Originally Posted by
merlinextraligh
Agreed the Judge made the proper decision. What is so unreasonable about requiring bikes to ride as far right as practicable?
The plaintiff is in this case is a self righteous zealot. Going around riding in the middle of the lane on a highway, holding up traffic, where it's safe to move to the right side of the lane is not doing any favors for cyclists.
There's NOTHING unreasonable about FRAP; the difference is in the INTERPRETATION of FRAP, specifically, what's practicable. TOO many (and by inference from your second paragraph, you are included in that) believe that FRAP means within about a foot or less from the fog line on the right, or on the shoulder. This is wrong.
1.) Per UVC, federal level, the shoulder is not part of the road. Since cyclists have equal right to the road, the shoulder is automatically removed from FRAP discussion. It's an OPTION, unless prohibited (as someone else stated here for their area).
2.) "Practicable" means safe and feasible to do, not "POSSIBLE", as many think. Sure, it's POSSIBLE to ride ON the fog line, but not practicable, as it's unsafe due to the inducement to drivers to pass too closely. Also, on city streets with curbs, that's where broken glass and other debris gather.
3.) This particular highway was a multi-lane both ways, so riding in the middle of the rightmost lane is not impeding anyone. I wouldn't do so simply because I don't want oil on my tires. I'll take the right-tire track, about 6 inches to the right of the oil line.
Nicest of all, in states that don't have a FRAP law, even a federal judge's ruling or opinion is irrelevant. Doesn't apply where FRAP doesn't exist.