikes

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •