Blue Order

I think you had it right the first time.

It is never practicable to stand behind the door if there is a chance that it will be opened while you are there. I suppose, however, that if conditions were right-- if you were the only one in the building, and nobody could enter the room, then it would be practicable to stand behind the door.

But for simplicity's sake, what your local LEO said is a really good seat of the pants explanation.

Blue Order

That last sentence is where your analysis falls apart. The static condition is the curb free of parked cars. When cars are parked along the curb, the practicable distance shifts to the left.

Helmet Head

The curb free of parked cars is not a static condition (true every time you ride there) if parking is allowed. Sometimes cars are parked, sometimes they are not. That is not a static condition.

Now, if it's a road where normally there are no cars parked, and having cars parked there is a relatively rare (exceptional) condition, then you may have a point. But we've been talking about a situation where cars parked are the norm.

Blue Order

Yes, under the law, it is the static or default condition. The law states that you must ride as close to the curb as practicable-- not that you must ride as close to the "normal conditions" as practicable.

Helmet Head

But if cars are normally parked in the parking lane, then it's not practicable to ride in the parking lane.
And if it's not practicable to ride in the parking lane, then as close to the curb as is practicable is somewhere to the left of the parking lane. And that's true whether the parking lane happens to be occupied or not.

Blue Order

No, it's not true, because it doesn't take time, place, and conditions then existing into account. The curb is the default line, and all other then-existing conditions are factors to take into account when establishing the practicable distance at that time and place.

crhilton

I'm just curious, because I don't have a strong opinion on this: If the area is clearly delineated for parking is that different?

I have two examples:
1. Angle parking, like you'd find on main street in a small town.
2. Parallel parking, with meters, and lines painted, like you'd find downtown in a big city.

This is compared to a street which simply allows parking, but has no markers or meters.

I'm thinking:
1. This isn't really the roadway. You'll be dodging in and out at every intersection because of the way these are normally built.
2. This depends, sometimes you have the same problem, and sometimes you don't.

Allister

Likewise, if it's not practicable to ride in the traffic lane, then as close to the curb as is practicable is somewhere to the right of the traffic lane. And that's true whether the traffic lane happens to be occupied or not.

ghettocruiser

Incorrect. It is practicable. It has nothing to do with the suspension and everything to do with the downhill tires, which get flats so rarely no matter where I ride that they are not a factor. The hummer comparison is interesting, but that's not a vehicle I am used to seeing moving at anything less than the normal speed of traffic, to say the least.


I don't need to always maximize my visibility. If I wanted to increase visibility, I could wear a ANSI Lime jacket, put on three Dinotte tail lights, or use a safety flag. It's practicable for me to ride with none of these things. And it's practicable under many circumstances for me to ride well off the traveled portion of the road.

Blue Order

I agree with your points. Assuming that a road has curbside parking, but is not specially configured to accommodate that parking, when the cars are not parked there, the requirement to ride as close as practicable to the right shifts you closer to the curb than you would ride when cars are parked there. When the road is specially configured to accommodate parking, and cars aren't parked there, I don't think that the law requires you to weave left and right as you hug the curbline.

Helmet Head

I agree with this.

We also agree that when cars are parked "as close as practicable to the right" is normally just outside of the door zone of the parked cars.

Our disagreement is over how much closer to the curb "as close as practicable to the right" requires you to ride when cars are not parked there. My interpretation is being in the area that is the door zone when cars are parked there is all that is required, and you seem to think that cyclists are required to ride significantly closer to the curb, well into the parking zone (the area physically occupied by parked cars when cars are parked there).

Helmet Head

Very clever, Allister.

The problem is that the meaning of "practicable" has a static and dynamic component. The "not practicable to ride in the parking lane" is true in terms of the static component, while the "not practicable to ride in the traffic lane" is true in terms of the dynamic component (because of a double-parked van or something).

Blue Order (and perhaps you) seems to think that it is in terms of the dynamic component that it is not practicable to ride in the parking lane - that it's the dynamic presence or absence of the parked cars that determines whether it is practicable to ride in the parking lane, just as it's the dynamic presence or absence of the double-parked delivery van or some other obstacle that determines whether it is practicable to ride in the traffic lane.

But I think it's not practicable to ride in the empty parking lane for all the reasons cited by John E earlier. It's too much of a compromise in terms of conspicuousness, vantage and predictability. It's just not space which is expected to be used for vehicular traffic - you're less likely to be expected there, more likely to be overlooked. It's just not practicable to ride so far to the right of other vehicular traffic.

In order to be treated like a driver you must act like a driver, and using the parking lane as a travel lane is not acting like a driver.

Blue Order

Yes on everything.

Helmet Head

Well, if we can at least agree on what we are disagreeing about, that's worth celebrating.

Blue Order

But it is exactly the point of the law-- to position you to the right of other vehicular traffic.

Blue Order

Well, we also agree that "as close to the right as practicable" does not require one to ride in the door zone (when cars are parked there, of course. ).

Allister

Not 'very clever' of me - very inconsistent of you. You still haven't explained why it's impracticable to ride in an empty parking lane, because sometimes cars park there, but also impracticable to maintain a position outside where cars travel even though they're not there. Cars appearing in the travel lane is far more likely than cars appearing in the parking lane. Your psuedo-scientific-sounding blathering about 'static' and 'dynamic' conditions doesn't address that simple inconsistency.

My philosophy is, take whatever space best suits, and that could mean riding in an empty parking lane.

You never ride 'so far' to the right of cars. Just far enough to give them room to safely plass, no more. Why is that such a hard thing for you to grasp? It maintains a stead traffic flow for all users, I don't have to be so vigilant with the mirror, I sacrifice nothing in conspicuity, and it's only a slight shift required to move into a more commanding position if it's so required. It is not 'so far', it's 'just a little way'. It is also not kerbhugging like you seem to think, which does carry all the risks that cause you such a panic. And, considering the 100% success rate of cars seeing me and passing safely, I don't consider it to be confusing to drivers.

There are plenty of parking lanes that become clearways during peak hours. Do you ride in them?

Don't patronise me, Serge. I've been doing this ***** a lot longer than you have. Riding a bike isn't so rigid. Considering the poor standard you define as 'acting like a driver', I think I'll stick to thinking and acting like a cyclist.

Helmet Head

I have explained it, 2 or 3 times, starting I believe with my response to John E's post.

On roads with curb parking there are essentially three areas: the vehicular travel portion, the parking portion and the "door zone" buffer in between, which is approximately four feet wide.

When cars are parked, the normal reasonable place to ride is just left of the door zone, unless that invites close passes in which case further left is advised. Most experienced cyclists more or less agree on this.

When cars are not parked and that position just left of the door zone is far enough [right] to give them room to safely pass, there is no reason to adjust at all. But if moving right is necessary, "to give them room to safely pass" without encroaching in the adjacent lane, I can see the point in moving into the door zone (still assuming no cars are parked at the curb), but given about four feet of width in the door zone, I see no reason to ever have to move right of the door zone buffer into the portion actually used for parking. Can you?

I don't know of any San Diego, but I've seen them in San Francisco. I consider that a special case, and yes, I would ride in them.

It's funny to hear you ask me (or anyone else) to not patronize. Anyway, if I came across in a patronizing way, sorry, it was unintentional.

If you want to be treated like a "cyclist" rather than like a driver, you are of course free to do so. I've experienced both treatment as a cyclist and as a driver, and I much prefer being treated like a driver (who happens to be a cyclist). But, again, if you want the close calls, buzzes, honks, yelling and aggressive behavior that's integral with being treated like a "cyclist", that's of course your choice.

Allister

If I understand you correctly, and that's obviously always a crapshoot, it's because of your fear of being inconspicuous, even to cars that aren't there. I'm not suggesting riding in the gutter, nor compromising conspicuity.

As always, it depends. I just prefer to leave the option open. It's foolish to try and define a rigid lane position for every situation. I'll grab any bit of pavement that lets me keep moving.

LOL. I get hardly any of that. What exactly do you think being a cyclist entails?

Helmet Head

I'm suggesting that the further right you are, the more you are compromising conspicuousness, vantage, predictability, and buffer/escape space. If there are no cars parked on the road and you are riding further right than where the door zone would be (if cars were parked there) you are compromising these things since you could be in the door zone.

I'm not saying you can't ride that far right. I'm saying the "as far right as practicable" law does not require you to ride that far right.

I don't doubt that you get hardly any of that because you probably act like a driver much more often than most cyclists, at least most cyclists in the U.S. (I have no idea how the typical cyclist behaves in Australia). Of course, the population density is 2.6/ sq km down there, while it's 80/ sq km in the U.S., so that might have something to do with the difference.

Blue Order

As I said before, that's an ideological argument that will put you on the wrong side of the law in a courtroom.

noisebeam

We can't have a court room unless we have a case* and a case will have more specifics which will include other traffic/road conditions as well. One can not look at legal lane position in isolation of everything else.

(*I suck at legal type stuff, but try to understand my layperson terms and think traffic court, not some court addressing more theoretical stuff.)

Al

Blue Order

True, but Helmet Head's attempts to make his lane positioning theory one of the safety exceptions considered by the state legislatures when they drafted the ride to the right statutes is just groundless ideological posturing.

Helmet Head

The only groundless ideological posturing going on here is by you, including this attempt to paint my argument as an attempt "to make [my] lane positioning theory one of the safety exceptions considered by the state legislatures when they drafted the ride to the right statutes". That claim is totally baseless and absurd.

I am not arguing that the legislators understood that it was not practicable to ride in the area normally used for curbside parking. I am arguing (and would argue in court in the unlikely event that I'm ever cited for violating CVC 21202 while riding so far right that I'm in the door zone when no parked cars are present) that it is not practicable to do so (due to needless compromises in conspicuousness, vantage, predictability and buffer space), though it may be possible and even practical to do so in some if not many conditions.

Blue Order

And that argument will likely garner you a conviction.

Whether we consider it right or wrong, the purpose of the statute is to keep cyclists to the right of faster vehicular traffic. Recognizing that keeping cyclists as far right as possible would subject cyclists to unsafe conditions, the legislatures have instead required cyclists to ride as far right as is safe. Your argument that it is unsafe to ride to the right of traffic, and therefore, "practicable" means riding in the lane with faster vehicular traffic, defeats the purpose of the law, and therefore, no judge is likely to agree with you.

No, what's absurd is claiming that (absent any other actual hazards that would make it unsafe to do so) it's unsafe to ride any further to the right than the door zone of an imaginary line of parked cars.

It's equally absurd to believe that a judge would agree with you that you're riding as far to the right as practicable in that situation.