Originally Posted by
Bekologist
john,
your misleading, repeated, marginalizing diminuation of cyclists rights is not simply you and i disagreeing on the meaning of the word practicable.
you're confident practicable does not legally mean what it legally means to the three branches of government? what a nonsequitur! states determine traffic codes and in many states, the requirement cyclists even have to ride right safely is predicated on the presence of traffic. no other traffic, no frap positioning is mandated.
since this is the case, why do you insist to the contrary? Many states only require FRAP in the presence of overtaking traffic.... when there is no overtaking traffic, cyclists are not burdened with your incorrect interpretation of the law.
John foresters' interpretations are misleading, incorrect and a smear on modern bicycling advocacy.
John, if you know better, why continue to opine that cyclists in most states are prohibited from leaving the edge of the roadway unless they demonstrate a legal excuse? That is a gross misstatement of cyclists legally allowed road position.
john forester stands by his statement that "cyclists in most every state are prohibited from travelling away from the edge of the roadway unless a legal excuse is demonstrated"
Not only is that a prejudicial, lazy and grossly incorrect interpretation of state laws about bicycling, it is bad bicycling advice.
I think that many of us know how the FTR laws have been enforced in many locations, and some of us recognize why they were initiated. Bekologist has a rather different view of the FTR laws. Law is defined both by its wording, by the way it is enforced, and by the opinions of courts as to what its words mean. Until Bekologist can advance court opinions that support his view over against the conventional view held by most of us, his words are worthless. That's the fact of the matter; there is no point in continuing the discussion until there has been some split in the official legal opinions.