Bekologist

likely, guys that should be censured and removed from any duties involving legal matters or course of law.


For WA state refer to the official DOT website, do not rely on some 2nd hand resource like dan arnold. I refer people to the official government sites and bicycling advocacy resources about bicycle law in my state.

there's NO MENTION of the applicability of laws requiring a bicycle to pull off the highway for other traffic! that's ludicrous.

danarnold

Wrong again, Bek. The definitive resource is the RCW as listed on the official gov. website, not WA DOT's partial list

https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/ Title 46 contains the 'motor vehicle' code, which includes the provisions dealing with bicycles, with 46.61 providing the Rules of the Road. RCW 46.61.755 contains the provision which states bicycles are subject to all the same rules as cars, unless there is a specific exception, as has been pointed out to you ad naseum.

"RCW 46.61.755
Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles.

(1) Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in RCW 46.61.750 through 46.61.780 and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application.

(2) Every person riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk or crosswalk must be granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to a pedestrian by this chapter."


[2000 c 85 § 3; 1965 ex.s. c 155 § 80.]

And one of those general statutes which cyclists are subject to unless there is an exception is:

"RCW 46.61.427
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."

Note, this subsection does not say 'motor vehicle,' but 'vehicle' and a bicycle is defined by the RCW as a vehicle. Look it up at the official government website.


[1973 c 88 § 1.]"

Bekologist

come on, dude. 'rather definitive' yes.

DOT links direct to the WA GOV RCWs. So does the BAW.

Jebeezus, guy, that statute specifically refers bicyclists operation as per 46 61 770, not general statute!

specifically , our operation on roads: "Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place shall ride as near to the right side of the right through lane as is safe except as may be appropriate while preparing to make or while making turning movements, or while overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction."

That is our specific directive under state law.


Now, please, go drub it and try to find something official that states in Washington, bicyclists are subject to a rule requiring us to pull off the a 'highway' for following traffic.

there is no such requirement. if there were, the DOT, WA state patrol, the bicycle alliance of Washington, SOMEONE official would make even a passing reference to this applicability.

there is no such requirement.

danarnold

Your statement is false and libelous. I am so confident you are not just wrong, but laughably so that I will give you the Washington State Bar Association's 'complaint' website:

https://www.wsba.org/public/complaints/default.htm

In the remote chance you want to educate yourself on lawyer discipline, and the even more remote chance you can understand it, here's the site they recommend:

https://www.wsba.org/info/operations/odc/grievance.htm

njkayaker

The bicycle code is the RCWs. Those other things you indicate are secondary sources, sources that are providing incomplete summaries of the RCWs. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with doing that (especially, since the RCWs are vast). Do those secondary sources say that bicycles are supposed to stop at stop signs?

Bekologist

now, danarnold, if you can keep your ethical panties unbunched for a moment, I'm not the one compromising myself, i'll admit lawyers can go around with mistaken, marginalizing views on bicyclists rights, for sure!

try to stay focused on the issues

danarnold

You're the one who brought up ethics and disbarment, twice now.

Focusing on the issues, please answer njxkayker's question.

Bekologist

you mean, when WA state DOT links directly to the full RCW in descriptions of our duties, and the Bicycle Alliance also does so, both these organizations have somehow blatantly overlooked what appears to be a fundamental traffic rule for bicyclists?

or any number of other organizations involved with bicycling in Wa state.

njkayaker

It's not a "fundemental traffic rule". FRAP (as I've said more than once) makes it nearly irrelevent.

Do they mention that bicycles have to stop at stop signs?

SEE THE FOLLOWING QUOTE from your source! If you actually read it, it makes it quite clear that it is incomplete!

The only complete and legally correct source is the RCW.

This is the "full RCW". Links to subsections is not "full".

https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46

njkayaker

Wrong.

https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.04.670

danarnold

Quote:

Originally Posted by njkayaker

The bicycle code is the RCWs. Those other things you indicate are secondary sources, sources that are providing incomplete summaries of the RCWs. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with doing that (especially, since the RCWs are vast). Do those secondary sources say that bicycles are supposed to stop at stop signs?

Since Bek refuses to give you as straight answer, I'll address it.

1. I'm not going to wade through all of Bek's secondary sources.
2. It's answered by the same statute that says we have to use turnouts under certain conditions:

"RCW 46.61.755
Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles.

(1) Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in RCW 46.61.750 through 46.61.780 and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application.

The interesting part of this section is "...except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application."

Although I believe and would advise cyclists in WA that 755 means we must stop at stop signs, like other vehicles, it's at least worth arguing that because most cyclists fall over if they come to a complete stop and because starting again from a full stop makes us go through intersections much more slowly, particularly when using clips or cilpless pedals, we are only required to come as close to making a full stop as safety requires."

As I say, I don't advise it, but that's what I will argue if cited for running a stop sign. Before I gave such advice to others, I'd do a case law search to see if there have been any rulings on the question.

njkayaker

If he used any of those secondary sources in a court of law, they would laugh at him.

The law is pretty clear about the requirement to make the stop. My point is that the fact that the secondary sources don't mention it proves that the secondary sources are incomplete.

This would be a silly argument to make. If they fall over, it's because they are incompetent. And, falling over is really quite rare. (Of course, if you get a ticket for failing to stop, a silly argument is better than nothing!)

While this might be reasonable, it doesn't change the law (which requires the "full stop").

Bekologist

you guys refuse to recognize the latter half of that sentence emphasized above after the comma that directs bicyclists specifically to duties under 46 61 770!

I'm laughing right now!

again, there is no official recognition of your POVs and ample supporting evidence for mine. WA DOT, the BAW .....

njkayaker

FRAP does not contradict the "SMV-PO" law (people have said that repeatedly).

Here's the general requirement for cars. By your "logic", cars don't have to pull over either!

danarnold

I agree with you the use of secondary sources. Only Bek advocates their use. I disagree that only incompetent cyclists would fall over at a complete, full stop. Most competent cyclists have not mastered the stationary balance maneuver, 'tho it is much easier on a fixee or if facing an incline. More importantly the average juror or judge would not expect the average cyclist to be able to maintain a full stop without putting a foot down.

BTW, in a quick search for "stop sign" and "bicycle" and RCW 46.61.755 I found only one case, and it addressed cyclists in cross walks, rather than treating stop signs as yield signs, like the ID law.

Though I don't recommend it for others, the rule of lenity may apply here under the wiggle room I cited at the end of .755.

Note, Bek is because he pretends I didn't mention the exceptions. As has been pointed out to him before, it is the duty of the cyclist to show how the exceptions apply, either by explicit mention in the RCW, or by application of the "...those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application" clause.

I don't see a good argument for applying this clause to the SMV pulling off the highway RCW, since the requirement is only to do so when it can be done safely and at a turnout.

As others have pointed out, common courtesy and the desire to avoid political backlash, as well as general safety concerns dictate we accommodate others before the law mandates it.

I hope we aspire to more than simply meeting the mandatory minimum of courtesy and safety the law requires.

'Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly....'
_ Plato

jputnam

While it's not in Washington law, some states indirectly address this in their definitions of street-legal bicycles, requiring that the seat be low enough that a cyclist can put a foot down when making a complete stop. (I seem to recall California has that provision.)

I suspect provisions like that are the reason some police are under the misimpression that the law requires cyclists to put a foot down when making a complete stop. That's a conversation I've had with more than one police department, which generally leads to a more nuanced position: putting a foot down is not required for a complete stop, but it is good evidence of a complete stop -- if an officer sees you put a foot down, he will generally accept that you made a complete stop instead of rolling through the sign.

(Historically speaking, the foot-down provision was part of the campaign to drive Ordinaries from the road when the modern safety bike came along. On a high-wheeler, you can't put a foot down. Making a complete stop requires either considerable skill, or dismounting at every stop sign. Fast riders on high wheelers had earned quite a reputation for dangerous antics on the road.)

jputnam

Bicycles share their instability when stopped with motorcycles, might be worth a search to see if any motorcyclist ever tried that defense for failure to stop. They do have the same issues with rolling stops, foot-down or not, and police enforcement, but they also do have motors and licenses so it might not be a perfect match, but could be a strong analogy.

jputnam

Well, that should make it easy for you: post the RCW that applies specifically to bicycles traveling slower than prevailing traffic, on two lane roads, where passing is unsafe, once they have five or more vehicles delayed behind them.

If the exception exists, post it.

Otherwise, I'll side with BAW and SDOT.

danarnold

Thanks. The history, particularly re: 'Ordinaries' was interesting. You are correct as well that there is no 'foot down' requirement in Washington, tho as you say it is good evidence. In searching for it, I found a crosswalk provision that surprised me in that it states vehicles must stop for pedestrians and bicycles in crosswalks. No mention is made of a requirement the cyclist dismount.

"RCW 46.61.235
Crosswalks.

(1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of this section "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway.

(2) No pedestrian or bicycle shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run, or otherwise move into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to stop.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply under the conditions stated in RCW 46.61.240(2).

(4) Whenever any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass such stopped vehicle."

This may be a recodification of the law due to the Crawford case or
PUDMAROFF v. ALLEN, 138 Wn.2d 55, 977 P.2d 574 (1999), cases where the cyclist rode his bike across the crosswalk. In both cases, the court decided in favor of the cyclist, granting him the favored status of a pedestrian while in the crosswalk.

Quoting Pudmaroff at p. 61:

"The Crawford court held RCW 46.61.755 did not apply to Crawford when she was in the crosswalk, because the statute pertained to a bicyclist "upon a roadway." Id. at 153. The court reasoned a bicyclist within a crosswalk was not a motorist on a roadway. The court found it irrelevant that Crawford had mounted her bike and ridden it over the crosswalk. At the time Crawford was decided, RCW 46.61.235(1) provided substantively the same protections as the statute now offers. Former RCW 46.61.235(1) provided a vehicle driver shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk. See LAWS OF 1965, Ex. Sess., ch. 155, § 34. But the definition of "pedestrian" in RCW 46.04.400 was confined to persons "afoot." Thus, Crawford was not a pedestrian within the meaning of RCW 46.61.235(1) at the time the case was decided. Although Crawford was not a pedestrian at the time she was in the crosswalk, the Court of Appeals essentially created a judicial rule that she and other bicyclists would be treated in a fashion akin to pedestrians when in crosswalks."

danarnold

I don't think there are any cases. The only ones I've seen are accident cases, no traffic infraction cases. I agree with your motorcycling analogy. As a motorcyclist I have the same issue, tho it is easier for me to balance momentarily or very slowly on my Yamaha FJR 1300 than on my bicycle.

The 'by their nature' argument is even stronger for the cyclist since it is much easier for the motorcyclist to get back up to speed and get through the intersection much more quickly. More quickly [ahem] than a car. The FJR goes from zero to 60 mph in about 3 seconds. Not that I admit to doing that in town, but ... it sure is fun.

jputnam

It was a Legislative response to those cases, I remember it at the time. I always liked this bit of logic:

"A hypothetical suggests the problem: Several groups of children return home from school by the Interurban Trail, some on foot, others on skateboards, roller blades and bicycles, and wait at the crosswalk for a clear opportunity to cross 277th Street, and, like Pudmaroff, they proceed only after traffic has stopped for them and after they have properly checked for oncoming traffic. If such group were hit in the crosswalk, under Allen's interpretation, the vehicle driver would be liable to all children except those on bicycles. Such interpretation and result make no sense."

CB HI

The motorcycle license test in Hawaii (and likely others states) has a skill test of being able to come to a complete stop without putting a foot down, holding it for a couple seconds and then starting again.

So if I ever get a ticket for failing to make a full stop on a bicycle, I would use that skill test requirement (noting that it is even easier to do on a bicycle) and offer to bring my cycle into the court room to prove the feasability of a track stand (I would likely take a video in as a backup to the live demo).

Or I could just call Bek for some tortured legal advice!

mandovoodoo

Track stands are easier on a motorbike - rev the engine a little and get even more stability. I regularly stop my 500 plus lb machine and then go again. But I can do that with a tandem bicycle, too.

I'll weigh in on the main issue, too: Look to code and case, not to secondary sources.

CB HI

Depends on how long the stop time is. Short stop - easier on motorcycle. Long stop - easier on bicycle.

And in court on a bicycle ticket, you want to support your case by arguing it is easier on a bicycle.

njkayaker

It shouldn't be surprising especially since the bicyclist could be a child (it's commonly legal for children to ride on sidewalks). Note that a cyclist doesn't become a user of a crosswalk if he is riding across the crosswalk as vehicular traffic.

If a competent cyclist was not able to "master the stationary balance maneuver", they would not choose to stop that way. There is ample evidence that cyclists are able to stop. Cyclists stop all the time without falling over!

My point is that it isn't worth using this argument because it's patently false.