bikes do not impede traffic, we are traffic
12-12-09, 10:48 PM
#226
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pacific, WA
Posts: 1,260
Bikes: Custom 531ST touring, Bilenky Viewpoint, Bianchi Milano, vintage Condor racer
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Until you actually find a source that supports your position, I'm afraid I'm going to call it a day and side with the WSDOT, BAW, etc.
Meanwhile, for another take on this issue, you might gain some insight from
https://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...s1/page12.html
As for being tired of this discussion, get used to it, it comes up repeatedly in different forums. For another example, in 2003 the Seattle Times discussed bicyclist rights and responsibilities with WSDOT and the Bicycle Alliance of Washington.
One of their motorist FAQs about cycling:
Q. I thought I heard that a bicyclist has to pull over when backing up motorized vehicles. Could you please clarify this?
A. You're right. This is another driving law that also applies to bicyclists. It says that a slow-moving vehicle, if delaying five or more vehicles behind it, shall turn off the roadway at a safe turnout in order to permit the vehicles to proceed. Of course, it's still a gray area because the decision on whether a safe opportunity to pull out exists is up to the cyclist.
If there's no safe shoulder or turnout, a cyclist doesn't have to stop the bike and drag it into the brush every time five cars pile up, no matter how badly some drivers want to pass. It all comes back to common sense and courtesy on the road.
I know, it's those evil discriminatory anti-bicycle folks at BAW, the Seattle Times, and the WSDOT conspiring to mis-state the laws again....
12-12-09, 10:52 PM
#227
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
I think i will just refer bicyclists, AGAIN, to actual laws and official websites about bicyclists responsibilities, which state absoutely nothing about bikes leaving the road to favor following traffic.
here's the Bicycle alliance website link to all relevant RCW as they apply to bicyclists
bicycle alliance of washington
here's the Bicycle alliance website link to all relevant RCW as they apply to bicyclists
bicycle alliance of washington
12-12-09, 10:57 PM
#228
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
NO ONE is referring that bicyclists are responsible to leave the roadway under RCW 46 61 427.
not WA DOT, not Cascade.org, not the bicycle alliance of washington.
not WA DOT, not Cascade.org, not the bicycle alliance of washington.
12-12-09, 11:17 PM
#229
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
where does WA DOT state that 46 61 427 applies to bicyclists?
you're blowing smoke, putnam.
the WA DOT and the BAW say nothing about your contentions. surely, you realize, if a law was relevant to bike travel in WA state, either the WA DOT or the BAW would mention it?
but no, there's no mention of the law applying to bicyclists.
sorry, charlie. i'm not buying it.
One of these organizations would make a passing reference to its applicability to bicyclists, eh?
you're blowing smoke, putnam.
the WA DOT and the BAW say nothing about your contentions. surely, you realize, if a law was relevant to bike travel in WA state, either the WA DOT or the BAW would mention it?
but no, there's no mention of the law applying to bicyclists.
sorry, charlie. i'm not buying it.
One of these organizations would make a passing reference to its applicability to bicyclists, eh?
Last edited by Bekologist; 12-12-09 at 11:45 PM.
12-12-09, 11:23 PM
#230
Banned.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
What's so wrong with riding to the right so traffic may pass?
You are not doing the rest of us any favors by infuriating drivers by forcing them to watch you ride your bike.
You are not doing the rest of us any favors by infuriating drivers by forcing them to watch you ride your bike.
12-12-09, 11:25 PM
#231
Kaffee Nazi
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374
Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
And yet you are unwilling or unable to post a single citation providing what you claim is "explicit support" for a bicycle exception to RCW 46.61.427.
Until you actually find a source that supports your position, I'm afraid I'm going to call it a day and side with the WSDOT, BAW, etc.
Meanwhile, for another take on this issue, you might gain some insight from
https://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...s1/page12.html
As for being tired of this discussion, get used to it, it comes up repeatedly in different forums. For another example, in 2003 the Seattle Times discussed bicyclist rights and responsibilities with WSDOT and the Bicycle Alliance of Washington.
One of their motorist FAQs about cycling:
A. You're right. This is another driving law that also applies to bicyclists. It says that a slow-moving vehicle, if delaying five or more vehicles behind it, shall turn off the roadway at a safe turnout in order to permit the vehicles to proceed. Of course, it's still a gray area because the decision on whether a safe opportunity to pull out exists is up to the cyclist.
If there's no safe shoulder or turnout, a cyclist doesn't have to stop the bike and drag it into the brush every time five cars pile up, no matter how badly some drivers want to pass. It all comes back to common sense and courtesy on the road.
I know, it's those evil discriminatory anti-bicycle folks at BAW, the Seattle Times, and the WSDOT conspiring to mis-state the laws again....
Until you actually find a source that supports your position, I'm afraid I'm going to call it a day and side with the WSDOT, BAW, etc.
Meanwhile, for another take on this issue, you might gain some insight from
https://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...s1/page12.html
As for being tired of this discussion, get used to it, it comes up repeatedly in different forums. For another example, in 2003 the Seattle Times discussed bicyclist rights and responsibilities with WSDOT and the Bicycle Alliance of Washington.
One of their motorist FAQs about cycling:
Q. I thought I heard that a bicyclist has to pull over when backing up motorized vehicles. Could you please clarify this?
A. You're right. This is another driving law that also applies to bicyclists. It says that a slow-moving vehicle, if delaying five or more vehicles behind it, shall turn off the roadway at a safe turnout in order to permit the vehicles to proceed. Of course, it's still a gray area because the decision on whether a safe opportunity to pull out exists is up to the cyclist.
If there's no safe shoulder or turnout, a cyclist doesn't have to stop the bike and drag it into the brush every time five cars pile up, no matter how badly some drivers want to pass. It all comes back to common sense and courtesy on the road.
I know, it's those evil discriminatory anti-bicycle folks at BAW, the Seattle Times, and the WSDOT conspiring to mis-state the laws again....
I sometimes think Bek is an anti cyclist plant who's mission is to get bicycles banned from the road by insisting on extreme misinterpretations of the law and advocating that cyclists be discourteous to other vehicles so there is a backlash against us. I suspect this because I have trouble thinking he can be as big an idiot as he appears to be.
12-12-09, 11:28 PM
#232
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
there's no reference to bicyclists being required to follow laws to 'pull off roadway' 46 61 427 law
by either WA DOT or the BAW.
you figure one of these two organizations associated with bicycling in WA would have reiterated our legal responsibilities clearly.
by either WA DOT or the BAW.
you figure one of these two organizations associated with bicycling in WA would have reiterated our legal responsibilities clearly.
Last edited by Bekologist; 12-12-09 at 11:36 PM.
12-12-09, 11:34 PM
#233
Kaffee Nazi
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374
Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
46.61.270 Blind pedestrians — Use of device for blind by others prohibited.
[1961 c 12 § 46.60.270. Prior: 1945 c 105 § 2; Rem. Supp. 1945 § 6360-99b. Formerly RCW 46.60.270.]
Repealed by 1969 c 141 § 10.
BTW, Bek, if you're going to cite the RCWs, learn to do it correctly. In addition to not citing repealed, irrelevant statutes, periods separate the sections, not spaces.
12-12-09, 11:45 PM
#234
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
sorry, bub.
46 61 427.
i gots stumpy fingers
46 61 427.
i gots stumpy fingers
12-13-09, 12:04 AM
#235
Kaffee Nazi
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374
Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Slow-moving vehicle to pull off roadway.
On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow moving vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in a line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turn-out exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. As used in this section a slow moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.
[1973 c 88 § 1.]
RCW 46.04.670 "Vehicle."
"Vehicle" includes every device capable of being moved upon a public highway and in, upon, or by which any persons or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, including bicycles.
Of course, Bek, I don't expect you to change your opinion about the law, just because of the law.
12-13-09, 12:06 AM
#236
Kaffee Nazi
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374
Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This is why I suspect Bek is a plant, paid by the automotive industry to piss people off about cyclists and get our right to the road taken away.
12-13-09, 12:09 AM
#237
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pacific, WA
Posts: 1,260
Bikes: Custom 531ST touring, Bilenky Viewpoint, Bianchi Milano, vintage Condor racer
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I think i will just refer bicyclists, AGAIN, to actual laws and official websites about bicyclists responsibilities, which state absoutely nothing about bikes leaving the road to favor following traffic.
here's the Bicycle alliance website link to all relevant RCW as they apply to bicyclists
bicycle alliance of washington
here's the Bicycle alliance website link to all relevant RCW as they apply to bicyclists
bicycle alliance of washington
How considerate of them.
12-13-09, 12:13 AM
#238
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pacific, WA
Posts: 1,260
Bikes: Custom 531ST touring, Bilenky Viewpoint, Bianchi Milano, vintage Condor racer
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Does that mean you're free to kill yourself on the tracks?
Or that bicycles, being vehicles, are bound by all the laws that apply to vehicles unless there's a specific different rule for the same situation, so there's no need to mention the general vehicle rules that obviously still apply?
12-13-09, 06:11 AM
#239
Out fishing with Annie on his lap, a cigar in one hand and a ginger ale in the other, watching the sunset.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida
Posts: 16,056
Bikes: Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 22 Times
in
17 Posts
It should be remembered that Bekologist is not a lawyer, although he may have stayed at a Holiday Inn once or twice. For legal interpretations, rather than opinion, always consult a real lawyer.
There seems to be a growing false legitimacy among some bicyclists surrounding the notion bicyclists should be and are subject to variations of the "slow moving vehicle-impeding-pull off roadway" laws.
this is a bad, marginalizing trend in so called bicycling 'advocacy'
Rules that require leaving the roadway to allow faster traffic to pass under certain traffic and roadway conditions run counter to bicyclists road rights.
From Swift v the city of Topeka in 1890 to much more recent court decision of Selz V Trotwood, bicyclists have been supported in our rights to ride the roads at our fair speed unimpeded by suggestions we can impede traffic.
I quote 'bicycledriving.org, in the online treatise 'a guide to improving bicycle laws'
"Some states have statutes prohibiting drivers from impeding traffic. These statutes should be written so that they apply only to motor vehicles, not to all vehicles. Otherwise, a broad version of this rule could be wrongly interpreted as prohibiting operation of bicycles or horse-drawn wagons whenever following drivers might be inconvenienced."
I believe - rather radically it seems - among some 'bicycle drivers', that bicyclists are not required to pull off a roadway under any states' "impeding" laws. bikes are traffic travelling at our normal speeds, are traffic, and cannot therefore 'impede'.
If this is civil disobedience, so be it, this is my position about 'can a bike impede traffic or are we traffic' in strong disapproval of any laws requiring bicyclists to 'pull off 2 lane highways' when five vehicles backup behind at the nearest safe location.
Any marginalizing notions suggesting bikes impede traffic and can be required to leave two lane roads if five vehicles back up behind should be exterminated.
Bicycledriving.org supports my general contentions about bicycles impeding laws and the potential for injustice inherent in this type of anti-bicycling interpretation of bicyclists road rights.
this is a bad, marginalizing trend in so called bicycling 'advocacy'
Rules that require leaving the roadway to allow faster traffic to pass under certain traffic and roadway conditions run counter to bicyclists road rights.
From Swift v the city of Topeka in 1890 to much more recent court decision of Selz V Trotwood, bicyclists have been supported in our rights to ride the roads at our fair speed unimpeded by suggestions we can impede traffic.
I quote 'bicycledriving.org, in the online treatise 'a guide to improving bicycle laws'
"Some states have statutes prohibiting drivers from impeding traffic. These statutes should be written so that they apply only to motor vehicles, not to all vehicles. Otherwise, a broad version of this rule could be wrongly interpreted as prohibiting operation of bicycles or horse-drawn wagons whenever following drivers might be inconvenienced."
I believe - rather radically it seems - among some 'bicycle drivers', that bicyclists are not required to pull off a roadway under any states' "impeding" laws. bikes are traffic travelling at our normal speeds, are traffic, and cannot therefore 'impede'.
If this is civil disobedience, so be it, this is my position about 'can a bike impede traffic or are we traffic' in strong disapproval of any laws requiring bicyclists to 'pull off 2 lane highways' when five vehicles backup behind at the nearest safe location.
Any marginalizing notions suggesting bikes impede traffic and can be required to leave two lane roads if five vehicles back up behind should be exterminated.
Bicycledriving.org supports my general contentions about bicycles impeding laws and the potential for injustice inherent in this type of anti-bicycling interpretation of bicyclists road rights.
__________________
. “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche
"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant
. “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche
"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant
12-13-09, 07:06 AM
#240
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Posts: 6,931
Bikes: Old Bike: 1975 Raleigh Delta, New Bike: 2004 Norco Bushpilot
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
1) The the statute specifically states it does not apply to bicycles.
2) Another stature states that a certain law or group of laws do not apply to bicycles.
3) They invent another category, motor vehicle, which is used typically for statutes that apply to motorized vehicles, but not non-motorized vehicles (bicycles, horse drawn carriages, etc).
4) Another statute supersedes that statute, in regards to bicycles, generally this is stated within the statute itself.
Now whether it's the law or not, if you notice a longer string of traffic behind you, it's common courtesy to move out of the way and let that traffic pass at the first opportunity to do so safely. Otherwise you simply provide more ammunition for those you would like to eliminate any road user that isn't motorized.
12-13-09, 08:31 AM
#241
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
None of them specify that bikes have to obey railroad crossing signs.
Does that mean you're free to kill yourself on the tracks?
Or that bicycles, being vehicles, are bound by all the laws that apply to vehicles unless there's a specific different rule for the same situation, so there's no need to mention the general vehicle rules that obviously still apply?
Does that mean you're free to kill yourself on the tracks?
Or that bicycles, being vehicles, are bound by all the laws that apply to vehicles unless there's a specific different rule for the same situation, so there's no need to mention the general vehicle rules that obviously still apply?
yes, there is a specific seperate rule in WA state on how bicylists are required to operate in the presence of following traffic, correct.
yes, joshua. there's a specific section on non motorized travel in RCW; there's a law there that states all traffic laws are applicable (like the requirement to stop at activated railroad crossings,
EXCEPT- there's that exception you adamantly continue to deny exists-
there's an EXCEPTION that recognizes bicyclists general speed restrictions and puts in print the allowances for a bicycle to not have to follow another smv rule- the bike is already covered under our own SMV rule.
clearly this is a bit compilicated for some,
despite it being in black and white at WA state statute, and supported by references at the official DOT website, and the Bicycle Alliance of Washington's website resources about bicyclists rights to the road in WA state.
This is both common sense bicyclists rights, and washington state code, and the laws as reflected by the UVC that bikes are not pulling off the highways to favor following traffic.
12-13-09, 08:42 AM
#242
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,897
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1867 Post(s)
Liked 666 Times
in
508 Posts
Perhaps the best solution to this is to ask a lawyer who specializes in traffic law, and knows what the law actually states before pronouncing that your right and everyone else is wrong in this. Realize that what is interpreted as true for California may not be anywhere outside of California. For example here in Ontario, contrary to popular belief we do not have a FRAP law that applies specifically and only to bicycles. We have a law that states that slower moving vehicles must stay as far right as to allow faster vehicles (and horses) to pass on the left. It is up to the passing vehicle operator to make sure that it's safe to pass. This law really only logically applies to roads where the travel area is less then 7m (24' or 2 lanes ) wide.
I don't know the California law, but it likely also doesn't intend that cyclists ride in the ditch or that we pull off the road whenever a car approaches.
I don't know the California law, but it likely also doesn't intend that cyclists ride in the ditch or that we pull off the road whenever a car approaches.
This is getting to sound like a lot of lawyerly discussion, which is great as long as all the participants are adequately trained and educated to see where the intricacies are. Then we could make some actual progress and come to plausible solutions to understanding these laws. No better than plausible, because no matter how smart we are, us talking does not imply agreement by legal practitioners, including judges.
It's real easy to argue citing examples, and be dead wrong. Can we call in Bob Mionske?
12-13-09, 08:46 AM
#244
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
its rcw 46 61 770 - a bike specfic 'FRAP' law, referred to by rcw 46 71 755 "bicyclists duties" under 'operation of non motorized vehicles' subsection of RCW 46 61 'rules of the road'
this has already been reiterated, several times, in this thread.
This information is available at the WA DOT website, its at the BAW website; these organizations serve as rather definitive resources to outline bicyclists' rights and duties in WA state.
this has already been reiterated, several times, in this thread.
This information is available at the WA DOT website, its at the BAW website; these organizations serve as rather definitive resources to outline bicyclists' rights and duties in WA state.
12-13-09, 08:52 AM
#245
Out fishing with Annie on his lap, a cigar in one hand and a ginger ale in the other, watching the sunset.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida
Posts: 16,056
Bikes: Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 22 Times
in
17 Posts
I merged this and the FRAP thread, since both are covering the same ground.
__________________
. “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche
"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant
. “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche
"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant
12-13-09, 09:56 AM
#246
Kaffee Nazi
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374
Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
], he'll start it up again in a 3d thread. I will let you know so it can be merged as well
12-13-09, 10:02 AM
#247
Kaffee Nazi
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374
Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Not really. It only sounds complicated if someone tries to follow your convoluted and incorrect interpretation. Wog summarized the law in Washington on his first try and JPutnam gave you a neat, clean example of how and why the catch all statute about the Rules of the Road applying to bicycles fills in everywhere there is not an exception. Simple. You just don't accept it.
The burden is on the person who claims a bicycle exception to show it in the RCWs, not the other way round.
The burden is on the person who claims a bicycle exception to show it in the RCWs, not the other way round.
12-13-09, 10:05 AM
#248
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
good grief.
no one has 'proven me wrong', my point of view is sound and backed by interpretations of traffic law from the UVC, our state vehicle code (dan arnold, have you found even a shred of any credible evidence to support your POV about bicyclists responsibilities in WA state yet? Hint: there is none!)
and general considerations of bicyclists as road users, in court cases back to Swift V the cityof Topeka,
bicyclists rights to travel the roads, free of onerous restrictions, shall not be infringed. Subjecting bicyclists to variations of SMV-pull off roadway laws would be tantamount to a prohibition of our travel on two lane highways.
A SMV-I-POR requirement on bicyclists should not be the case in any state in the union due its de facto prohibitive nature against bicyclists use of two lane narrow highways.
A requirement bicyclists leave the highway for following traffics' convenience is much more onerous than a law that bicyclists be required to operate only as far right as is safe.
In considerations of this, bicyclists need to realize that cycling 'advocates' who suggest bicyclists should be subject to pull off the road for other traffic, this clamoring for 'greater equality', are lobbying for a significant diminishment of bicyclists road rights.
no one has 'proven me wrong', my point of view is sound and backed by interpretations of traffic law from the UVC, our state vehicle code (dan arnold, have you found even a shred of any credible evidence to support your POV about bicyclists responsibilities in WA state yet? Hint: there is none!)
and general considerations of bicyclists as road users, in court cases back to Swift V the cityof Topeka,
bicyclists rights to travel the roads, free of onerous restrictions, shall not be infringed. Subjecting bicyclists to variations of SMV-pull off roadway laws would be tantamount to a prohibition of our travel on two lane highways.
A SMV-I-POR requirement on bicyclists should not be the case in any state in the union due its de facto prohibitive nature against bicyclists use of two lane narrow highways.
A requirement bicyclists leave the highway for following traffics' convenience is much more onerous than a law that bicyclists be required to operate only as far right as is safe.
In considerations of this, bicyclists need to realize that cycling 'advocates' who suggest bicyclists should be subject to pull off the road for other traffic, this clamoring for 'greater equality', are lobbying for a significant diminishment of bicyclists road rights.
Last edited by Bekologist; 12-13-09 at 10:13 AM.
12-13-09, 10:11 AM
#249
Kaffee Nazi
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374
Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Michigan states that bicycles must ride as far to the right as practicable (not "practical," I think these are different). It also defines slow moving vehicles, and bicycles do not meet that definition. It seems this is not quite the same as California.
This is getting to sound like a lot of lawyerly discussion, which is great as long as all the participants are adequately trained and educated to see where the intricacies are. Then we could make some actual progress and come to plausible solutions to understanding these laws. No better than plausible, because no matter how smart we are, us talking does not imply agreement by legal practitioners, including judges.
It's real easy to argue citing examples, and be dead wrong. Can we call in Bob Mionske?
This is getting to sound like a lot of lawyerly discussion, which is great as long as all the participants are adequately trained and educated to see where the intricacies are. Then we could make some actual progress and come to plausible solutions to understanding these laws. No better than plausible, because no matter how smart we are, us talking does not imply agreement by legal practitioners, including judges.
It's real easy to argue citing examples, and be dead wrong. Can we call in Bob Mionske?
It would be fine to call in Bob, but we already have at least one WA State lawyer on this thread, and a legislator from that State. Both disagree with Bek's opinion. For your State, consult a lawyer from that state, or look at the applicable laws. Do not rely on some 2d hand resource, even an official DOT website. They may not have the latest version of the law on their sites, and may not have all the applicable laws.
There's the old story about the guy who had not gone to law school, who wanted to be admitted to the bar because he could demonstrate he'd memorized all his State Statutes, word for word. In explaining why he was denied admission he was told,
"Because someday the legislature may repeal everything you know."
12-13-09, 10:21 AM
#250
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
from bicycle driving.org, a guide to improving bicycle laws,
i mean, really guys! is it that necessary to diminish our rights and responsibilities so much you can misinterpret and misread laws on the books about bicyclists?
someone, show me a citation from a WA government website that declares bicyclists are required to leave the highway under RCW 41 61 427.
THERE IS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT. Bicyclists rules of operation in the presence of traffic is covered in the section OPERATION OF NON MOTORIZED VEHICLES and our rights 46 61 755 refers bikes, specifically to follow 46 61 770.
this is sound interpretation of WA traffic law, backed by WA government DOT website and the Bicycle Alliance of Washington.
the pundits trying to argue the contrary have no credible reference except their own mistaken belief.
Originally Posted by bicycledriving
Some states have statutes prohibiting drivers from impeding traffic. These statutes should be written so that they apply only to motor vehicles, not to all vehicles. Otherwise, a broad version of this rule could be wrongly interpreted as prohibiting operation of bicycles or horse-drawn wagons whenever following drivers might be inconvenienced."
someone, show me a citation from a WA government website that declares bicyclists are required to leave the highway under RCW 41 61 427.
THERE IS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT. Bicyclists rules of operation in the presence of traffic is covered in the section OPERATION OF NON MOTORIZED VEHICLES and our rights 46 61 755 refers bikes, specifically to follow 46 61 770.
this is sound interpretation of WA traffic law, backed by WA government DOT website and the Bicycle Alliance of Washington.
the pundits trying to argue the contrary have no credible reference except their own mistaken belief.