FRAP is CRAP
 

Regardless of whether you are a vehicular cycling ideologue, a segregated cycling ideologue, or a naked cycling with a cowboy hat ideologue, "Far Right As Practicable" is not an effective law. It is an ineffective law because it is not enforceable. "Ride at the far right edge of the roadway, except when you decide not to" is not an enforceable law and is doomed to failure in accomplishing its intended purpose, whatever that may be.

I don't know how states could more clearly define and codify the operating position of bicycles on their roadways.

i think the onus is on the bicycling community, municipalities and law enforcement to more clearly communicate what the means for bicyclists and the motorists encountering them.

I think we need jerseys that say this.

What state has the law worded like this?

+100

along with more 'Cyclists Allowed Full Lane' T-shirts.

:beer:

I think we need a new way of thinking about bicycles and cars altogether.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3626/...a37c78eacb.jpg

What wording would you put in it's place?

"Cyclists have full use of any lane that serves their purpose."?

With FRAP and the exceptions to it FL and other states have that now. The option of where to ride is up to the cyclist, according to the cyclist's call as to their safest lane position.

The laws that are total garbage are laws that restrict cyclists from the road. Particularly if bike lanes or other "infrastructure" is present.

IMHO the problem with FRAP is that the onus is on the cyclists to prove that their lane position is as far right as practical and safe and if they get hit by a car in that lane position that basically negates the cyclists position as safe so at best you have an accident with both parties at fault and worst the cyclist at fault even though the motorist is doing 50mph on a 25mph road and made no attempt to cross the double yellow to pass the cyclists. At least that how it seems to work here in a contributory negligence state.

Sure it's enforcable, it's easy. Cop decides he doesn't like the look of you and thinks you don't belong out in the road. He pulls you over, tells you that you aren't "close enough" to the curb, he gives you a ticket. He doesn't bother stating a measurement of how far over you were, just threatens you if you try to complain; its your word against his and he has authority.
There you go, enforced, and it fulfilled its intended purpose of letting cops tell you what to do without any solid backing other than their own opinion. Very effective.


Vague wording of a law makes it easier to enforce(abuse), not harder.
Yes, it is crap.

http://www.straferight.com/photopost...its_a_trap.jpg

IT'S A FRAP!

The alternative to FRAP is is to ban bikes from the road entirely if the city, county or state deems that a route cannot accomodate slow moving vehicles that are incapable of sharing a lane. I'd prefer that the road network be open and available to me and if that means I have to move over to let faster traffic by, that's OK with me.

:thumb:

exactly!

Cops are basically motorists who are not going to be sympathetic to cyclists reasonings as to why farthest right position was 'impracticable'.

How do you guys recommend states codify a legal cycling position on a gravel road? how about an unstriped neighborhood road? and how about a road with 18 foot lanes?

any suggestions on clarifying the legal language for bicyclists, aside from your uninformed biatching?

If you think FRAP means "Ride at the far right edge of the roadway", then the problem is with your understanding of the term, rather than the term itself. Is "Far right as is SAFE" easier to understand?

1. slow moving traffic keep right.

2. if I'm in front of you I have the right of way.

there's absolutely no need for a special rule for bicyclists at all.

see post #12

randya,

how far right? your proposed 'clarification' would open cyclists up to even more discriminatory enforcement, if this is what you are griping about.

slow movings vehicles keep right? do you think that is clear enough for legal statute? It's actually much LESS clear. how far right?

again, how far right? keep right? hmm, sounds like codified curbhugging.

how about....


slow moving vehicles keep as far right as is safely able to be put into practice at the time?

states clarifying and codifying bicyclists' legal position would duplicate this common-sense road positioning in bike specific statutes.

HA! funny

For what reason? If bicyclists are granted the rights/resp of vehicle drivers why is a bike specific FRAP needed?

Al

How far right?

EDIT: Oh sorry, I see Bek already went there.

If it was enforced properly...

Except that scofflaw cyclists are rarely the individuals targeted...


Come to sunny Miami, and I'll show you hundreds of folk on their Trek hybrids, saddle at the lowest setting, bounding from the sidewalk, to the street, back onto the sidewalk, then cutting over to the sidewalk on the opposite side of the road.

Those people never get tickets. Why? They comprise the stereotype of Mr. & Ms. Blissfully Ignorant Occasional Cyclist, of which most people are, including your local LEO's. On the flip side, you will see bias against anyone that doesn't fit this perception - which can encompasses anything from riding with your saddle at the proper height, riding in team kit, or maybe even using a "fast-looking bike."

Two out of the three listed will be enough for Mr. John Q. Public to (needlessly) dislike you, or view you as an outsider. The funny thing is though, if you swapped one of these stereotypical characteristics with leisure riders (e.g.: leisure cyclists in team kit with saddles raised, road riders in sweatpants, baggy shirts, with saddles set as low as possible), then the so-called leisure cyclists would be more likely to be perceived as the weird folk by John Q., and thereby, subject to a higher degree of (bull) scrutiny.

-Kurt

How does this fit in? Please note, a bicycle is a "vehicle."

" Except as herein otherwise provided, the driver of a vehicle passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction shall drive a safe distance to the left of such other vehicle and shall not return to the right until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle; and, if the way is of sufficient width for the two vehicles to pass, the driver of the leading one shall not unnecessarily obstruct the other. If it is not possible to overtake a bicycle or other vehicle at a safe distance in the same lane, the overtaking vehicle shall use all or part of an adjacent lane if it is safe to do so or wait for a safe opportunity to overtake. Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on visible signal and shall not increase the speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.

" The driver of a vehicle may, if the roadway is free from obstruction and of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles, overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle when the vehicle overtaken is (a) making or about to make a left turn, (b) upon a one-way street, or (c) upon any roadway on which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement."

There is no requirement for FRAP, just not to unnecessarily obstruct the other.

Thank you all for your replies to the original post.

A cyclist must consider multiple conditions to determine his/her optimal lateral position on the roadway: their destination (turning left, going straight, turning right), speed differential with other vehicles, traffic density, lane width/sharability, sightlines to other vehicles whose paths may conflict, vehicles parked on the side of the road, and surface hazards that accumulate along the edge of the roadway.

Only one individual possesses the requisite knowledge of all these conditions to decide what is “as far right as practicable”. That individual is the cyclist.

Observers such as overtaking motorists or law enforcement officers cannot possibly have all this information, and are therefore incapable of determining if the statute has been violated. If the state cannot objectively determine if a law has been broken, what is the justification for having that law on the books?

Do some of you truly believe that the existence of this irrational law is the only thing preventing cyclists being banned from public roadways?

In Texas, motor vehicles are required to obey this law:

Secondly, in Texas cyclists enjoy all the rights and duties of operators of motor vehicles:

So in Texas, on a road that has no lane markings, a cyclist has no obligation to travel any further to the right than where the left tire of motor vehicles practicably travel. He has the same duty as a slow moving motorist, but not a greater obligation. :thumb: Get it?

In that light, how about this for a rule?

Cyclists may occupy the space in a lane to the extent as any other slow moving vehicle would.

Equal treatment under the law and plenty of space for everyone! Woo Hoo!