Kotts

The definition cited by the OP isn't bad. Here's what my dictionary has to say:
practicable: 1) that which can be done or put into practice, feasible; 2) that can be useful
possible: 1) what can be, what is capable of existing; 3) that can be done, known, selected

fordfasterr

I found this one to...

Allister

Exactly right. I hope you stay clear of the door zone when there are no cars there as well.

Helmet Head

You're the only one twisting words in this discussion. So promoting traffic cycling best practices is an ideological agenda? What's your agenda, Blue Order? Disparaging everything I say just because? The part in bold is not what I said, and I never said or implied a practicable distance is a rigid concept, nor did I say or imply it is not a fluid concept.

But now that you put it that way, I think the term implies both a rigid and a fluid component. I think that an as far right as practicable distance implies a rigid/non-fluid minimum distance that applies at all times, plus additional fluid distance as determined by the circumstances/conditions. For example, it may be possible and even practical to ride in the 2' wide gutter pan in a given situation, but it's never as far right as practicable to ride in the gutter pan. That is, a cyclist is never legally required to ride in the gutter pan (that would be further right than the rigid minimum component). Similarly, I don't think a cyclist (or any driver of a slow moving vehicle) is ever legally required to ride in the "parking zone" of a street.

Right, and, to be clear, under the area of "visibility" falls conspicuousness (how noticeable you are to others - those approaching from behind as well as potential cross traffic ahead that may pose a hazard to you) and vantage (how well and how soon you can notice potential hazards up ahead, and how much time and space you have to adjust accordingly). The further right you are, the more you fall outside of what John Franklin refers to as the "drivers' zone of maximum surveillance", and thus the more likely you are to be overlooked.

Speaking of "space", that's a fourth reason to ride farther from the curb: to have more lateral maneuvering space to adjust for and avoid potential hazards.

Thanks for answering my question. Now if only the person to whom it was posed would answer it.

The door zone is arguably the gray area between the fluid and rigid aspects of the meaning of the term in the context of a street on which onstreet parallel parking is allowed. Many people (including LEOs) think cyclists are required to ride in the door zone even when cars are parked there (after all, the law requires drivers to check before opening their doors - so the legal onus is on them). I think most of us here can agree to disagree with that interpretation (though while some of us reached this position without actually getting doored, others may require experiencing an actual dooring before realizing this). But when the street is clear of parked cars for, say, at least 10 seconds ahead of the cyclist, I can agree that it is practicable to ride within the door zone, but I still say further right (in the space actually occupied by parked cars when they are there) is arguably not practicable, and is certainly further right than the "3 feet to the right of overtaking traffic" often recommended for being a reasonable compromise between accommodating overtaking traffic and safety (per at least the 4 reasons cited above).

Blue Order

That's right.

Riding as close as practicable to the right doesn't mean that you must weave in and out, rigidly following a curb-hugging line, weaving in when a parking slot is open, and weaving out when a car is parked. Instead, the practicable distance in that case would be a more or less straight line a safe distance to the left of the parked cars.

If you've got a street that has parked cars weekdays, and on the Sunday when you ride, there are no parked cars, the practicable distance changes to take into account the fact that there are no parked cars on the street that day.

I agree (see above).

Helmet Head

This whole weaving thing is a red herring. I never said or even thought that's what you were suggesting.

Certainly the practicable distance changes whether parked cars are present or not. We agree riding in the parking zone is not practicable when the cars are parked there, and, I suspect, we agree that it is not practicable to ride in the door zone when the cars are there. The issue is whether riding in the parking zone is practicable when cars are not parked there. Relative to where vehicular traffic is flowing and expected to be, riding in the unoccupied parking zone is arguably too far right to be practicable (for at least the 4 reasons cited in the John E portion of my previous post), but riding in the "door zone" (when no cars are parked) is probably fine.

noisebeam

As many of you already know, this is not language used only for the 'far right' rule for bicycles. It applies to motor vehicles as well:

https://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/00721.htm
"B. On all roadways, a person driving a vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall drive the vehicle in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway."

The word practicable is used in 26 different transportation laws in AZ:
https://www.azleg.state.az.us/SearchR...edStatutes.asp

Al

Blue Order

Your belief about what constitutes "traffic cycling best practices" is rigidly ideological.

In this thread? Countering your nonsensical legal interpretation with the correct legal interpretation about what "practicable" means. I thought that should have been obvious.




You're confusing "possible" with "practicable." What you call the "rigid/non-fluid minimum distance" is the closest distance to the right that it's "possible" to ride. The "practicable" distance is the fluid distance you're required to ride as determined by the circumstances/conditions.

What a "practicable distance" does imply, however, is both a subjective and an objective determination of what that "practicable distance" is, based upon the time and place and conditions then existing. You, the rider, must make a subjective determination about what that practicable distance is. If you're cited or involved in an accident, the judge and/or jury must make an objective determination about what that practicable distance is, based upon an objective "reasonable person" standard-- that is, what would a "reasonable person" have done at that time and place and under the conditions then existing?

Accordingly, no reasonable person would hug the curb so closely that pedal strike is a constant danger; no reasonable person would ride where being doored is a constant danger, no reasonable person would ride through road surface hazards, and no reasonable person would ride to the left of an imaginary line of parked cars on a Sunday morning when there are no parked cars.

Raiyn

What's this? Someone biting on my blue font schtick?

Personally, I like the door analogy.

noisebeam

The on street parking...

If painted as on street parking I think most reasonable drivers would not travel in it even when there are no parked cars.

A reasonable/courteous cyclist may temporarily move right into that space if there was a faster vehicle behind them and there were no present dangers in moving temporarily into the parking spaces.

If not painted as on street parking, but still permitted, then it is ambiguous if the space when unused for parking is travel lane or not. If no parked cars for a considerable distance, then a reasonable driver may travel anywhere within that unmarked lane.

Al

Blue Order

Most drivers of automobiles likely wouldn't. But drivers subject to the slow-moving vehicle statute likely would.

BarracksSi

I hope not; parking lanes are always parking lanes unless otherwise specified (on arterials during rush hour, for example).

But, if someone's driving in a parking lane, they're either delivering newspapers or they're drunk/high/whatever.

Helmet Head

Yeah, drunk/high/whatever, or Blue Order riding a bike.

Helmet Head

So you say.

Is that what you think you were doing?

Well, I can see how you got that impression, but you were way off the mark.

Not at all. The "rigid/non-fluid minimum distance" is likely to be significantly further left than the closest distance to the right that it's "possible" to ride.

No, the practicable distance is the "rigid/non-fluid minimum distance" plus any fluid additional distance that may be allowed as determined by the circumstances/conditions.

Another way to understand the "rigid/non-fluid minimum distance" is as far right as you are required to ride when no particular circumstances/conditions happen to apply, which is usually going to be significantly further left than the closest distance to the right that it's "possible" to ride.

On all that, we agree.

I would add, however, that when both the subjective and objective determinations are made, that the condition-independent "rigid/non-fluid minimum distance" be considered as well as any additional condition-specific fluid distance that may apply.

Blue Order

You've got a road with curb that's available for parking. Perhaps there are even painted lines on the asphalt to indicate parking spaces. Perhaps not. It's a Sunday morning, and nobody is parked there. A golf cart, or a tractor, or a farm combine, or a driver cruising at 5 MPH while looking for an address, is traveling along the road. The state has a slow-moving vehicle statute on the books, that requires slow-moving vehicles to travel as close as practicable to the right curb. Do you believe that statute means that the driver of the slow-moving vehicle must use the travel lane, simply because cars park next to the curb on weekdays?

BarracksSi

The travel lanes are based off of the center line, not the curb.

Helmet Head

Blue Order, you seem to be arguing a false dichotomy.

I don't believe that the statute means that he must use the travel lane, but I also don't believe that it means that he must use the (unoccupied) parking lane, or that it prohibits him from using the travel lane (as long as he is "as far right as practicable").

The law requires at least "as far right as practicable" - it doesn't allow him to be further left (assuming faster same direction traffic is present and no other exceptions apply), but it does not preclude him from being even further right (including using the parking lane, if it is safe and reasonable to do so at that time). But just because it happens to be safe and reasonable to use the parking lane at that time, does not mean it's practicable to use the parking lane. To be practicable, it has to be something that can be put into practice, which means it's a normal/usual condition, not an exceptional condition. An empty parking lane is, arguably, an exceptional condition.

Helmet Head

That's a good point, but we're talking about what the law requires of cyclists and drivers of slow moving vehicles, and those laws are written in terms of "as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway".

Raiyn

I see Tom Cruise ^ is still up to his old "why post once when twice will do" ways.

Blue Order

Again, nonsense. Practicable means that which can reasonably be accomplished under the circumstances. There's no requirement that it be repeatable at all times and all places. It is what can reasonably be accomplished at the time and the place and under the conditions then existing.

Blue Order

Actually, I agree with you.

Don't get used to it.

Raiyn

+1

maddyfish

You guys are going to confuse me again.

If I understand what some of you are saying, then my policemans' description would be----It is possible to stand behind a door, and practicable to stand behind a door as long as there is no threat that the door will be opened while you are there.-----

Helmet Head

Are you channeling Mionske? I think then existing applies to the fluid aspect, not the static aspect. That is, if there is a car double-parked, then as close as practicable to the right means considerably further left (left of the double-parked car) than it does under normal circumstances.

But then existing does not apply to the static aspect. That is, regardless of the circumstances, you are never required to ride further right than as far right as you are required to ride under normal circumstances.

And if normal circumstances includes cars parked in the parking lane, then the static aspect of as close as practicable to the right is to the left of the parking lane.

Allister

No problem. Now answer me a question - if you choose a lane position clear of parked cars that aren't there, what do you do with faster same direction traffic that isn't there?

Yeah, thanks for clearing that up.