danarnold

What's 'patently' false? Most of us need to put our foot down to make a complete and full stop for more than a moment. This requires unclipping and a slow restart. Thus the cyclist has a potential argument that since his vehicle is 'by nature' fundamentally different than a car or even a motorcycle, and since there is no case in WA directly on point, it has a reasonable chance of being successfully argued.

Just because some cyclists can come to a full stop without a partial dismount, does not mean it is reasonable to expect most of them to.

BTW, what experience do you have making arguments in court?

CB HI

Why even go there, as it will not add any support to your claim?

danarnold

Then ignore that sentence if you wish, and respond to the rest.

njkayaker

This is false and obviously so.

In practice, cyclists show no problem doing this. There's nothing in the nature of a bicycle that keeps this from being practical. Cyclists do this all the time. It takes a long time to "restart" a tractor-trailer too. Therefore, tractor-trailers are allowed to perform a rolling stop?

The legal requirement is the "full stop" (zero speed), nothing more. As safe as they might be performed, "rolling stops" are illegal. There is much less ambiguity in this than the SMV-PO issue!

??? As a percentage of the cycling population, the number of people who can do a track stand for any real length of time is tiny. I'm not requiring anybody to employ trackstanding.

DX-MAN

Just being thorough when I say I checked that reference, and you're right -- missed that one, too. I must be getting rusty....

No, he is no lawyer; even the disagreeable tone of his arguments sounds like one, but he's not. He's just a hosejob. I'll rely on him ONLY for that.

danarnold

Your last sentence completely refutes your first and the rest of your argument.

Bekologist

so the exception is clear in 46 61 770.

you disupte this, and think biyclists are instead governed by 46 61 427.

I say, show your assertion.

S DOT********** no, WA DOT would make a mention of this statutory requirement on bicyclists, don't you think, Mr Puntnam?

It's fair to say WA DOT would make some reference to this statutory regulation as it applies to bicyclists in their depictions of our rights and duties.

there is no reference at WA DOT to the applicability of 46 61 427 to bicyclists. The same case at the WA state patrol depictions of bicyclists rights and responsibilities in WA state. Washington state patrol makes no mention of this duty. Official state bike maps and education materials make no mention of this statutory requirment applying to bicyclists.

You state, Mr Putnam, that you would defer to the BAW as well.

BAW makes no mention of this statutory requirment applying to bicyclists. at their website and links to RCW laws as they apply to bicyclists, no mention of 46 61 427.

They mention it later, in a section of laws 'applying to motor vehicles'. not thesection of the RCW laws that apply to bicyclists.

hmm..

if Mr Putnam will side with BAW, he agrees with the truth and my standpoint in this thread.

IF Mr Putnam sides with WA DOT (SDOT???)) then he agrees with my point of law about WA state law as it applies to bicyclists.

simple.


there is no supporting evidence for bicyclists being subject to SMV-I-POR law.

bicyclists are not required to pull of the roadway in WA state for following traffic.

WA DOT, the WA state patrol, the Bicycle Alliance of Washinton, and numerous official bike safety and education materials make NO MENTION of bicyclists having to 'get off the road' under SMV-I-POR law.

Surely, with such a core and fundamental requirement for bicyclists, ONE of these agencies would have mentioned it, even in passing????



come on, gentlemen. the mental exercise has come to an end. you all have no proof for your assertions; reality in this case is so blatantly obvious.



this must be one hell of an oversight!

E.A. Webb

I call shenanigans. If you always take the lane and refuse to allow traffic to pass we would be reading about how you were tooled up by a cop or cabbie and not about obscure Washington laws.

danarnold

Becky, you need a little civics lesson. The legislature passes the laws, the RCW. WA DOT and WSP are executive departments charged with enforcing the law. The RCW tells them what to do, not the other way around. The various departments put out some promotional materials, but do not duplicate the entire RCW. I gave you that site, but you chose to ignore it, and rely on various groups and departments to explain parts of the law, rather than go to the source as a whole.

This has all been explained to you very carefully. No one on this thread agrees with your dopey interpretation. It does not matter how carefully it is explained, you will refuse to get it, because you don't want to. Everyone else here gets it. When your first thread demonstrated no one agreed with you, you started another on the same subject. This is why admin had to come in and merge the threads and point out you are not a lawyer.

If someone else wants to come in and take your side or ask questions, then I'll bother to explain it to them again, or refer them to the previous posts, but you are going in the same circles. Aren't you dizzy yet?

Bekologist

what is in agreement with my position are the official materials and assorted organizations outlining bicyclists duties in our state!


Once again, there is no official mention of bicyclists being required to 'get off the highway' under SMV-I-POR lawsl; nowhere is this duty mentioned as applying to bicyclists in various and sundry materials in WA state.

Not at the WA DOT section detailing bicyclists duties.
There is no mention of bikes required to pull off the highway on any official state bicycling materials.
the WA state patrol makes no mention of bicyclists requirement to do so.
the largest bicycling club in the nation, Cascade cycling club, makes no mention of this duty.

the BAW, the bicycle alliance also, makes no mention of the applicability of SMV-I-POR laws to bicyclists in this state.

There is mention of SMV-I-POR law specifically NOT applying to bicyclists, at the BAW website's section of relevant RCWs.

Somehow, there has been one hell of an oversight if ALL THESE ORGANIZATIONS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES make no mention of this requirement~!!

its hilarious to think somehow this statutory requirement has been overlooked in state educational materials about bicycling laws in our state


I find it much, much more apparent there is no such requirement despite the bike forums blather.

Bekologist

I'm not refusing to allow traffic to pass, ( I allow traffic to pass quite readily while operating FRAP.

I'm just not getting off the road out of some mistaken understanding of our statutory duties as bicyclists to following traffic- I may very well do it as courtesy but i cannot think of a time that i ever have actually pulled off the highway to favor following traffic.

i'm not marginalizing bicyclists rights to the road so as to be misinterpreted we have to get off the highway!

no state, no how.

CB HI

Bek never gets dizzy. Check his post history. Bek will keep making the same bad argument until he finally gets to make the last post in the thread. By making the last post, Bek thinks that he has won the argument.

danarnold

True enough. Changing the subject (this does drive him crazy) to your 'Cycle Year Round,' Hey! I just saw 'Honolulu' in your wazit. I was going to say I spent $200 today on some winter gear so I can cycle year round, but now I've lost interest.

Bekologist

I'm sorry, the evidence is on my side on this one, boys.

E.A. Webb

Ok. I missed the point in all the pedantics.

danarnold

Hard to say for sure, E.A. Neither English nor logic are Becky's first languages.

I think he's saying that while theoretically he may some day be courteous, he has yet to do so and the fact the law is against him carries little weight compared to his political agenda which is to ride like such an aardvark he makes all motorists angry at all cyclists and persuades the legislature to treat us as operators of 3rd class vehicles.

Bekologist

yes, stating laws do not and should not circumscribe bicyclists off the road can be misconstrued to be asking the legislature to treat bicyclists as operators of 3rd class vehicles.



wow what a doozy.

CB HI

My cold winter riding gear is in a duffel bag for possible future use. Besides, riding in the snow is fun.

sggoodri

My interpretation of such laws is that leaving the highway is not required; rather, the type of turn-out location that the law would require using would normally be part of the highway, and not private property outside of the highway. Depending on the state, the wording of the statute, and the type of turn-out facility, the turn-out facility may or may not be part of the roadway, e.g. it might be a wide paved shoulder. In NC, specially paved and signed turn-out lanes are the only locations where the law applies. These lanes look to me like part of the actual roadway, much like a right turn lane or bus stop turn-out lane, but longer.

I'm not the least bit threatened by the terms of North Carolina's SMV turn-out law, but I can imagine some states having issues with law enforcement officers ticketing cyclists inappropriately for not moving onto private driveways, unpaved shoulders, or dangerously narrow shoulders as "turn outs." I suspect that the appropriate legal strategy would be to wait for such a citation to be given, and then fight it in court to obtain clarification. It might be a long time waiting, however, because police seem much more likely to ticket based on FRAP laws or bogus impeding traffic citations rather than the 5-vehicles-turn-out requirement.

I-Like-To-Bike

Less so amidst moving motor vehicles also riding on snow (and ice.)

gcottay

Given the cataclysmic legal problems exposed in this thread, I'm left wondering why State of Washington cycling advocacy groups are not sending an alarm and vigorously lobbying for change. Could it be the problem exists only here in the land of this particular forum?

Poguemahone

While true, I'd still like to see some snow down here (Richmond, Va.)

A decent storm, the whole town shuts down-- not like Wisconsin, where they'd shrug it off. Then you can go out and have fun.

I've got a set of studded tires lying around just waiting for the worst, but all it ever does here is get to 33 degrees and rain.

sggoodri

I would have loved a Surly Pugsley back when I lived in New Hampshire:

jputnam

I'm not aware of anyone at BAW or CBC lobbying to change this law -- it rarely applies to cyclists since it's usually possible for traffic to pass when a cyclist rides to the right, except on roads so congested that a cyclist isn't really causing much delay.

Certainly it didn't seem controversial when the Seattle Times discussed it with BAW and SDOT and came up with:But that's just BAW, SDOT, and the traffic reporters from the state's largest newspaper.

I-Like-To-Bike

True. Post 16 still holds true: https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post10116811