Originally Posted by
sudo bike
As to the original question, I think it's obvious a cyclist may take the lane if no other traffic is present. As to the more vague "what is the normal speed of traffic at the time", I think the majority of traffic on the road should be considered normal, but in practice I think njkayaker is mostly correct, and that the courts would find that "normal speed" is in fact a conjunction of both current traffic on the road and normal speed that road would see. So, if 10 cyclists are riding on a 50mph road, and one car approaches doing 45mph, they have a legal obligation to FRAP (if able to, blah blah) because a car traveling 45mph is closer to what "normal speed of traffic at the time" is as opposed to what the cyclists are currently traveling, even though they are in the majority. I don't really agree with this interpretation, but I have no doubt that's how it would be interpreted, and truthfully, is probably more in tune with the spirit of the law.
I know I am not responding to your whole comment... I want to just look at this aspect for a moment... "the normal speed of traffic at the time."
While I tend to agree that there may be interpretations made as you indicate, the wording alone is something that requires more introspection... the phrase "at the time" is critically important and should not be dismissed. I think that the spirit of the law is to allow even slow moving traffic (which IS quite common on our roads at certain times of the day) to be considered "normal." The law does not state "as close to the posted speed limit as possible" it specifically states "at that time." So if a fleet of slow cement trucks is making their way uphill on a narrow road do they have to pull as far right as possible for one fast sports car?
If animals (considered traffic in CA law) are being herded down the road, do they have to move over for one fast car?
This is a somewhat academic situation that no doubt legal minds would debate at length.