Bekologist

hmm.

of course, operating safely right to share the road with faster traffic wishing to overtake violates no vehicular standard.

John Forester

Your position, Bek, is that cyclists must ride FRAP on two-lane roads in order to entice motorists into making dangerous overtaking movements. That's what motorists want, but it is not safe for cyclists, not good for their legal standing, nor what most laws require. It's pretty clear that the motivation for Bek's position is doing what the public thinks should be done about bicycle traffic. It is time that well-informed cyclists stood up to the standard American anti-cyclist policies.

sudo bike

Yes. One lane for travel and another for passing, as you point out a few paragraphs down.

hmmm...


???

*yawn*.

Bekologist

right half of road laws disagree with your assertions, in every state.

a two lane roadway consists of a single lane each direction. a two lane roadway does not have a 'passing' or a 'left' lane.

that other half of a two lane road is reserved and authorized for travel in the opposite direction except for passing, subject to right half of road/ smv FRAP-esqe laws in every state.

A vehicle crosses over the center line, and into the lane for opposite traffic, when passing, on two lane roads. not into a 'passing' or a 'left' lane. "THERE'S A BUS COMING RIGHT FOR US IN THIS LEFT LANE, LOU!"

....it is such rank semantics and sophistry to suggest otherwise.

Heck, john forester himself stood behind the only reasonable interpretation of right half of road SMV-FRAP laws and agreed with the only correct interpretation of these types of laws' wording for over three decades in his books and website, thru two printings of his books two decades apart.

John Forester

I repeat, a more detailed analysis of the two-lane road situation has produced my present statement, that on typical two-lane roads FRAP does not allow safe overtaking under conditions when normal lateral position does not. Of course, if Bek really wanted to criticize me, he would make the argument that I should have made the engineering analysis years ago. But then, even though Bek recognizes the engineering reality (at least I think he does), he refuses to admit it into his ideology.

Bek's argument rests on two very dubious claims. One claim is that the word "or" in a statute does not offer a choice. The other is that a two-lane road does not have a right-hand lane available for traffic, as used by the words of the statute. The obvious absurdity of these two claims demonstrate the irrationality produced by the anti-motoring, motorist-subservience, cyclist-inferiority, FRAP and bikeways desiring motivations. That some of these are logically incompatible with others is the common state for people with this mix of motives; I recognize that, but I can't help it. Only they could help it, but they will not.

Bekologist

a simple scenario -

Consider the common law and statutory duties of a man on a horse, or a man pushing a wheelbarrow, sharing two lane roads under typical SMV-FRAP laws.

They are not free to take up any position on a two lane roadway, but must operate on the right half and as far to the right as practicable, to facilitate passing. (*john forester himself argued to the committee setting model ordinance standards for NUTCLO that the purpose of SMV FRAP laws were to facilitate passing be added to the SMV FRAP provision of the UVC, which lends credence to the standard and accepted, reasonable interpretation of SMV FRAP laws - but i digress*)

This is a common and statutory duty held by all slowly driven vehicles being overtaken on two lane roads.

John Forester

Bek is making a claim about the law, but he has never provided either statute or case to support his claim. His attempts to provide a logical analysis of a statute have failed miserably.

Bekologist

failed miserably?

How would a man on a horse share a two lane, 60mph highway? what are the duties of that road user under the uniform SMV-FRAP provisions?

.....The very same duties other narrow, slowly operated road users share in common. that duty is, in all 50 states, to operate as far to the right as safe to facilitate overtaking (or in the case of Massachusetts, turn out to the right so as to not unnecessarily delay) that john mentioned in his recent interview...

in the same manner that a horseman would share a two lane road.

sudo bike

In California, on a 2-lane highway, if there were a horse cart being pulled along the road, he would do what any other vehicle on the road does: Use the furthest right lane available for thru traffic (on a 2 lane highway, the only lane for thru traffic). Cars would pass as necessary. If cars were unable to pass, he would pull aside to let them pass (legally after 5 or more, but probably ASAP) as soon as it's safe. Same as a slow car, tractor, or anything except a bicycle, which must ride FRAP per 21202 barring any exceptions (which most cyclists will do regardless of law).

Really, this point of whether you must share the lane on a 2-lane highway under 21654 in CA is moot anyway, because 1) as it stands, 21202 makes 21654 mostly irrelevant for cyclists and 2) I've rarely seen a 2-lane highway with wide enough lanes to share.

Bekologist

no, you misstate the statutory duties of vehicles in California under CVC 21654 to operate as far to the right as practicable on two lane roads, and use the right hand lane on multiple lane roadways.

a man on a horse and a horse drawn cart do NOT have free reign to choose any lane position on a two lane, 60 mph highway. suggesting this is ludicrous and unsupportable. There are sound reasons for laws regulating traffic.

In California, a slowly driven vehicle on a two lane road is required to be operated as far to the right as practicable to facilitate passing traffic.

Once 5 vehicles are behind, that vehicle that has been operating as far to the right as practicable to facilitate passing has to then look for a place to turn off the roadway entirely.

These are some of the traffic fundamentals of the state of California.

.....Lack of understanding does not make an argument. How obtuse to waste this forums time with inaccurate and misleading fantasies about traffic operation.

Rarely seen roads a bicyclist can operate safely right to facilitate passing on? surely you can't be serious. How are the cars getting past you?

Or, sudobike, are you hinting at some grand, Batesian bike radicalism and protest riding method, far to the left of every lane, self ascribed bicycling suffragism with an inchoate understanding of traffic laws.....


.... I'm confident there are scads of roads in Fresno bikes and cars, or a man on a horse, can share safely, pursuant to the traffic laws of the great state of California.

John Forester

All of the above is nothing more than a repetition of claims that are based on Bek's two claims that two-lane roads do not have a right-hand lane and that the word "or" when listing the requirements of a statute does not allow a choice to be made. Standard rules of discussion say that discussion of the later claims ought to be delayed until their very dubious foundational claims have been demonstrated. Bek should restrict his activity to demonstrating the validity of his claims that are the foundation of the rest of his philosophical edifice. Only when the foundations are agreed to should further discussion be endured.

Bekologist

Two lane roads do not have left hand lanes and right hand lanes for simultaneous travel in the same direction. the word or in SMV FRAP laws does not provide an option to not operate FRAP, it clearly refers to right hand lanes on multiple lane lane roads OR FRAP.

Vehicles are required to operate on the right half of roads in all states, thereby precluding any designation of the opposite half of a roadway as a left hand lane. the other half of a two lane road may be the left half of a road compared to the authorized travel lane, but it is most assuredly not designated as a 'left lane' that would somehow, magically obviate slowly moving vehicles to facilitate passing on two lane roads when being overtaken.


"THERE'S A BUS COMING RIGHT FOR US IN THIS LEFT LANE YOU SAID WE COULD USE, LOU!"


what a flailing bluff!

john, you yourself stood behind a more reasonable interpretation, the ONLY reasonable interpretation of SMV FRAP laws, for near thirty years and in two printings of your books. This sudden break from agreeing with longstanding, reasonable standards of traffic law to lapse into such irrationality showcases a certain fringe element that is haplessly or duplicitously seeking to take away cyclists rights.


john foresters newfangled notions about traffic laws would be considered irrelevant and unreasonable to john forester himself in his more reasonable days.

A man on a horse and a horse drawn cart do NOT have free reign to choose any lateral lane position on a two lane, 60 mph highway under CVC 21654, or the laws of any state. Suggesting that they do is ludicrous and unsupportable. There are sound reasons for laws regulating traffic.

There is a long standing, commonly held duty of road users (embodied in the model traffic ordinances of the UVC, and codified in the laws of every state) that Slowly Moving Vehicles should *shall* move right, as Far Right As Practicable, on two lane roads, to facilitate overtaking.

In California, a slowly driven vehicle on a two lane road is required to be operated as far to the right as practicable to facilitate passing traffic.

Why john unceasingly fritters away this forums bandwidth with such far fetched, unsupportable fictions about traffic laws affecting bicyclists is quite odious. Rank, fraudulent fictions about traffic laws are a detrimental and dangerous masquerade of cycling advocacy that aims to erode cyclists rights in this country.

sudo bike

Well if you say so, it must be true! So sayeth the Bek.

Go read the applicable laws, 21654 and 21656.

Yes. As a brief aside about this law, I would note, interestingly, that while you crucify John for changing positions, you once argued with me endlessly on these forums (less than a year ago, perhaps, I'll have to check) that cyclists had no duty to pull off the road due to the duties spelled out in 21656 because 21202 somehow "canceled out" the duties of 21656 (at least I think so, I never really understood that logic). Did you reverse course?

Because I generally choose to operate on the shoulder, as I'm entitled to by law. If for some reason the shoulder is not safe to ride on, I ride squarely in the lane (these situations are rare, anyway) when the lane is not safe to share (which, as I said, is the norm). Cars either pass as they would any other vehicle, in the oncoming lane, or if I can, I pull off to facilitate passing (whether or not there are 5 cars - it's the polite thing to do).

Oh my, no. I'm probably one of the least aggressive people you can find riding a bike . I don't compromise my safety, but I try to be as courteous as possible. I've had very few bad interactions with motorists because of it, IMO.

But we aren't talking about how I ride... we're talking about legal obligations under law. Why are you wasting the forum's time and derailing this thread with such tangents?

Oh, absolutely. Just not many 2-lane highways.

Bekologist

not many two lane roads in Fresno? more jests!

A shoulder suffragette. interesting. Unclear if you understand the duties of vehicles (and cyclists) to facilitate passing in your state, or that '2 lane highway' indicates any two lane road.

BTW, I didn't bring up riding in Fresno, or your personal riding style. one quick thing though.... when you state you are referring to explicit rights cyclists and cyclists only possess in Cali (not sharing lanes when unsafe) while falsely rendering optional your statutory duty to operate as far to the right as practicable to facilitate passing (something all vehicles possess in Cali on two lane roads). and when you say 'pull off' to be polite( !) when there's no shoulder, you are by necessity describing turning out to the right, as far right as practicable.



its not just 'polite' to share roads as a slowly driven vehicles, sudo- IT'S THE LAW.
And as to those laws//////

This thread is about legal obligations of cyclists, which some people are blatantly misstating.

FRAP is not a condition only applicable on unlaned roads, nor does the duty to facilitate passing evaporate on a two lane highway. for all vehicles, in all states, to the best of my research. no state lacks a SMV-FRAP requirement or equivalent statute, that applies on two lane roads.

These laws that in all states requiring facilitating passing -something JF himself argued was the intent of the law and lobbied for its inclusion in the UVC - most assuredly are intended to smooth traffic flow and facilitate passing along a typical two lane highway - ANY two lane road, sudo.


When traffic fundamentals like turning out to the right or operating as far to the right as practicable to facilitate passing are blatantly misrepresented, the false constructs sells cycling short.

Avoid advocacy with an inchoate portrayal of traffic fundamentals - Traffic fundamentals like the long standing, common law and statutory duty of all slowly driven vehicles to turn out to the right to share the road with vehicles wishing to overtake.

Fighting to remove cyclists rights (those same rights to substandard width lanes that sudobike and john are explicitly protected under in California) with these flawed whimsicalities about traffic law is a hazardous trajectory and one which cyclists should steer well clear of.

Avoid astroturf advocacy that seeks to remove cyclists rights to take the lane using flawed interpretations of traffic fundamentals.

John Forester

Indeed, Bek, I did argue for a statement in the FRAP law that this was intended to facilitate overtaking. I did so because the intent of that law was often argued, forcefully and emotionally, to be to prevent car-bike collisions. We see much of that kind of argumentation still going on. However, stating that the intent of the FRAP law is to facilitate overtaking is not a statement that FRAP positioning always allows safe overtaking, which is what Bek has been trying to argue, at least when he is arguing that it does not do so.

The contradiction between Bek's pro-FRAP argument and engineering fact, and the contradiction between Bek's pro-FRAP argument and his anti-FRAP knowledge and argument both demonstrate that Bek's stance is a political stance that is not based on traffic-engineering reality. And we should recognize that Bek's political stance in this matter, whatever may be its motive, is exactly the same as the motorists' view of bicycle traffic. This is the difficulty of advocating cyclist-FRAP laws and the bikeways to enforce them.

sudo bike

I meant not many that are wide enough to share, but yes.

I understand perfectly when I have the duty to facilitate passing and when my safety takes priority over facilitating passing. By California law I am under no duty to sacrifice my safety to allow others to save a few seconds. I ride within my rights, but as courteously as possible without sacrificing safety. I've rarely had problems; I was pulled over once, and after a friendly conversation and showing the officer the law that applied allowing me use of the full lane, he thanked me and we went our separate ways. Yes, I understand the law - what we are arguing here is a totally theoretical application of 21654 - nothing more. 21202 makes this whole discussion moot, as I pointed out earlier. Don't pretend or kid yourself that we are discussing actual duties of a cyclist under 21654.

Orly?



No. I am saying 1) This discussion of 21654 as applicable to cyclists is theoretical - we are governed by 21202 separately. 2) My only disagreement with you is the interpretation of 21654 were that to be the applicable law (since the original discussion was about repealing 21202). 3) Yes, regardless of 21202, if you are operating in a way that cars can't pass safely, you must pull off the roadway to allow passing due to 21656.

All I'm saying is I generally do so anyway before 5 cars are behind me because it's courteous (and I'm used to doing it in a car anyway due to mountain driving). That doesn't mean you are legally obligated to continually ride FRAP rather than ride in the lane and pull off to allow faster traffic to pass when safe to do so, and only when they can't safely pass you anyway (i.e., you are taking the lane and oncoming traffic prevents passing). I'm not sure why you are confusing the two to be the same.

Not to the detriment of my safety, it isn't. Share the road isn't the same as sacrificing the road, which you seem to equate. If you can't ride FRAP due to exceptions in 21202, you are under no legal obligation to "share the road" by unsafely riding FRAP or leaving the roadway unless there is no safe way for traffic to pass and there are 5 or more cars waiting to pass. Unless these conditions are met, you do not need to "share" the road, and I challenge you to show me otherwise.

No, it isn't about that. If it were about that, this while discussion would be revolving around 21202. It is you who are deliberately misguiding readers; the conversation started and has revolved around what cyclists' duties would be if 21202 were repealed, and we were governed by 21654. Total hypothetical discussion.


Where have I misrepresented turning out? Our only disagreement is the theoretical application of 21654... utter silliness.
I'm sure now is where you can point where I advocated the removal of 21202, yes?

Bekologist

sudobike and john both offer an incomplete, inchoate understanding of the laws regulating traffic in california.

sudo bike

Nice rebuttal.