Originally Posted by
John Forester
So I ask, K, when you are cycling along do you keep a list of the exceptions in your mind to justify every time that you leave the edge of the roadway, or leave a bike lane? What would you say to a cop if challenged? Or are you one of those who carries a card with the texts of CVC 21202 and 21208 printed on it? Or have you just been sufficiently lucky to never have been challenged, partly because the cops avoid dealing with most cyclist violations of these laws?
Well, first, I don't cycle along the "edge of the roadway." I do, in appropriate situations, cycle as close as is practicable to that edge, as the law requires, and as I would (in said appropriate situations) whether the law required it or not. I decide what's practicable. You'd do the same thing, John.
And, yes, I could almost always cite, from memory, an applicable CVC provision if challenged. The fact that I haven't been challenged, in decades, is probably the result of a combination of factors, but I suspect that the major contributors are (1) that I look like a competent and careful cyclist and (2) I've been riding for a long time in places where the police are more than usually familiar with the bike-specific sections of the CVC and don't have an anti-cyclist agenda.
However, the public and most of the cops, and many of the judges, know the principle that the law expresses when it limits cyclists to the edge of the roadway or to bike lanes, and they never bother with the exceptions.
I think the public, in places where cycling is more common, is learning. I know that the police (in said places) are, and I wouldn't be at all worried about convincing the average Superior Court judge, at least in the Bay Area. I suspect, although I'm not certain, that John's perception of these things doesn't account for recent trends.
The fact that competent vehicular cyclists rarely get challenged for violating the FTR or MBL laws doesn't make those laws good.
No, it certainly does not. They are bad laws and should be repealed. They just aren't particularly problematic (in daily practice) for vehicular cyclists in my neck of the woods.
I was last challenged, and convicted, thirty years ago, on a trumped-up charge that I was delaying a police officer, who was not using lights and siren, while allowing a lane of traffic to overtake me on my side of a two-lane street with double center line. Think about that example of misusing an ambiguous law when it suits the purpose of those who desire to discriminate against cyclists.
I think I remember this story. You were living on the Peninsula then, right? It is, of course, an egregious example of discrimination and it's obvious that you were not violating any provision of the CVC (assuming that the right lane was too narrow to share). I don't think that sort of thing is nearly as likely to happen now. (Also, of course, you were famous to some and notorious to others around there, so deliberate targeting isn't out of the question).
FWIW, I've become a big fan of video, both on the bike and on patrol car dashboards. I'm pretty sure that evidence from either source would result in your citation being dismissed in short order, these days.
So, while the well-informed cyclist can generally avoid being challenged for violating the FTR law (but see what happens if some real violation is charged, or in case of an accident, when they add whatever else they can), the FTR and similar laws express and justify the public and official belief that cyclists really don't belong on the road. That's the basic cause of the troubles that afflict America's cyclists, leading to social discrimination on the road, failure to train cyclists in proper traffic skills, and several other discriminatory situations. Defective laws that produce such results should be repealed.
We agree. I've agreed with you on that for a looong time.