Originally Posted by
Bekologist
if this isn't a stunning endorsement of sharing the lane by narrow, slow moving bicyclists, i don't know what is.
slower, narrower vehicles do have a duty to facilitate overtaking. what is 'not be possible with normal use of a lane'? the laws of most state require slowly operated vehicles be driven as far to the right as practicable in certain conditions, not only when normal lane use precludes passing. it's not pull over if people can't pass, it's FRAP to facilitate passing, as you insinuate are duties, the duties ascribed under law.
cyclists in california, and only cyclists, not other slow moving road users, have the right to narrow lanes, avoiding upcoming right turns, surface conditions. these are explicit rights enumerated under law, in california and most states.
I'll post some more FRAP cases as soon as the grousing diminishes about such flagrantly misrepresented traffic fundamentals.
Bek's argument is very confused. It is obvious that Bek knows the truth, that typical two-lane roads have lanes too narrow to share, because he prates so much about that exception in the cyclist FRAP statute. More to the point, government itself recognizes that fact, because government itself produced the exceptions to the cyclist FRAP statute. Bek's argument about slow-moving vehicles of normal width is false. The mere use of the typical lane, be it near the center of the lane or FRAP, makes no difference to the opportunities to overtake. That is why the "or" between use of lane and FRAP allows the driver of that vehicle the choice, because his lateral position makes no difference to the opportunities to overtake. That is so obvious that the legislators didn't have to sort out the matter to any greater detail.
However, Bek's argument requires such drivers to drive FRAP simply because he says that's what the law requires, and Bek argues that this enables safe overtaking without regard to other traffic. That's nonsense, and he knows that it is.
When considering a narrow vehicle, such as a bicycle, the issue is exactly the same unless that right-hand lane is wide, meaning sufficiently wide for safe overtaking of bicycle traffic by typical motor vehicles. And Bek knows this, too, because of his continual prating about that exception in the cyclist FRAP statute.
Therefore, Bek has a preference for statutes that start out by declaring that cyclists must, simply because they are riding bicycles, ride FRAP, unless they can demonstrate that an exception exists. That's the way that motorists consider bicycle traffic. It would be much better not to have the cyclist FRAP laws and simply rely on the law giving cyclists the full rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. In short, Bek is vigorously and vociferously advocating the anti-cyclist cyclist-FRAP laws and the bikeways built to enforce them. But that is rather standard of these motorist-emulating types who have a political agenda that they fear would be upset were they to disagree with the motoring public.
I say that well-informed cyclists need to stand up for their rights as drivers of vehicles, even though that means disagreeing with the motorists.