I don't think I'm stretching anything. I'm using the same wording as the law in question. I'm just pointing out what it already says. How is this stretching? Let's review just my #3 and #8 since you brought those up. I claim these are two of the 8 conditions that must be true in order for 21202 to apply:

3) I'm in a lane wide enough to be safely shared by a car and bike side-by-side (or there is a bike lane), AND

8) it is not reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that I consider worthy of being avoided (the law is fairly vague on this).

Now look at the relevant sections of 21202 (or 21204):


[a cyclist] shall ride as close as practicable to the right [side] of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) ...
(2) ...
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
...

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm
---------------

Now, the language is hidden in paragraph 3, but it's clearly there. One of the "conditions" which warrants an exception to the keep-to-the-side rule is a "substandard width lane", which is clearly defined as "a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane."

This clearly means that if you're in a lane that is not "wide enough to be safely shared by a car and bike side-by-side " (my number 3), you are not obligated to keep to the right side of the roadway by 21202.

I admit my number 8 is not quite as clear-cut. However, the law is quite vague on this point, and that's not my fault. Again, the same paragraph (3) says an exception to the rule is "When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that make it unsafe to continue along the right" [side]. Parenthetically it lists some example "conditions" (including the substandard width lane), but prefaces this list with "including but not limited to ...").

Cyclists have no choice on how to interpret what constitutes an unsafe condition other than their own judgment. That's why I chose the wording I did in my number 8: "it is not reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that I consider worthy of being avoided" (meaning in order to be safe).

I am not stating anything here that the law does not already say. I'm just pointing out what it says. Or did I miss something?