Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

bikes do not impede traffic, we are traffic

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

bikes do not impede traffic, we are traffic

Old 12-16-09, 07:50 AM
  #351  
mandovoodoo
Violin guitar mandolin
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Friendsville, TN, USA
Posts: 1,171

Bikes: Wilier Thor, Fuji Professional, LeMond Wayzata

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
"Bicyclists are only required to FRAP it, not pull off the roadway!"

That appears to be correct in TN, and they're not required to FRAP where the lane is too narrow for a bicycle and a car to share it with our 3' buffer.

However, I can see that where a substandard lane width and a double yellow line exist, and motor vehicles can reasonably travel faster than a bicycle, and a SMW statute that colorably applies to bicycles exists, that motorists could reasonably expect a bicycle to allow them passage by pulling over where reasonably feasible, and that a LEO observing motor traffic backing up under those conditions could reasonably direct the bicyclist to pull over and reasonably issue a citation, and that a judge might reasonably consider the cyclist as having violated the law and uphold that fine.

We need some test cases in states where SMV laws apply to bicycles, which they do not appear to in TN.
mandovoodoo is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 09:39 AM
  #352  
danarnold
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
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
There is no problem with this law other than the one Bek made up. His problem is two fold.

1st, he incorrectly says the law does not apply to bicycles.
2d, he says the law would require cyclists to 'pull off the roadway,' meaning (to Bek), get off the pavement and stop riding, or hug the edge.

The law says nothing of the kind. SMV's are simply required to use a turnout or other portion of the roadway or shoulder where it is safe to do so, in order to allow the backed up traffic to pass. There is no requirement to hit the ditch, or to stop or to dismount.

In practice this law is only going to apply where the road engineers have determined there is a frequent problem. That's when they erect signs and provide turnouts. At the speed most cyclist go uphill, the average turnout and shoulder provide ample room and time for five trailing motor vehicles to make the pass before the cyclist moves farther left without ever stopping.
danarnold is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 09:54 AM
  #353  
gcottay
Senior Member
 
gcottay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Green Valley AZ
Posts: 3,770

Bikes: Trice Q; Volae Century; TT 3.4

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by danarnold View Post
. . . At the speed most cyclist go uphill, the average turnout and shoulder provide ample room and time for five trailing motor vehicles to make the pass before the cyclist moves farther left without ever stopping.
And the rare situations where the string of motor vehicles is so long we have to stop provide a perfect excuse of a bit of rest. "I would have powered that ten-mile climb no problem, but had to stop for traffic." <G>
gcottay is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 09:55 AM
  #354  
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

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 3 Times in 3 Posts
once again, i am going to insist the spirit of the law regarding bicyclists rights to ride ON the road, and not be required to 'pull off the roadway' for faster traffic has been consistently upheld throughout the history of traffic law and cycling.

to insist, that a strict reading of a SMV-I-POR law would require bicyclists, in any circumstance, to pull off the road to benefit faster traffic is incorrect and an abridgment of our commonly held rights to the roadway.

I don't care how well dan arnold plays connect the statute, there's no mention of this as a cyclists' duties in ANY TREATMENT of bicyclists rights in states that have these statutes. not from Alan Watchel, not Bob Mionske, not CADOT, not WADOT, no agency subscribes to this operating requirement applying to bicyclists.

I find this omission of a seemingly important and core operating requirment telling. if no official agency or bicycling law scholar is explicitly telling bicyclists our duties include pulling off the highway for motor vehicle traffic, where in the heck are vehicular cyclists marginalizing bicyclists rights and telling bicyclists we have a duty to pull of the highway for motor vehicle traffic under SMV-I-POR laws?

This distinctly second-class spin on bicyclists rights, masquerading as a 'vehicular parity' issue, is appalling coming from the 'bicycle drivers' contingent.

if states were to adopt the model traffic ordinances of the UVC in interests of uniformity of statute, there would be no such requirement.

Last edited by Bekologist; 12-16-09 at 09:58 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 10:12 AM
  #355  
danarnold
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by gcottay View Post
And the rare situations where the string of motor vehicles is so long we have to stop provide a perfect excuse of a bit of rest. "I would have powered that ten-mile climb no problem, but had to stop for traffic." <G>
Good point. That's what I've been thinking, but didn't want to admit it.

BTW, there's some continual buzzing or something on this thread. Can't quite make it out. Guess it's kind of subliminal. Something along the lines of 'I don't care what the law actually says.' Anyway, thank dog I don't have to actually read it.
danarnold is offline  
Old 12-16-09, 08:20 PM
  #356  
jputnam
Senior Member
 
jputnam's Avatar
 
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: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
any states' variation of the SMV-I-POR law, if it applied to bicyclists, which it does not, [sic] has a much more onerous restriction on bicyclists
You've yet to cite any evidence of this heavy burden in any of the states (Washington, California, etc.) whose slowpoke laws currently do apply to cyclists.

As noted when the Seattle Times discussed this law with WSDOT and BAW, it doesn't require you to ride into a ditch or jump into the bushes, it codifies common courtesy, pull over when it's safe to do so if you are delaying many of your fellow citizens.

Last edited by jputnam; 12-16-09 at 08:32 PM.
jputnam is offline  
Old 12-17-09, 12:03 AM
  #357  
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

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 3 Times in 3 Posts
joshua, the spirit of the law, to the best of my research, guarantees bicyclists the right to the road without being required to pull off the road for the benefit of faster traffic.

your half baked 'not quote' from a seattle times article, that was unattributed btw!

i've citied an abundance of sources that do NOT even discuss this operating limitation upon bicyclists.

do you think Bob Mionske, noted bicycling lawyer and on a short list, if not the most credible source on the nuances of american traffic law as it pertains to cyclists, would have neglected to discuss this seemingly fundamental operating requirement for bicyclists?

please, try to come up with a reason why Bob Mionske failed to even treat this in his book.

please try to come up with an explanation why both California and Washington state fail to address this in their official educational materials or websites of what seems to be a fundamental operating requirement on bicyclists.

they both amply address bicyclists duties- ride as right as is practicable or is safe. no hint, no slightest wisp of an allusion to bicyclists being required to leave a road once cars back up behind.

not a whisp of it.

if this indeed is a requirement in these states, surely they would have clearly addressed this fundamental operating requirement in a discussion of the rights of bicyclists in describing our statutory duties on roadways!

but no, both Washington and California failed to address this purported requirement of bicyclists in any educational materials from those states.

you think it's implied the laws apply, that you read an unattributed quote in a newspaper once; i suggest you've missed a fundamental point of american traffic law - that these laws are NOT intended to apply to bicyclists.

there is only a simplistic 'connect the statute' analysis that totally ignores the spirit of the law, the intent of the laws addressing bicyclists rights in a handful of states that require slow moving vehicles to even leave the roadway for the benefit of faster traffic.

insisting these laws apply to bicyclists is an incorrect interpretation of the intent of american and specific states' traffic laws.

Last edited by Bekologist; 12-17-09 at 02:08 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 12-17-09, 08:16 AM
  #358  
sggoodri
Senior Member
 
sggoodri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 3,073

Bikes: 1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Drivers operating vehicles with heavy trailers, RVs, moped drivers, trucks, construction vehicles, and many other motor vehicle operators are sometimes subject to turn-out laws, yet rarely are these turn-out laws discussed in driver manuals. The lack of discussion in the driver manuals or other safety publications targeting these drivers does not imply their exemption from the relevant laws. Rather, it means that compliance with turn-out laws is not a priority concern to those developing these publications. Either the level of compliance is high without additional education and enforcement efforts (i.e. these drivers find compliance easy and obvious where the law is applicable) or the consequences of non-compliance are not a major concern (a little inconvenience to others). Or, more likely, both factors are at work.

So, it is likely that in most cases where the SMV turn-out laws would legally apply to cyclists, compliance would be at least as easy and obvious as for other drivers. This is certainly the case in NC, where the law only applies where special signs are erected to designate special lanes. Therefore, the law is not a significant threat to cyclists' right to the roadway. Non-compliance by cyclists is unlikely to cause such a degree of public harm to inspire targeted enforcement. Lastly, cyclists will not face the five-vehicles unsafe passing condition as often as drivers of wider vehicles because there are fewer conditions where drivers cannot pass narrow bicyclists safely. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the issue is not a high priority to cycling education and safety advocates, and that is the reason it does not appear in cycling safety, advocacy, and education publications.

If police were to start ticketing cyclists inappropriately for failure to turn out, then the issue might show up on the radar of cycling advocacy, education and safety authors. However, that doesn't appear to be happening - police are instead ticketing (inappropriately) for violation of FRAP and impeding traffic laws. Until police do ticket cyclists for failure to turn out, there isn't much point in getting worked up about it.

Last edited by sggoodri; 12-17-09 at 08:21 AM.
sggoodri is offline  
Old 12-17-09, 08:21 AM
  #359  
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

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 3 Times in 3 Posts
......


but it's odd, Steve-

in EVERY treatment of the legal issue of 'can bicyclists impede traffic?' the consensus, from Alan Watchel, Bob Mionske and across a broad search of in print and online references to THAT question,

a studied appraisal of the question 'can bicyclists impede traffic?' the answer is, resoundingly , NO, bicycles ARE traffic and thereby determine the 'normal' speed of traffic for traffic while upon a roadway,

or, alternately, only if going much slower than a bicycle would be reasonably expected to travel..

there's no conditional being overlooked that 'bicyclists cannot impede, but they can impede if traffic gets kind of bad.'

That's disingenuous logic on the part of the 'pull off the road' bicycling club members.


it's reasonable to conclude it's not a 'non issue' but rather that the issue is clear to legal scholars, just not in the way the 'pull off the roaders' want to think!

Last edited by Bekologist; 12-17-09 at 08:37 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 12-17-09, 08:29 AM
  #360  
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

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 3 Times in 3 Posts
Regarding bicyclist rights to the roads in america, the weight of the history of common law frames the interpretation of statutory law, not some half baked, unattributed not-quote from a newspaper article that could just as well have been retracted in corrections the next day.

the model traffic ordinances of the UVC do not contain any 'SMV-POR' laws that would apply to bicycles.

bicyclists do not impede traffic, we are traffic.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 12-17-09, 09:04 AM
  #361  
sggoodri
Senior Member
 
sggoodri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 3,073

Bikes: 1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
......


but it's odd, Steve-

in EVERY treatment of the legal issue of 'can bicyclists impede traffic?' the consensus, from Alan Watchel, Bob Mionske and across a broad search of in print and online references to THAT question,

a studied appraisal of the question 'can bicyclists impede traffic?' the answer is, resoundingly , NO, bicycles ARE traffic and thereby determine the 'normal' speed of traffic for traffic while upon a roadway,

or, alternately, only if going much slower than a bicycle would be reasonably expected to travel..

there's no conditional being overlooked that 'bicyclists cannot impede, but they can impede if traffic gets kind of bad.'

That's disingenuous logic on the part of the 'pull off the road' bicycling club members.


it's reasonable to conclude it's not a 'non issue' but rather that the issue is clear to legal scholars, just not in the way the 'pull off the roaders' want to think!
Again, some cycling advocates generate confusion when they equate "impeding traffic" with guilt of violating the spirit and letter of the impeding traffic law, of which cyclists cannot be found in violation. This hampers their ability to write clearly about the turn-out law. So, let me repeat my explanation, but this time, I will start backwards and see if that helps.

The turn-out law applies where a slow driver on a 2-lane road is traveling slowly enough to be impeding traffic and five or more vehicles have backed up. The driver is obligated to turn out at the next marked/signed turnout location or similar facility. Why should this law exist at all - isn't impeding traffic unlawful in the first place? The answer, of course, is that impeding traffic is indeed lawful for certain types of vehicles incapable of traveling faster. Drivers of these types of vehicles are exempt from being found in violation%

Last edited by sggoodri; 12-17-09 at 09:08 AM.
sggoodri is offline  
Old 12-17-09, 09:26 AM
  #362  
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

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 3 Times in 3 Posts
steve, the turn out law predicates the vehicle is first impeding traffic, which a bicycle does not do while operating upon public roadways unless operating at a reduced speed even for a bicycle.

why should the law exist at all? to safely regulate slow moving, large, cumbersome motor vehicles so as to not unduly affect the level of service of some roadways.

the spirit of the turn out law applies when a large, slow moving motor vehicle is impeding traffic.

bicyclists do not impede traffic.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 12-17-09, 09:46 AM
  #363  
danarnold
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
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
Bek, this argument was over long ago. You are like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. You are guarding a tiny bridge, your arms an legs have been cut off, but still you challenge.

The argument has been nonsensical from the beginning. 'Bicyclists do not impede traffic, we are traffic,' makes as much sense as 'traffic does not impede traffic,' or 'cars do not impede traffic, they are traffic.' I'm wondering if you even know what 'impede' means.

The problem with your amateur legal analysis is that you can't distinguish cases. You can't apply a case from one State, to another with different laws, and you can't compare a case settled on one issue with another set of facts with different issues.

There are several non lawyers here who get it, who can analyze the law, and who have explained it to you. I have yet to hear anyone who agrees with your extreme and clearly wrong analysis. The 'jury' is unanimous against you.
danarnold is offline  
Old 12-17-09, 09:49 AM
  #364  
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

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 3 Times in 3 Posts
this argument has been won long ago?

well, i guess you're right there buddy -

bicyclists do not impede traffic, we are traffic.

dan arnold, do a little research that involves looking beyond your incorrect, marginalizing ideas about bicyclists rights-

in EVERY treatment of the legal issue of 'can bicyclists impede traffic?' the consensus, from Alan Watchel, Bob Mionske and across a broad search of in print and online references to THAT question,

a studied appraisal of the question 'can bicyclists impede traffic?' the answer is, resoundingly , NO, bicycles ARE traffic and thereby determine the 'normal' speed of traffic for traffic while upon a roadway,

or, alternately, only if going much slower than a bicycle would be reasonably expected to travel.

yes, dan arnold, the argument has been won long ago. you are right.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 12-17-09, 10:08 AM
  #365  
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

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 3 Times in 3 Posts
don't blame me for practical interpretations of the spirit and the letter of law regarding bicyclists rights to the road in america!
Bekologist is offline  
Old 12-17-09, 10:13 AM
  #366  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 12,505
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2875 Post(s)
Liked 540 Times in 378 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
don't blame me for practical interpretations of the spirit and the letter of law regarding bicyclists rights to the road in america!
You are responsible for your incorrect "interpretations".

Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
..a studied appraisal of the question 'can bicyclists impede traffic?' the answer is, resoundingly , NO, bicycles ARE traffic and thereby determine the 'normal' speed of traffic for traffic while upon a roadway,
This statement is contradicted by the text of the FRAP law.

RCW 46.61.770

Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.

</B>(1) 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. A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway or highway other than a limited-access highway, which roadway or highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near to the left side of the left through lane as is safe. A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway may use the shoulder of the roadway or any specially designated bicycle lane if such exists.

(2) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.
Note that the FRAP is only a requirement if there is other traffic (ie, it's not required if the road is there are no other vehicles around).

=======================

Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
anyway, there's no requirement of any variety of slow moving vehicle impeding shall pull off two lane highway laws in the UVC. and states that do have them, should clarify, like Michigan does, that they apply only to motor vehicles.
If they law does not say "motor vehicle", the law applies to all vehicles! You are now providing correct points against your argument.

Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
once again, i am going to insist the spirit of the law regarding bicyclists rights to ride ON the road, and not be required to 'pull off the roadway' for faster traffic has been consistently upheld throughout the history of traffic law and cycling.
All vehicles have the right to ride ON the road (you keep forgetting that).

Last edited by njkayaker; 12-17-09 at 10:59 AM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 12-17-09, 10:17 AM
  #367  
sggoodri
Senior Member
 
sggoodri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 3,073

Bikes: 1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
My earlier post got corrupted somehow, so I will re-post.

Again, some cycling advocates generate confusion when they equate "impeding traffic" with guilt of violating the spirit and letter of the impeding traffic law, of which cyclists cannot be found in violation. This hampers their ability to write clearly about the turn-out law. So, let me repeat my explanation, but this time, I will start backwards and see if that helps.

The turn-out law applies where a slow driver on a 2-lane road is traveling slowly enough to be impeding traffic and five or more vehicles have backed up. The driver is obligated to turn out at the next marked/signed turnout location or similar facility. Why should this law exist at all - isn't impeding traffic unlawful in the first place? The answer, of course, is that impeding traffic is indeed lawful for certain types of vehicles incapable of traveling faster. Drivers of these types of vehicles are exempt from being found in violation of the impeding traffic law but are required to comply with the turn-out law when they are impeding traffic. Exemption from the impeding traffic law does not imply exemption from the turn-out law; if it did, all SMVs would be exempt from the turn-out law and it would be meaningless. Likewise, applicability of the turn-out law does not imply simultaneous violation of the impeding traffic law; if it did, the turn-out law would be meaningless because drivers would not be allowed to operate at such speeds.

It's funny that you accuse bicycle club members of promoting a requirement for cyclists to leave the highway, as you put it. Cycling club group ride members are one of the least likely classes of cyclists to be willing to leave the highway to let traffic pass. Riding alone, a cyclist like myself might be willing to leave the highway under limited conditions to allow other traffic to pass, but not when part of a large group. Bicycle clubs will certainly advocate in favor of strictly limiting the conditions under which cyclists should be expected to leave the main traveled way under the turn out law, for instance where there is a signed turnout facility, or where there is a wide paved shoulder that is already in reasonably suitable condition for cycling, such that the inconvenience to cyclists is negligible. In both cases, this is not leaving the highway, but may involve leaving the normal traveled way.
sggoodri is offline  
Old 12-17-09, 10:34 AM
  #368  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 12,505
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2875 Post(s)
Liked 540 Times in 378 Posts
Originally Posted by sggoodri View Post
Again, some cycling advocates generate confusion when they equate "impeding traffic" with guilt of violating the spirit and letter of the impeding traffic law, of which cyclists cannot be found in violation. This hampers their ability to write clearly about the turn-out law. So, let me repeat my explanation, but this time, I will start backwards and see if that helps.
It's even worse than that. The intent of the (apparently, endlessly confusing) word "impede" is "holding up other traffic". The "impeding traffic" laws (whether or not they include the word "impede") make "holding up other traffic" illegal only if there is an available remedy. If there is no available remedy, then one can't be charged for "holding up other traffic".

The remedies include: 1) speeding up, 2) ridig FRAP (for bicycles) only, 3) pulling over. For bicycle, option 1 is often (typically) not available. While the FRAP laws don't use the word "impede", the clear and obvious intent is keep bicycles from "holding up other traffic" unnecessarily.

Originally Posted by sggoodri View Post
The turn-out law applies where a slow driver on a 2-lane road is traveling slowly enough to be impeding traffic and five or more vehicles have backed up. The driver is obligated to turn out at the next marked/signed turnout location or similar facility. Why should this law exist at all - isn't impeding traffic unlawful in the first place? The answer, of course, is that impeding traffic is indeed lawful for certain types of vehicles incapable of traveling faster. Drivers of these types of vehicles are exempt from being found in violation of the impeding traffic law but are required to comply with the turn-out law when they are impeding traffic. Exemption from the impeding traffic law does not imply exemption from the turn-out law; if it did, all SMVs would be exempt from the turn-out law and it would be meaningless. Likewise, applicability of the turn-out law does not imply simultaneous violation of the impeding traffic law; if it did, the turn-out law would be meaningless because drivers would not be allowed to operate at such speeds.
Yes, this is correct (if long winded)! The purpose of the "turn out" law is to describe an alternative remedy for vehicles (like bicycles) which cannot "speed up"!

The purpose of the FRAP law is to provide an alternative non-exclusive remedy restricted to bicycles. "Non-exclusive" means bicyclists are not required to only use FRAP if the bicyclist can "speed up" (yet another remedy) to match the speed of other traffic.

Last edited by njkayaker; 12-17-09 at 10:47 AM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 12-17-09, 10:54 AM
  #369  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 12,505
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2875 Post(s)
Liked 540 Times in 378 Posts
Originally Posted by danarnold View Post
There is no problem with this law other than the one Bek made up. His problem is two fold.

1st, he incorrectly says the law does not apply to bicycles.
2d, he says the law would require cyclists to 'pull off the roadway,' meaning (to Bek), get off the pavement and stop riding, or hug the edge.

The law says nothing of the kind. SMV's are simply required to use a turnout or other portion of the roadway or shoulder where it is safe to do so, in order to allow the backed up traffic to pass. There is no requirement to hit the ditch, or to stop or to dismount.

In practice this law is only going to apply where the road engineers have determined there is a frequent problem. That's when they erect signs and provide turnouts. At the speed most cyclist go uphill, the average turnout and shoulder provide ample room and time for five trailing motor vehicles to make the pass before the cyclist moves farther left without ever stopping.
Yes.

An important principle is that the law doesn't require you to do anything unsafe or "unreasonable".

Originally Posted by jputnam View Post
You've yet to cite any evidence of this heavy burden in any of the states (Washington, California, etc.) whose slowpoke laws currently do apply to cyclists.

As noted when the Seattle Times discussed this law with WSDOT and BAW, it doesn't require you to ride into a ditch or jump into the bushes, it codifies common courtesy, pull over when it's safe to do so if you are delaying many of your fellow citizens.
Yes. And a basic "reasonableness test" for one's interpretation of the law is that if one thinks the interpretation requires doing something unsafe, then that interpretation is wrong.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 12-17-09, 10:57 AM
  #370  
sggoodri
Senior Member
 
sggoodri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 3,073

Bikes: 1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I would say that the only remedy to impeding traffic provided in the impeding traffic law is speeding up. One cannot be guilty of violating the impeding traffic law for failure to operate FRAP, for example. FRAP is its own law; violations of it should be cited accordingly. Similarly, one cannot be found guilty of impeding traffic for not turning out; the proper charge is for failure to turn out.

FRAP compliance often prevents a driver from causing other traffic to slow and back up, but not always, and that is not its only purpose. Operating FRAP discourages overtaking on the right, which increases safety. It also improves sight lines for drivers preparing, but not yet able to, overtake on the left. This also improves safety. Operating FRAP to provide these benefits but without preventing traffic from being impeded is still worthwhile (so long as it does not encourage overtaking where there is inadequate space or conditions are unsafe).
sggoodri is offline  
Old 12-17-09, 11:08 AM
  #371  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 12,505
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2875 Post(s)
Liked 540 Times in 378 Posts
Originally Posted by sggoodri View Post
I would say that the only remedy to impeding traffic provided in the impeding traffic law is speeding up. One cannot be guilty of violating the impeding traffic law for failure to operate FRAP, for example. FRAP is its own law; violations of it should be cited accordingly. Similarly, one cannot be found guilty of impeding traffic for not turning out; the proper charge is for failure to turn out.
Yes, this is correct. The WA "turn out" law, though, doesn't use the word "impede" and a bicyclist could be in violation of it (since the text does not exclude bicycles).

Note that a bicyclists could be inviolaton of the "impeding traffic" law if he was riding at 2 MPH in the middle of the lane and be inviolation of FRAP at the same time.

Originally Posted by sggoodri View Post
FRAP compliance often prevents a driver from causing other traffic to slow and back up, but not always, and that is not its only purpose. Operating FRAP discourages overtaking on the right, which increases safety. It also improves sight lines for drivers preparing, but not yet able to, overtake on the left. This also improves safety. Operating FRAP to provide these benefits but without preventing traffic from being impeded is still worthwhile.
This is correct too.

===============

The "impeding traffic" law has two necessary and required conditions:

1) Going slower than other traffic (holding up other traffic).
2) There being a remedy available.

If both these conditions are not met, then the "impeding traffic" law is being violated (other laws might be being violated).

===============

I think the word "impede" confuses people because it has a normal meaning ("holding up other traffic") and a "legal" one ("going too slow and holding up traffic"). That's why I prefer the phrase "holding up other traffic".

Technically, the point of the "impeding traffic" law is that the failure is avoiding a reasonable remedy to avoid impeding traffic. Put another way, you could be "impeding" traffic even when there's no remedy but it would not be illegal.

Because the FRAP laws explicitly mention "rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic", it's obvious that the intent (not the only intent) is to alleviate the problem of "holding up other traffic". The obvious intent of the "turn out" laws (which don't use the word "impede") is to alleviate the problem of "holding up other traffic".

Last edited by njkayaker; 12-17-09 at 11:28 AM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 12-17-09, 11:16 AM
  #372  
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

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 3 Times in 3 Posts
you guys are halfway there!

FRAP statutes clarify safe operating duties of bicyclists in the presence of overtaking traffic without requiring bicyclists leave the travelled way; SMV-I-POR laws predicate a 'turning out off the travelled way'.

bicyclists, absent mandatory shoulder or sidepath laws, are not required to ride off the travelled way.

bicyclists in Washington state for instance, are expressly allowed lane use versus shoulder riding in the same statute that clarifies bicyclists duties in the presence of following traffic.

there is a conflict to suggest a general statute would override the express specificity of traffic code guaranteeing bicyclists rights to the travel lane.

Suggesting bicyclists be subject to laws requiring a bicyclist leave the road for faster traffic is against the spirit of common law surrounding bicyclists rights in america.

Last edited by Bekologist; 12-17-09 at 11:19 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 12-17-09, 11:24 AM
  #373  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 12,505
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2875 Post(s)
Liked 540 Times in 378 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
you guys are halfway there!

FRAP statutes clarify safe operating duties of bicyclists in the presence of overtaking traffic without requiring bicyclists leave the travelled way; SMV-I-POR laws predicate a 'turning out off the travelled way'.

bicyclists, absent mandatory shoulder or sidepath laws, are not required to ride off the travelled way.

bicyclists in Washington state for instance, are expressly allowed lane use versus shoulder riding in the same statute that clarifies bicyclists duties in the presence of following traffic.

there is a conflict to suggest a general statute would override the express specificity of traffic code guaranteeing bicyclists rights to the travel lane.
And you are still going nowhere.

The WA SMV-PO law applies to all vehicles.

RCW 46.61.427

Slow-moving vehicle to pull off roadway.

</B>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 that the WA doesn't require any slow-moving vehicle to pull off on to the shoulder unless there is signage that allows the shoulder to be used that way. (This implies that there has to be a designated area for the "pulling off" to occur in. That is, one isn't required to pull off "anywhere".)

RCW 46.61.428

Slow-moving vehicle driving on shoulders, when.

</B>(1) The state department of transportation and local authorities are authorized to determine those portions of any two-lane highways under their respective jurisdictions on which drivers of slow-moving vehicles may safely drive onto improved shoulders for the purpose of allowing overtaking vehicles to pass and may by appropriate signs indicate the beginning and end of such zones.

(2) Where signs are in place to define a driving-on-shoulder zone as set forth in subsection (1) of this section, the driver of a slow-moving vehicle may drive onto and along the shoulder within the zone but only for the purpose of allowing overtaking vehicles to pass and then shall return to the roadway.

(3) Signs erected to define a driving-on-shoulder zone take precedence over pavement markings for the purpose of allowing the movements described in subsection (2) of this section.
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
Suggesting bicyclists be subject to laws requiring a bicyclist leave the road for faster traffic is against the spirit of common law surrounding bicyclists rights in america.
This is wishful thinking in contradiction to the facts. The laws are pretty clear about what they say.

Last edited by njkayaker; 12-17-09 at 11:43 AM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 12-17-09, 11:38 AM
  #374  
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

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 3 Times in 3 Posts
the facts? of what, a sophmoric 'connect a statute' analysis that continually ignores the intent of the law?

I would resoundingly disagree with your assessment and have abundantly presented a compelling argument to the contrary.

you can't just answer my argument about the common law rights of bicyclists and interpretations of statutory law about bicyclists rights with 'you're wrong'.

The overwhelming interpretation of traffic law as it applies to bicyclists is so in favor of my contentions. The works of bicycling legal scholars Bob Mionske, Alan Watchel and the preponderance of the treatment of bicyclists rights in this country and specific states are not in favor of these marginalizing notions that bicyclists in some states are statutorily required to leave the roadway for faster traffic!

Last edited by Bekologist; 12-17-09 at 12:03 PM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 12-17-09, 01:32 PM
  #375  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 12,505
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2875 Post(s)
Liked 540 Times in 378 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
the facts? of what, a sophmoric 'connect a statute' analysis that continually ignores the intent of the law?
I would resoundingly disagree with your assessment and have abundantly presented a compelling argument to the contrary.
you can't just answer my argument about the common law rights of bicyclists and interpretations of statutory law about bicyclists rights with 'you're wrong'.
No one is using that technique except you! Your argument Your argument is the law is whatever you say it is even when the text of the law clearly contradicts you.

==========

Here is the elephant in the room. It is crapping on your head. Why do you ignore it?

The WA SMV-PO law applies to all vehicles.

RCW 46.61.427
Slow-moving vehicle to pull off roadway.
</B>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.
It appears (I guess) that you think that because you consider a law to be "unjust", that the text of the law can be interpreted to mean what ever you want it to mean.

Note that I'm not arguing that the law is "just" or even "reasonable" (I have made no comment about that). Whatever my opinion (or your opinion, for that matter) is about the law is doesn't change the law.

Last edited by njkayaker; 12-17-09 at 01:44 PM.
njkayaker is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.