i was, specifically, making mention of CVC 21654, of which you said would be sufficient to protect cyclists rights. the b) clause in that law indicates that it would make it much more difficult to defend a cyclists right to the lane, and one that makes the california SMV-FRAP quite onerous.
Hence, the specific cyclist redress under bikes ride FRAP laws in California, and other states, like Hawaii. Hawaii and California, like most states, provide far more specific enumerated rights for bicyclists to choose a safe road position.
NO advocacy organization or cycling advocate concerned about bicyclists right to the road should be opposing bikes FRAP laws.
They are the very laws giving cyclists broad protections to take the lane for safety and other reasons unique to our class of slowly driven, vulnerable, delicate, human powered vehicles.
There are certainly improvements that can be made in the laws affecting cyclists. removing our protections under law is not one of them!