states without BIKES-FRAP law require bikes operate FRAP on all roads
 

well, in continuing with the topic at hand in the VC subforum,

what are cyclists road rights?

I've been looking at some of the states without bike specific share the road FRAP laws.

Some ardent fringers in the bike advocacy community rally cyclists to fight all bike specific laws, and to fight to remove bicyclists specific protections under law.

these arguments are not only specious, they are malicious, and instead are a fight to suborn cyclists to far more restrictive conditions.



Some in this forum suggest this legal condition (no bike specific law granting lane rights) represents a much better social, legal and operational climate for bicyclists. Their argument relies on wholly unsubstantiated claims that absent BIKES FRAP laws, bicyclists are allowed to take any lane position in the right hand lane of any laned roadway and wouldn't have to operate to share the road on two lane roads.

Those suggestions are unsubstantiated, and directly contradicted by operational dictates of the states that treat cyclists under the generic SMV FRAP requirements. There are only a handful of states without BIKES FRAP laws, and when their traffic laws are given even a rudimentary perusal, one thing jumps out:

Bikes have a legal obligation to operate FRAP on all roads.

Instead of the grand 'bicycle drivers' fantasy of road equality, the reality of no bike specificity in traffic law is far, far more restrictive.

Iowa- no BIKES FRAP law, requires bikes ride FRAP on all roads.

North Carolina- no BIKES FRAP law, requires bikes ride FRAP on all roads.

Kentucky - no BIKES FRAP law, requires bikes ride FRAP on all roads.

Indiana - no BIKES FRAP law, requires bikes ride FRAP on all roads.

I haven't had a chance to take a look at the handful of states remaining without bikes frap laws, but one thing is clear:

the prevailing interpretations from compelling authorities in states with no BIKES FRAP law is most assuredly NOT the candy land fantasy portrayed by cyclists seeking to take away our road rights.

Iowa Driver's Manual would be a compelling authority, wouldn't it? It's more assertive of cyclists' right to take a lane than NY's is.

It says inexperienced cyclists ride too close to the gutter and cyclists often (not always) travel nearer the right edge of a traffic lane. It looks pretty good to me - especially compared to the NY state one I'm more familiar with.

What 'compelling authority' are you using for Iowa?

that's the DMV talking to motorists about bikes on the road, suggestions and education to drivers about bicyclists.


Here is the official DOT interpretation of bicyclists duties under law. this is distributed to bicyclists on their bike map. note, specifically, the cyclists duties, when travelling slower than other traffic, to

shall ride as close to the right curb or edge of the roadway as is safe and practicable

http://www.iowadot.gov/maps//msp/pdf/bikelaws.pdf

rules of the road for bicyclists of Iowa from the bike map and the Department of transportation

OK...I think this is supporting John Forester's argument. Iowa is telling cyclists they should ride FRAP - just like other SMV and just like the other states with bicycle specific FRAP laws. They're doing so with the full knowledge that on many roads, FRAP is not very close to the right edge or curb, and telling drivers that cyclists will often NOT be on the right edge of the road or curb.

I compare that to NY state, where the DOT is pretty bicycle friendly and there is a bicycle-specific FRAP law, and the driver's manual gives no hint that a cyclist would ever take the lane.

NY state drivers are supposed to understand that 'must move left to avoid hazards' includes roads too narrow for cars and bikes to share. It doesn't convey that message at all and 99.5% of the drivers therefore have the wrong understanding. I would take Iowa over my home state of NY any day. John Forester hasn't convinced me at all on the right lane / left lane thing but you're failing to convince me on this one. *shrug*

Bicyclists being required to operate FRAP on all roads in states with SMV FRAP laws regulating bicycle traffic is definitely not the argument :notamused: of the bicycle drivers. words fail me.

I've failed to convince you that states with no BIKES FRAP laws do indeed require FRAP from bicyclists on all roads and that the official interpretations of state laws are not so nearly as generous as some of the bicycle drivers suggest?


the arguments of some of the 'bicycle drivers' is that bicyclists in SMV FRAP states have responsibilities to operate FRAP only on unlaned roads. This is untenable. States with SMV FRAP laws all seem to fairly uniformly require FRAP of bicyclists on all roads of any number of lanes.

New York is not one of those states, and the history of your quite restrictive laws stretches back over a century to the days before motorized vehicles....... new york is quite restrictive, and its laws are reflective of the long contentious fight to the roads of New York state......


However, to states with no BIKE FRAP laws, just SMV FRAP laws....

their is no convincing needed when states expressly state the duties of bicyclists to operate FRAP.

certainly there is an element of safety embodied in FRAP.

Some bicycle drivers ardently insist an unsupportable position that the duty to do so does not exist on a two lane road, and that bikes on multi lane roads in states with only SMV FRAP laws have no duty to FRAP.

those inchoate arguments are untenable and unsupportable. Contrary to those specious assertions, bicyclists in states that have just SMV-FRAP laws still require bikes operate FRAP, on ALL roads in their state.

I thought that the argument was that a generic slow moving vehicle law had to apply to all vehicles and could not specifically target bicycles. Consequently, discriminatory laws/rulings had to apply to all slow moving vehicles increasing the political base making such laws and rulings less likely.

that is perhaps part of that incredulous platform building, but it is not the entirety of its fraudulence. this thread is not about the rank politicization and postured suffragism of the bicycle driving community, it's that

SMV FRAP laws are NOT interpreted the way the bicycle drivers suggest.

The epistemological eye should be able to readily ascertain that the laws regulating bicycle traffic in states with SMV FRAP laws are not nearly so generous in lane position for bicyclists as some of the 'bicycle drivers' suggest.

Bek makes his argument that statutes do so-and-so, but in making his argument he simply asserts his opinion without ever providing the number and words of any such statute. Legalistic arguments without the supporting legal documents are no more than hot air.

:rolleyes:

my 'opinion' ya shure! :roflmao:


Is this the spot john thinks he can introduce pretending two lane roads have left lanes to use and the use of the word 'or' means there's no need to frap under smv frap laws?


SMV FRAP laws are NOT interpreted the way the bicycle drivers suggest.

Even if that is assumed to be true...

Would you rather ride in:

Iowa, where the driver's manual clearly instructs drivers to expect to move out of their lane to pass cyclists who are riding away from the right edge, and there is no bicycle-specific FRAP law or

New York, where the driver's manual implies that cyclists will almost never be found away from the right edge, and there is a bicycle-specific FRAP law

?

Your statement also made the thread about what bicycle drivers argue. It seems to me that it would be a lot easier to discriminate against a small base than a large one.

There seems to be a case in San Diego on this very topic ... http://www.bikesd.org/2011/06/anothe...02-a-citation/
If you follow the Tandem@Hobbes list you would see another recent example in San Anselmo. Although the tandem rider was not cited, the policeman, captain, and chief all interpreted the law badly letting a threatening and harassing driver go to "fix" the situation with the cyclist.

Would this be better or worse with a generic SMV law only or one with bicycle specific language? Proving either position is likely more trouble than its worth. With regards to defending clients against "impeding traffic", FRAP or similar statutes, discussions with trial lawyers seem to suggest that it's ambiguous; i.e., some would prefer bicycle specific language some otherwise. I'm not sure anyone else without lots of specific trial experience can convince anyone better than that.

So what? It is well known that much of the information circulating about bicycle traffic laws is erroneous. The only legal interpretations are the words of the statute itself and appellate opinions about that particular feature of the statute. Opinions of attorneys general have some weight. Bek has provided not such legal documentation.

Several states' official DOT depictions of bicyclists rights in states with only SMV FRAP laws are most assuredly coming from those states' bona fide authority regarding traffic regulations. States with only SMV FRAP laws have far, far less allowances for bicyclists to 'take the lane' than the 'bicycle drivers' make them out to be.

john asks, So what? :roflmao:

These compelling interpretations of traffic laws render BANKRUPT and LUDICROUS the bicycle drivers' arguments about traffic laws, the purportedly better treatment for bicyclists under SMV FRAP law.


Posturing that traffic laws laws need appellate cases to verify them is incorrect. State traffic laws most assuredly do not need appellate court decisions for validity. i doubt cyclists even have any room to challenge these SMV FRAP laws. I suspect no bicyclist case in these states without bikes-frap laws has even been appealed.

:notamused:

there's not much of a debate about how states with only SMV-FRAP laws interpret the duties of bicyclists, invisiblehand.


I'm sorry. States' DOTs that regulate bikes soley as vehicles without BIKES FRAP provisions require bikes operate FRAP on all roads. this is affirmed across state lines, in several states, by states official instruction to bicyclists from these states Department of Transportation.

The preponderance and prevalence of this interpretation across state lines validates these stipulations of SMV FRAP laws even further.

duties of cyclists in SMV FRAP law states are not at all how some of the bicycle drivers portray them.

they recklessly perpetuate a dishonest portrayal of bicyclists duties under law, in their hapless or duplicitous efforts to take away cyclists rights in states that grant cyclists much greater allowances to 'take the lane.'

When checking the law, one needs to both study the words of the statute and also find out whether an appellate court has provided an opinion. It may be true that few slow-moving vehicle statutes have been the subject of appellate opinion, but it is necessary to find out even that. But, notice all of you, while Bek has been prating much about the statutes, he has failed to provide either the statutes by number and wording or any indication of appellate opinions. In short, Bek's argumentation about the statutes means nothing unless he provides the statutes themselves.

:notamused:

my argument means nothing until i provide links to the fairly uniformly parroted UVC wordings for the SMV-FRAP laws in the handful of states that regulate bikes under these laws and not BIKES FRAP law?

:roflmao:

barring knowledge of appellate court decisions, i wonder where people go for interpretations of traffic laws on more regular basis? the state DOT perhaps.


Where would Iowa bicyclists go to get information on their responsibilities and rights as cyclists?


State's Department of Transportation and their interpretations of law would be regarded as one of, if not THE most compelling authorities regarding traffic regulation short of a courtroom interpretation of traffic laws in a case by case basis. Only at this time would a consideration of appellate court decisions likely to affect a case even be thought of.

No, Bek. The most authoritative understanding of a traffic-law statute that has not been the subject of an appellate opinion is the wording of the statute itself. The next most authoritative understanding would be one given by the Attorney General of the appropriate state, if such has been issued.

The words of the DOT have no legal standing.

But there is more, when considering bicycle traffic law. That is, DOTs most generally present the motorists' cyclist-inferiority view, partly because they are motorists and are writing for motorists. Of course, since you, Bek, desire the motorist-superiority, cyclist-inferiority view to prevail, you like what some DOTs say.

A lot of ifs there, john. IF there's an appellate court ruling, IF there's an AG ruling.

Appellate court rulings and AG opinions have not been issued for each and every traffic statute. Yet somehow the laws must still be disseminated to the public. Uniform statewide application of state laws regulating traffic fall to state DOTs. These State DOT's assuredly provide a compelling interpretation of traffic statutes regulating traffic. It's not just the AG, the appellate courts or the laws themselves that establish traffic convention and application of traffic laws.. Departments of Transportation have wide authority in states to regulate traffic.

John, where do everyday citizens go for information about traffic laws, if they can't get the attorney general on the horn, or an appellate court synopsis?

The words of the department of transportation have the weight of a compelling authority. There is a compounded weight of these traffic authorities that regulate traffic in the uniform interpretation of SMV-FRAP laws across state lines that require cyclists operate FRAP at all times on all roads.

States that regulate bikes under SMV-FRAP laws and these states' DOT interpretations of these laws uniformly compel bicyclists to operate as close as practicable to the edge of the road at all times and on all roads - unlaned, two lane, multiple lane roads.

These states with SMV-FRAP laws all uniformly have far more restrictive operating requirements for bicyclists than how some of the bicycle drivers mischaracterize them.

Avoid the false claims of the bicycle drivers that SMV-FRAP laws are the preferred condition and that SMV-FRAP laws grant cyclists rights they do not possess.

Misrepresentation of SMV-FRAP laws as representing cyclists grand equality to take the lane like other vehicles is quite errant, and quite odious.

Cyclists should not seek to remove cyclists protections under law to be suborned to operate FRAP at all times on all roads.

Far better a condition in most states to be explicitly allowed to take lanes unsafe to share and other allowances that are NOT granted cyclists in SMV-FRAP law states.

SMV-FRAP laws are not as some of the bicycle drivers suggest.

Bek, can you please answer my question?

I used to live in Iowa (Iowa City), and New York (Lake Placid at the OTC!) too. I'd rather cycle in New York state to be perfectly honest. it's much prettier.

New York cyclists have the explicit right to lanes too narrow to share, and numerous other exceptions Iowa cyclists do not. Iowa cyclists are suborned to operating FRAP on all roads to facilitate passing and have no legal right to take a substandard width lane for safety, they are always suborned to operate FRAP by law.

This means, unfortunately, that cyclists in Iowa and other states with SMV FRAP laws applicable are legally required to ride as far to the right side or curb as is safe and practicable, on all roads, laned or unlaned, lanes wide or narrow, single lane each direction or multiple lane roads, to facilitate safe overtaking. Even in an 9 foot narrow lane, an Iowa cyclist has no explicit legal protection to 'take the lane'. There is no legal allowance for cyclists to operate well in the lane of a 13 foot lane in Iowa that cyclists explicitly entertain in many of the states with BIKES FRAP laws.

Florida or Colorado and its treatment of bicyclists is far, far more equitable with BIKES FRAP laws. there is not a uniform standard of BIKES FRAP, except to say that they generally are more permissive towards bicyclists choice of a safe and defensive road position.

meh. comparing the DMV suggestions to drivers is not a ready comparison between the states. most states have fairly uniform DMV manuals that suggest safe operation around bike traffic and that bikes will be operating to the right.



New York is not a good state to regard for bike rights, it is quite restrictive towards bicyclists. New York States institutionalized animosity towards bicycle traffic has a long troubled past, part of a long historic fight for bicyclists rights to the road in new york state. Are you familiar with the history of your states' Liberty Law, benjdm? and did you know Teddy Roosevelt was the first bicycle squad commissioner in New York City, tasked with a force of 100 bicycle patrolmen to keep the order?

New York bicycling has a storied and contentious history.

With all his argumentation about traffic laws, Bek has not provided the number and wording of any law to support his argumentation. Therefore, his words are no more than hot air.

:roflmao: really now?

yeah, i have no merit to be discussing teddy roosevelt or the liberty law or bikes frap law versus smv frap law. Maybe a grouse is going to waste this forums time one more time by claiming, incorrigibly, that Idaho or North Carolina have no SMV FRAP laws or by sophistically posturing that the equipment requirements for drivers are states operating requirements.

Disrespecting others once again, from a irascible forum nanny :notamused:

FRAP includes the right to take lanes too narrow to share. That's what the P means - practicable. Iowa and NY cyclists both have this right equally.

Baloney. They have just as much protection as they do in NY. And the Iowa drivers who studied the driver's manual will actually be more aware of it than NY drivers will.

The Iowa and NY DMV Driver's manuals are very different in their language about bicyclists. The percentage of drivers who have (at some point) read the driver's manuals is MUCH higher than the percentage who have read the actual traffic laws or DOT interpretations.

No, I'm not familiar with the history nor the Liberty Law. I'll do some googling after I post this. ISTM that the bicycle specific FRAP laws aren't particularly helpful, given the few examples I know about so far. (NY and Iowa.)

I didn't know that either.

Iowa doesn't have a BIKES FRAP law. keep the fundamentals straight.

I'm not tooting my own horn when I state I possess a quite encompassing historical overview of bicycling rights and perpetuation of bicyclists road rights in this country, absent the smeared lens of suffragism some bicycle drivers view themselves thru.

You said, repeatedly, things like this:

Practicable includes moving left if the lane is too narrow to share. Riding near the edge of a lane that is too narrow to share is not FRAP, it's as far right as possible.

Also, the only 'liberty laws' I can find via google have to do with fugitive slaves. *shrug*

benj-

I'm sorry, but if you can't distinguish between states that have BIKES FRAP laws and states that have SMV FRAP laws applicable to bicyclists, i think taking a look at what the topic is about, maybe rereading the original post might help you firm up the rudiments of the discussion.

practicable in law means 'what a reasonable person could put into practice.' it doesn't mean 'take the lane if its unsafe to share'

there is some implied safe road positioning away from the edge under any frap requirement, but it is only implied. in california and new york and florida and washington and many other states with BIKES FRAP laws this is explicit in the wording of the law.

bicyclists in states with just SMV FRAP laws are required to frap far more frequently and in much more restrictive ways than how some of the 'bicycle drivers' choose to mischaracterize those SMV FRAP laws.

That's what you say, but that's not what the comparison of NY and Iowa is telling me. You are the one who doesn't want to limit the discussion to what the laws themselves say but what the authorities like the DOT or DMV in each state say. The authorities in Iowa are much more bicycle-friendly than in my home state of NY.

NYDOT gives limited instruction to bicyclists to keep right in New York state in its dissemination of traffic laws of your state. keep in mind cyclists are subject to mandatory shoulder use in NY, a condition bikes are not subject to in Iowa.

(by no means do i think New York State represents an enlightened legal climate for bicyclists. look to Colorado and its BIKE FRAP law for a most agreeable law regulating bicycle traffic.)

New York "You should generally bicycle as far to the right as is practicable. If there is a safe shoulder, use it instead of the traffic lane. Smart cyclists plot a line straight down the roadway 3-4 feet from the curb or parked cars. This allows them space to avoid road hazards and to be more visible to motorists and pedestrians."

the DOT of Iowa and its instructions to bicyclists to stay right on all roads is clear in their instructions to bicyclists.

DMV manuals educating drivers that bikes are on the road do not provide a compelling interpretation of traffic laws. its nice that they describe safe road operation around bicyclists, that is not where bicycle regulation resides.

Here's the summary: in states with just SMV FRAP laws, bicyclists must still operate FRAP. These requirements are mandatory on all roads of any lane stripe and independent of the width of the lane.

These duties are whitewashed by the bicycle drivers with their dishonest portrayals of 'bikes allowed full use of lane" candyland fantasies about cyclists road rights far removed from reality in states with applicable SMV FRAP laws.

and benj, you do misunderstand the topic if you think Iowa has a BIKES FRAP law. it does not.

Bike traffic in Iowa is governed by a much more restrictive SMV FRAP law.

Cyclists should not fight our road rights in states with BIKES FRAP laws to be suborned to a far more restrictive SMV FRAP condition. Avoid cycling advocacy that makes unsubstantiated, untenable claims about SMV FRAP laws and their operating requirements for bicyclists.

I do not agree that bicyclists in NY are subject to mandatory shoulder use. Even below, you quote it as being limited to 'safe shoulders.'

Bike lane use is mandatory ('shall') where usable bike lanes are provided. Shoulders are only listed as another legal option.

Then, as a NY state resident, I think the difference between SMV-FRAP and bicycle specific FRAP is not particularly important. Iowa bicyclists have a more favorable environment with SMV-FRAP than NY bicyclists with bicycle specific FRAP.

Googling...wow, that Colorado law is very nice.

Is there anyone who would prefer a particular state's SMV law to the bicycle-specific Colorado law? I would prefer the Colorado law to any other law I've seen so far. (Which, admittedly, is few.)

Only as far right as practicable. Not as far right as possible.
Iowa DOT Rules of the Road for Cyclists

DOT interpretations that a few policy wonks read are important but DMV manuals that most licensed drivers have read are not important? Seriously?

Where a bicyclist is not sharing a lane that is too narrow to share side by side, do you believe the bicyclist is as far right as practicable?

I know it doesn't. I am not illiterate.

I do not see how it is any more restrictive. If ticketed for not sharing a lane too narrow to be shared safely, I think my chances of beating the ticket would be no worse in Iowa than in NY. I think my chances of receiving the ticket in the first place are higher in NY than in Iowa.

Here is the NY statute for slow-moving vehicles:

New York Vehicle Code Section 1120 ...
(b) In addition, 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 or driveway.

As you can see, this is a rather standard wording. All of Bek's argumentative claims over the past few days rest, although he has not had the courage to admit it, on his claim that this wording, if applied to cyclists on a two-way road, would prohibit cyclists from using the right-hand lane in the normal manner.

There has been no change in Bek's advocacy. He is adamant that cyclists should be subservient to motorists by riding FRAP and using bikeways, thereby advocating the positions of the motoring establishment.