Originally Posted by
Bekologist
you need to lighten up, francis. three different issues. this one, there are bicyclists willingly marginalizing our rights to misconstrue bicyclists have a requirement to leave the highway for following traffic. Even if it were true, bicyclists should not be required to pull off the roadway for following traffic.
Besides the fact that it makes you sad, give one good reason why cyclists should be the only slow moving vehicle exempt from having to pull off the roadway onto a safe turnout when delaying 5 or more vehicles?
Originally Posted by
Bekologist
simple, basic issue of bicycling advocacy. goes back to the 1880's.
This issue has nothing to do with advocacy. You, and you alone, seem to feel that the law in discussion is an unfair law. However, you can give no good reason for that opinion.
Originally Posted by
Bekologist
the RCW's and SDOT have not clarified this issue to my satisfaction. there is no specific speaking to the issue, there's an unsubstantiated quote from a newspaper article.
the RCWs declare my duties in the presence of overtaking traffic to operate FRAP.
Right, key word
overtaking. If that traffic cannot overtake and begins to build up behind you because of it, and you pass by a safe turnout location, you are breaking the law regardless of your position on the roadway (the single traffic lane in your direction.
Originally Posted by
Bekologist
In addition, bicyclists operate at a 'normal speed' for bicyclists, so a road with a bicycle on it has traffic, a bicycle, travelling at the normal speed upon it while the bicycle rides there. this is echoed in the selz v trotwood decision from a persuasive authority:
bicyclists operate at normal speed for bicyclists and cannot be considered to be impeding a line of traffic just because the bicyclist is not traveling at the speed limit!
The law in discussion does not say that. Only you are saying that. The law says you must use a safe turnout location when other criteria are met. Simply because traffic is piling up behind a cyclist does not mean the cyclist can be cited for impeding traffic. If following traffic cannot pass and is accumulating, as soon as they pass by a useable turnout and ignore it, then they are violating the SMV turnout law.
Originally Posted by
Bekologist
for me to be required to leave the road for following traffic i would have to be travelling slower than a bicycle would normally be expected to travel.
danarnold, i suspect I'll see you out there someday, standing on the side of two lane roads while i bicycle by, waving at you!
i suspect the second class opinions about bicyclists is pretty close to home for dan.
This law has nothing to do with being a cyclist. It has to do with travelling slower than other traffic on a roadway where passing is not possible and turnouts exist.