You don't tell us the name of your state, so we have to estimate. However, in nearly all states the statute that gives cyclists the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles is then countermanded by other statutes that take away the right to use the roadway in the normal manner by attempting to limit cyclists to the right-hand edge of the roadway (the FTR law), subservient to motorists. In California there are three relevant statutes: 21200 grants the rights and duties, 21202 limits cyclists to the edge of the roadway, 21208 limits cyclists to bike lanes, where present (MBL law).

The modern FTR law was developed in California, and most states copy rather closely California's wording of the FTR law. While California's motordom, who created the FTR law, proclaimed that limiting cyclists to the edge of the roadway was done to make cycling safe, particularly for children, they never could provide evidence to support their argument. Indeed, the only reasonable conclusion is that limiting cyclists to the edge of the roadway is done for the convenience of motorists. Furthermore, while California's motordom was preparing the FTR law, it was demonstrated that there are many situations when obeying the FTR law was more dangerous than obeying the normal rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Therefore, the California Legislature wrote into the statute a partial list of these situations, when cyclists did not have to obey the FTR law and most states copied that list. The result, as these discussions often show, nobody really knows how the traffic laws for cyclists require cyclists to operate. Straightening out the legal and operational mess created by the American far-to-the-right laws for cyclists requires repealing them.