Originally Posted by
JohnBrooking
But, surely slow-moving cars (flat tire, etc.), or farm equipment, or even horses for that matter, all covered under the slow-moving vehicle law only, are also entitled to avoid debris, avoid right-turn only lanes when going straight, prepare for left turns, etc.? If so, then I don't see how these exceptions are "special" rights for cyclists, it's just that they are only explicitly spelled out for cyclists. Why?
What about: abolish the bike-only law, and add all the exceptions we think are important to the general slow-moving vehicle law, acknowledging that they are important for all slow-moving traffic. Or if the response is that they're just common sense and needn't even be mentioned, then why mention them just for bikes?
Robert, going back to what you said yesterday about my having it backwards, I think there is some common ground in our opinions. In both cases, I think we can agree that the general public does not know enough, if anything, about the law.
If I understand you, our differences are this. My position is that most have heard about it but are very vague about it, getting just "bikes stay to the right" from it. Kind of like the amount that a lot of people know about the Bible - sort of a vague notion of what's in it, or what they think is in it, but no specific familiarity. "'Treat others as you would have them treat you' - that's in the Bible, isn't it?" Or "'Bikes have to stay to the right' - that's the law, isn't it?"
Whereas you're saying that the existence of the law isn't contributing to the perception of this vague notion of bikes having to stay to the right, and the answer is to educate the public more about the specifics of the law. I'd agree that more education would be good, but I'm not sure I agree that the existence of the law contributes nothing to the perception. I think this might be just an irreconcilable difference in our opinions, and I'll agree to disagree. I've explained it about as many ways as I know how, and you know what, I could be wrong. You have more cycling experience than I do. But in any case this has been a constructive discussion, IMO.
I don't know anything about the history of how this law came about, and it sounds like you do. Maybe you can explain it further?
John, I honestly don't know too much of the history of this law. I do know that bicyclists were granted all the rights and responsibilities of vehicles in some places when all the vehicles had animals attached to the front. That goes way back. I'm not sure when the 'practicable' clause came about. If I had to bet I'd say in the early decades of the 20th century. I have dug up and looked at the Denver code from the 1950s, and there it was right there: 'practicable.' Bicyclists were required to ride as far right as practicable, with no exceptions mentioned. My sense is that some time in the 1970s when JF was badgering city councils in California these special exceptions for bicyclists started to show up in state and municipal codes around the country, a process that continued through the decades and is ongoing. This general interest in removing everything back to basic slow moving vehicle law is fairly recent as far as I know.
I think the general population has a sense that bicyclists are 'supposed to follow the law.' But I don't think very many of them are aware of the ride-to-the-right rule at all, or the exceptions. I think everybody just brings their own personal suspicions and assumptions to the table when they encounter a bicyclist on the road. For the most part people accept our presence there and are willing to cooperate with us as long as we cooperate with them. I don't think that would change with a change in the law. As I said, no matter what the law says, I think I will be riding the same way.
I'm curious as to the specific ways people feel persecuted by this law as it stands.