randya

how many threads on this topic do we need?

prathmann

Because no one is agreeing with his interpretation of the laws in those other threads.

OF course that's likely to be the case in this one as well. And the CA Attorney General's letter expressing his *opinion* (i.e. not legally binding) back in 1975 does not support Bek's point of view. That opinion was in regard to the old wording of 21202 which provided no exceptions to the FRAP rule for cyclists and addressed questions about conflicts with other parts of the vehicle code that required vehicle operators to move left before making left turns or passing other traffic. Nothing in the AG's letter indicates that the rule requiring SMV operators to use turnouts when there are 5 or more vehicles behind them would not also apply to cyclists.




Here's the applicable part of that letter:
"Therefore, as a result of the enactment of section 21202, any person operating a bicycle on a two-way roadway must operate his bicycle as close as practicable to the right hand curb. The bicycle operator apparently has no discretion to operate his bicycle in any other place, and this would seem to take precedence over those statutes cited above which permit drivers to move to the left in certain specified situations. Indeed, this interpretation wou1d be in accordance with the familiar rule of statutory construction that a special statute which deals expressly with a particular subject takes precedence over a general statute covering the same subject. Simpson v. Cranston, 56 Cal.2d 63, 69 (1961); see also, McGriff v. County of Los Angeles, 33 Cal.App.3d 394, 349 (1973), where the court stated:In addition, it is certainly possible to argue that section 21202 precludes making left turns from the left turn pocket, or passing from the left, or moving to the left to avoid hazards, because the statute does not specifically provide for the above exceptions. Moreover, this omission is in sharp contrast to those statutes which indicate when motor vehicles shall be driven in the right hand lane or as close to the curb as is practicable (see §§ 21654, 21655, 21750, supra; also see §21658) because those statutes expressly provide that the vehicles may move to the left in certain situations. Therefore, we see that it can clearly be argued that section 21202 requires bicycles to be ridden as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway of a two-way highway and precludes any exception or deviation from this rule.

However, it is our opinion that such a narrow view of section 21202 would run counter to what we believe to be a fundamental rule of statutory construction, and that is that statutes must be given a reasonable and common sense construction in accordance with the apparent purpose and intention of the lawmakers (County of Alameda v. Kuchel 32 Cal.2d 193, 199 (1948)) and one that is practical and that will lead to a wise policy rather than to absurdity, Unemp. etc. Com. v. St. Francis etc. Assn., 58 Cal.App.2d 271, 281 (1943); Kennard v. Rosenberg, 127 Cal.App.2d 340, 345 (1954).

Moreover, “a statute should be construed with reference to the entire statutory system of which it forms a part in such a way that harmony may be achieved among the parts.” Merrill v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 71 Cal.2d 907, 918 (1969); Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal., 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 (1959); Stafford v. L.A. etc. Retirement Board, 42 Cal.2d 795, 799 (1954).

It is our opinion that the Legislature did not intend, when they enacted section 21202, that bicyclists be required to make left hand turns from the right hand curb, across all the lanes of traffic on the highway and in front of the traffic moving in the same direction as the bicyclist. Surely the Legislature did not intend bicyclists to be precluded from passing on the left, or to move to the left to avoid hazards in the roadway. Such a construction would be both unreasonable and absurd. Moreover, it is our opinion that section 21202 should be construed in harmony with sections 21750 requiring a driver of a vehicle to pass on the left and 22100 requiring left turns to be made from the left turn lane. Such a construction of section 21202 would be both reasonable and practical. It would mean that bicyclists must, as a general rule, ride as near the right hand curb or edge of the roadway as practicable, but can certainly move to the left when passing slower moving vehicles that are directly impeding their line of travel, or when preparing to make a left hand turn, or when attempting to avoid hazards in the roadway. As to your final question, however, it is our opinion that if two bicyclists are riding abreast of one another, both of whom are on the roadway, then the one on the left would be in violation of section 21202. Therefore, when bicyclists are operating on the roadway, they should ride in single file so as to avoid violation of the law.

While the above opinion correctly represents our views, section 21202 is clearly ambiguous and subject to a number of interpretations. Therefore, we would concur with your own counsel who has recommended that section 21202 be amended to expressly provide that bicyclists are permitted to move to the left when passing a slower moving vehicle, when preparing for a left hand turn, or when seeking to avoid hazards in the roadway."

CB HI

So where in FRAP does it say SMV laws are excluded for cyclist? Bek claims that since there is a FRAP, then SMV laws are excluded for cyclist. That makes as much sense as claiming since there is a FRAP, then stop sign, red light and yeilding to pedestrians laws are excluded for cyclist. The SMV law is covered in the general set of rules applying to all vehicles as well, everytime any of those vehicles is moving under the normal speed of traffic (such as a VW bus driving uphill in the Rockies).

Bekologist

neither smv laws nor frap bike laws trump other core statutes in traffic laws. there is no conflict. between obeying traffic signals while operating either a bicycle or other general slow moving vehicle.

prathmann

Nor is there any conflict between SMV and FRAP rules. It's perfectly feasible to simultaneously obey both. Conversely, one can also ride in such a way as to violate one or both of these rules. But if so, then one is subject to being cited for it.

Your argument that a bicycle going 15 mph isn't subject to the SMV rules since that's a normal speed for a bicycle makes no sense since a similar argument could be made for other typical SMVs. The normal speed for a tractor, other field machinery, or VW microbus pulling a trailer up a hill is also quite slow, but this doesn't make any of them immune from a citation under the SMV rules. Similarly, the speed of a cyclist being 'normal' doesn't relieve him of the responsibility to follow the SMV rules. Note that I'm writing based on the California statutes - if there's some exemption for cyclists in other states then that would alter the situation there.

gcottay

By inspection, n+1

Bekologist

i'm sorry, prathman, but bicyclists in Washington state, for example, are NOT obligated under general SMV laws; there are specific rules governing bicyclists behavior on how to operate in the presence of overtaking traffic. This follows the accepted rules of statutory construction.

in addition to compliance with statutory construction that more specific statutes override more general statutes, the requirement bicyclists NOT be governed under SMV-I-POR laws are they would de facto prohibit bicyclists travel on many two lane roads.

this prohibition against practical bicycle travel along public rights of way would be so serious an abridgement of our rights that no state judiciary shall circumscribe bicyclists to be bound to pull off the roadway to favor following traffic.

Bekologist

no, there is a conflict between being required to FRAP it and SMV-I-POR it!

and the argument has been made and found to be sound. From Selz V Trotwood continually all the way back thru Swift V the City of Topeka, and supported thru basic understanding of common law, that thats' EXACTLY the argument for bicyclists rights to travel without being required to "get off the road, buddy!"

prathmann

Not between the two California rules on FRAP and SMV. Selz v. Trotwood was a case tried under the city of Trotwood municipal ordinance which stated:
"“No person shall stop or operate a vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when stopping or reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to comply with law.”
Which is clearly very different from the California rule on SMV. The Trotwood ordinance gave no other option to a vehicle operator other than to speed up so as not to impede following traffic. Therefore it effectively banned many types of vehicle entirely from any road where they couldn't maintain the speed of most other vehicles. Since the city didn't have the authority to ban those vehicle types, the court ruled properly that the ordinance could not be applied to them (incl. but not limited to bicyclists).

In contrast, the California SMV rule provides the vehicle operator with a choice: speed up if possible, OR use the provided turnout options to let other traffic go by before continuing. That doesn't ban either cyclists or slow farm equipment from using the road, just specifies that they should exercise some courtesy to following traffic - at least once it amounts to 5 or more vehicles and if there are safe and appropriate places for a momentary turnout. Very different from the situation in Trotwood.

I'm using the CVC rules since 1) those are the ones that affect the majority of my cycling and 2) those are the ones that were being discussed in the google group that got you so incensed. Clearly state laws vary and in some states there may be no SMV rule that applies to cyclists. But I have seen no indication that such is the case in California.

Bekologist

yeah, so it will be easy for you to find official documentation from a bonifide California DOT website, california bike advocacy organization, or some shred of evidence BESIDES that ridiculously marginalizing google group, or your own interpretation of traffic code, that bicyclists are obligated to pull off the highway for following traffic.




hint -you're not going to find anything.

because, as i have explained, bicyclists shall not be circumscribed to 'pull off the roadway' under ANY correct interpretation of traffic codes, in any state, for following traffic.

this would be tantamount to codifying a de facto prohibition of bicyclists from many two lane roads.

Not going to happen. only in the dreams of a deliberately marginalizing few.

prathmann

Requiring cyclists and other SMV operators to comply with the provisions of CVC 21654 is not at all synonymous with a prohibition of such vehicles. If it were, the agricultural lobby in the state would never have allowed it to become part of the vehicle code. And as a cyclist in the state I don't remember ever operating in violation of that section despite many thousands of miles on narrow two-lane roads.

From a practical standpoint it's a non-issue since it's so rare that you get that many vehicles behind you before there's a reasonable opportunity to pass. And on those rare occasions it's very little trouble to look for the next turnout option and let them by.

Bekologist

no, prathmann,

the practical side of 21656 is that it doesn't apply to bicyclists in California the way you and the hosebags at that google groups thinks it does!!!!

like I said, it should be easy for you to find official documentation from a bonifide California DOT website, california bike advocacy organization, or some shred of evidence BESIDES that ridiculously marginalizing google group, or your own interpretation of traffic code, that bicyclists are obligated to pull off the highway for following traffic.

Have any luck with someone in official land interpreting california traffic law the marginalizing way you think it should be?? I didn't think so.

"Bikes just FRAP, not vehicles as SMV"

(if its any consolation to you, prathman, because you think there should still be laws requiring bikes to leave the road for other traffics convenience, you are free to leave the road to benefit traffic behind you at the SOONEST opportunity - heck ,you can stand on the side of two lane highways and watch the motorists just pass you by all day while waiting for a break in traffic, for all i care-

just don't expect your fellow bicyclists to play that disctriminatory, marginalizing, give up our road rights game.)

Wogster

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.

gcottay

The more abusive the language, the less credible the argument. The more more frequent the derogatory code word, the less credible the argument.

Bekologist

'marginalize' and 'discriminatory' are not abusive; 'hosebag' admittedly is. That's my take on bicycling 'advocates' wantonly misinterpreting bike laws....

the evidence is at the wiki on california bicycle law, at any number of bicycling advocacy websites, at the california bike safe website- no mention of "pull off the road buddy!"

SMV-I-POR laws do not apply to bicyclists in CA, bicyclists are never circumscribed to pull off the highway to favor following traffic. .

njkayaker

It's should be obvious that the "impeding traffic" laws isn't referring to this silly example. The "60 mph" is the limit to your maximum speed (it's legal to travel at less than the maximum speed). Driving at 58 mph doesn't make you a "slow moving vehicle".

The point of the "impeding traffic" laws are intended to keep people who are travelling much, much slower than a reasonable speed from holding other traffic up.

Any competetent driver actually driving a "slow moving vehicle", should be paying attention to other traffic behind them. While the law makes the "5 car behind" the requirement, nothing in the law says the driver can't pull over when it's convenient when there are fewer cars. It's a basic driving skill to act in a manner that avoids violating the law.

njkayaker

There isn't any inherent conflict. And FRAP typically (almost always) keeps the SMV-PO (slow moving vehicle - pull off) from being necessary. Put another way, the SMV-PO law would only ever be an issue if FRAP wasn't possible.

From my experience, most cyclists will exit the road way into a reasonable shoulder when there is car traffic behind them. That is, even if the SMV-PO law doesn't apply to them, they comply with it anyway!

That case was talking what bicycles were or not required to do when accellerating out of a stop. The complaint was that the bicyclists didn't move to the right (which was their "only" option since they couldn't speed up) to allow faster cars to pass.

Since there is a wide variation in the ability to accellerate out of a stop (think big, slow trucks compared to Porsches) it seemed to me "discriminatory" to cyclists to require them (and not other slow vehicles) to move over to the right.

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

This is a requirement pretty-much everywhere.

This specific California law doesn't intend that (that's very clear by the text). No law, anywhere, intends that. No law requires you to put yourself in peril.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_law_in_California

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21656.htm

Nothing in this law appears to exclude any particular type of vehicle.

njkayaker

Still wrong.

If you are driving a limited-speed piece of farm equipment you are driving it at its "normal speed" too. "Normal", in the context of the SMV laws, is applied to the overall traffic (not to the properties of individual vehicles).

It's bloody obvious that there's no reason to require slow-moving vehicles to pull off if they can speed up! That is, the laws exist because certain vehicles can't speed up.

This is also wrong and that it is wrong is proven by FRAP laws that require FRAP only when bicycles are travelling at less than the speed of other traffic!

The traffic laws apply to all vehicles unless there is an explicit exception made or when the law can't apply to the vehicle "by its nature". For example, laws requiring vehicles to stop at stop signs don't ever say "and bicycles too"!

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_law_in_California

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21656.htm

Nothing in this law appears to exclude any particular type of vehicle.

crazyed27

Drama!!!!

danarnold

Bek also shouts at people who do not understand English, mistaking volume for clarity.

'Capiche?'

danarnold

"RCW 46.61.755 Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles.

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."

Looks like wiggle room for interpretation.

BTW, Trotwood, I say for the 2d time, is not a FRAP case and does not necessarily have application outside of Ohio. As the court pointed out,

“In either case, holding the operator to have violated the slow speed statute would be tantamount to excluding operators of these vehicles from the public roadways, something that each legislative authority, respectively, has not clearly expressed an intention to do.”

You might as well append a 'yet' to the end of that sentence. If cyclists, in Ohio for example, abuse the privilege of using the roadway by unnecessarily slowing traffic, by not voluntarily and courteously pulling over far enough so they do not create long lines of slowed vehicles, the legislature will remove the privilege.

njkayaker

And, do the drivers of slow trucks "want" the law?

We aim to please!

Nothing in the "nature" of a bicycle precludes them from "pulling off".

Bekologist

looks a lot like a case of kettle meeting pot!

you might want to heed your own advice.

If any of you can come up with an official state website or bicycling advocacy site in either wa or ca that indicates bicyclists ARE subject to SMV-I-POR laws......



otherwise, accept reality for what it is, stop unwittingly or deliberately stop marginalizing bicyclists rights to the road, and recognize that,

bicyclists have the stated, explicit right to operate on public roads without being circumscribed to pull off the highway for following traffic.

Bekologist

'normal flow of traffic' includes a bicycle travelling normally.

if you can find some official interpretation of the laws to support your incrredibly marginalizing views on bicyclists in your state, continue your perpetuation of bad advice.

otherwise ,accept, gracefully, that you are not required to pull off two lane highways every time five vehicles back up behind you, nijyaker.

accept you have rights to travel the highways of your great state unimpeded by any mistaken legal notions you're required to 'get off the road, buddy!' when a few cars back up behind you on a two laner.

really.

read the wiki article again if you are STILL unclear to your duties in California.

njkayaker

Where is the link to "official state website or bicycling advocacy site (of any credibility)" that says they aren't?

Where is the link to this "stated, explicit" right?


https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21656.htm

The following doesn't "explicitly" exclude bicycles.