Originally Posted by
sggoodri
Again, some cycling advocates generate confusion when they equate "impeding traffic" with guilt of violating the spirit and letter of the impeding traffic law, of which cyclists cannot be found in violation. This hampers their ability to write clearly about the turn-out law. So, let me repeat my explanation, but this time, I will start backwards and see if that helps.
It's even
worse than that. The intent of the (apparently, endlessly confusing) word "impede" is "holding up other traffic". The "impeding traffic" laws (whether or not they include the word "impede") make "holding up other traffic" illegal
only if there is an available remedy. If there is no available remedy, then one can't be charged for "holding up other traffic".
The remedies include: 1) speeding up, 2) ridig FRAP (for bicycles) only, 3) pulling over. For bicycle, option 1 is often (typically) not available. While the FRAP laws don't use the word "impede", the clear and obvious intent is keep bicycles from "holding up other traffic" unnecessarily.
Originally Posted by
sggoodri
The turn-out law applies where a slow driver on a 2-lane road is traveling slowly enough to be impeding traffic and five or more vehicles have backed up. The driver is obligated to turn out at the next marked/signed turnout location or similar facility. Why should this law exist at all - isn't impeding traffic unlawful in the first place? The answer, of course, is that impeding traffic is indeed lawful for certain types of vehicles incapable of traveling faster. Drivers of these types of vehicles are exempt from being found in violation of the impeding traffic law but are required to comply with the turn-out law when they are impeding traffic. Exemption from the impeding traffic law does not imply exemption from the turn-out law; if it did, all SMVs would be exempt from the turn-out law and it would be meaningless. Likewise, applicability of the turn-out law does not imply simultaneous violation of the impeding traffic law; if it did, the turn-out law would be meaningless because drivers would not be allowed to operate at such speeds.
Yes, this is correct (if long winded)!
The purpose of the "turn out" law is to describe an alternative remedy for vehicles (like bicycles) which cannot "speed up"!
The purpose of the FRAP law is to provide an alternative
non-exclusive remedy restricted to bicycles. "Non-exclusive" means bicyclists are not required to
only use FRAP if the bicyclist can "speed up" (yet another remedy) to match the speed of other traffic.