Bekologist

none of what you just cited requires bicyclists to operate out of the travelled way if you subscribe to your 'connect a statute' only what the text says and not the spirit of common law that statutory law attempts to define.

I like that! "the driver of a slow-moving vehicle may drive onto and along the shoulder"

'may' operate. So its optional for slow moving vehicles. I won't, and I'm still legal.

a requirement for slow moving bicycles to leave the roadway for overtaking traffic? only the members of the 'pull off the roadway' club suffer this inferiority.

this of course, is if you still need to obstinately refuse to believe the intent of traffic law as it applies to bicyclists.

danarnold

I'm not sure who or what you are referring to since you quote no one. But you are correct that a cyclist may use the shoulder to comply with the SMV law, or any other area that is wide and safe enough to allow the other vehicles to pass.

The law, however, is not permissive. It does not use the word 'may,' but 'shall.'

"... shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turn-out exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed."

We are not discussing what the law should be, but what the current law says.

In terms of what the law SHOULD be, do you think it would serve cyclists' interests to have a law that said a cyclist can travel as slowly as he wants, and slow a line of cars of 100 or more long even when he has a safe shoulder or turnout he can use to continue riding without dismounting?

Bekologist

no, the statute after 46 61 227 that nijkayaker quoted, 428, the directive there clarifies they type of facility that meets the SMV-I-POR statute, and in 428 it clearly states...

""the driver of a slow-moving vehicle may drive onto and along the shoulder"

may use the designated facility. hilarious

hey, legal expert man. explain the difference between common and statutory law.

what should a bicylclist do?

well, danarnold, a cyclist should have the leeway to operate on public roads without ever being persuaded of a false statutory circumscription to leave the roadway for faster traffic by jokers like yourself intent on marginalizing bicyclists rights in their mistaken, connect the statutue ignorance of common law rights of bicyclists to the travelled way in america.

Bekologist

... or are you going to continue your groundless marginalization of bicyclists rights?

Rollfast

If your road is so narrow the goat is bleating you need a new goat path.

Rollfast

Why do I always get the feeling that discussions like this are usually somebody arguing with themself?

It's a discussion about traffic law, not the civil rights movement.

Wogster

I think the whole idea of impeding traffic comes down to the common idea that speed limits are suggested minimums rather then legal maximums. Technically, according to speed laws it's legal to operate a vehicle at 20MPH in a 30MPH zone. However that means, really, your impeding traffic that wants to go 40MPH in that same 30MPH zone, and that is the problem with SMV laws, you can technically violate the SMV law while at the same time violating the speed limit law.

The assumption with FRAP is that bicycles are limited to very low speeds at all times, even though a good rider in excellent condition with a tall geared road bike can easily exceed the speed limit when travelling either downhill or with a group of riders in peloton formation.

This also creates another legal issue, how far right is practicable? Technically this would be within the traffic portion of the road, far enough to the left as to avoid hazards. Here in Toronto, the recommendation is 1m (~ 1 yard) left of the right fog line, curb or edge of the pavement. A car is roughly 2m wide, a lane is typically 3.75m wide, so if a cyclist is 1m left of the fog line and a car provides 1m to the left of the cyclist, which is the recommendation most places, then the lane is too narrow for a car and bicycle to share. On a 2 lane road with one lane in each direction, this may mean that it's difficult or even impossible for drivers to pass a cyclist in heavy traffic or a road where passing using the opposing lane is not possible. I's therefore possible to have a large number of vehicles wanting to pass. Whether it's the law or not, common courtesy means you would then occasionally, when it's safe to do so, pull off and let that traffic clear, relieving a lot of stress on your own part of having other vehicles bearing down on you.

Bekologist

hey, I'm not against the courtesy to traffic, I'm against an incorrect assumption of a purported and specious requirement bicyclists leave the travelled way for the benefit of faster traffic.

Doohickie

No, the observation in my first post in this thread was, in fact, without judgment. The judgment crept in during the subsequent post when I was responding to comments made regarding the first post.

jputnam

Actually, cyclists can't violate the "impeding" law -- unlike the slow-moving-vehicle law, "impeding" in Washington is written specifically to apply only to motor vehicles.

jputnam

Not really -- the "far right as safe" law by its language applies only to cyclists traveling below the prevailing speed of traffic -- if a cyclist is moving at or above the prevailing speed of traffic, the far right as safe requirement does not apply.

Urban cyclists frequently move at least as fast as congested city traffic -- in downtown Seattle, I spend plenty of time in the left lane, moving faster than the traffic in the right lane. Entirely legal and appropriate.

mandovoodoo

I'll have to agree with this one - our FRAP law in TN includes the "normal speed" statement, and I certainly move the normal speed in many areas. Often I'm slowing for motor vehicles that are in the way.

"(a) (1) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway . . . ."

danarnold

This is something I miss here in the more rural part of the State. In downtown Seattle and much of Los Angeles, frequently the bicycle is the fastest way to get from place to place. Here, usually the only time I'm faster than traffic is on turns and roundabouts.

moleman76

That's pretty close. I did find some places (46.61.425 (2), for example) where potential impeders aren't explicitly called out to be "motor vehicles", and 46.61.100 (4), below:

RCW 46.04.590 says "Traffic" includes pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, vehicles, streetcars, and other conveyances either singly or together, while using any public highways for purposes of travel. And, note that 46.61.025 says that people riding animals, and people driving animal-drawn vehicles, have the rights and responsibilities of other vehicle drivers, unless the provision by their nature can have no application -- reads almost identical to the bicyclists' similar clause.

RCW 46.61.100 (4) reads: It is a traffic infraction to drive continuously in the left lane of a multilane roadway when it impedes the flow of other traffic.

In other words <attempts to inject some humor here> if the cowhand is trying to stampede his herd down the left lane, better pull your bicycle over into the right one, at least.

On this business of "don't have to pull over onto the shoulder unless there are signs there", recall (please) that bikes, pedestrians, and probably the cows and sheep are among the few sorts of "traffic" which are permitted to make forward progress on the shoulder ("may"). Motor vehicles are generally prohibited from driving on the shoulder, they've got to stay to the left of the fog line. Often, the shoulder isn't built to handle the weight of continuous use like the travel lanes are. The places where you see the "slow traffic may use shoulder during daylight houts" signs appear typically have (a) wide shoulders, as wide as a lane, and (b) stronger underlying construction. As a bicyclist, we can choose to use the shoulder - "may" - don't have to, but can if we want to.

The shoulder is, in one sense, a safe haven for cyclists when there is a lot of traffic, if it is indeed safe (free from doors, potholes and debris). We can make forward progress there, whereas motor vehicles aren't supposed to be there unless broken down, and we can do that while fulfilling the "give way to the right" text, without just pulling over to stop.

So: no shoulder, no safe place to turn off: let the traffic build up behind, 5 vehicles, 10 or 100 - you're legal. Shoulder gets wider - you are permitted to use it, and they can start passing you. What's the big deal?

RCW 46.61.110 (3) is interesting: "Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, overtaken traffic shall give way to the right in favor of an overtaking vehicle on audible signal and shall not increase speed until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle." So, when they honk at you ... don't speed up until they're completely past. This likely does apply to bikes, because paragraph (2) of this section discusses how a motorist can pass a bike or pedestrian.

cheers!

pacificaslim

I happen to think that the law in WA, and CA for that matter, probably requires bicycles to be courteous and move out of the way when they can safely do so.

I happen to think that even if it wasn't required by the law, it should be required by any decent standard of human behavior. The law is just the minimum standard to which we must comply: but we can, and should, treat each other better than the law requires.

I do not think either of those things "marginalizes" bicycles or is some sort of big infringement on god given rights. The same courtesy is expected of everyone, and therefore bicyclists are not being singled out.

danarnold

Yes 428 is permissive re: motorized vehicles using shoulders, which changes nothing for cyclists since we are already allowed to use the shoulder. 428 allows shoulder driving only where there are appropriate signs and for the purpose of allowing vehicles to pass.

RCW 46.61.428
Slow-moving vehicle driving on shoulders, when.

(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.

The common law developed in England and continued in this country. It's basically a version of 'we've always done it like this. It develops slowly and carefully, case by case as precedents build. A statute is any darn fool thing the legislature passes and takes priority over common law if they contradict, as long as the statute is constitutional.

This is a very rough overview. I'd suggest Wikipedia if you want more.

I'll give you a quick example from criminal law, since I confine my practice to felony defense. At common law a burglary was the breaking and entering of a dwelling house at night with the intent to commit a crime therein.

Washington's criminal statute overrides that and removes the necessity that it be at night, or that it be a residence. In Washington, a 2d degree burglary can be committed at any time of day and by unlawful entry of any building with the intent to commit a crime therein. And Washington even redefines 'building' to include a fenced area.

njkayaker

Yes, if the "impeding traffic" law specifies motor vehicles, very clearly, that law does not apply to bicycles. You can't be in violation of this law unless you are using a motor vehicle.

But that such a law does not apply to bicycles isn't because bicycles can't ever speed up or can't impede traffic. Put another way, it's possible that a bicyclist can impede traffic even though doing so isn't illegal.

Many people conflate the act/meaning of "impeding" with the specific law that uses the word "impeding". These two things are different things. (One could smoke dope regardless whether or not doing that is illegal.)

The thing that the SMV-PO law is trying to address is (a form/type of) "impeding" even though it doesn't use the word! FRAP laws, too, are also addressing "impeding" (ie, holding up faster traffic).

There is an idea of some vague reasonable minimum speed but that speed isn't the maximum speed (ie, it's highly unlikely that you'd get ticketed for going 1-2mph less than the maximum speed). The real idea behind impeding is based on the notion that you can't unreasonably (ie, without reason) hold other traffic up. That is, you have to consider other road users.

No, this is incorrect: you are not illegally impeding traffic if you are travelling at the speed limit. No law requires you to do something illegal. Nor can "speeding" be considered "normal speed".

njkayaker

This description is missing a piece. The "designating sign" law is there to preclude the misunderstanding that the SMV is required to use any shoulder. This law implies that a shoulder becomes a "sufficient area" (in the other law) only when the "designating signs" indicate that the shoulder can be used for that purpose.

The "sufficient area" phrase is ambigous but it would seem that the area would have to be legal to use to be "sufficient".

The "may" in this law means that the mere presense of the signs does not require a SMV to use the area (other laws might indicate what conditions are necessary for it to be required but this law doesn't).

Of course, the SMV can choose to pull over when there are fewer than 5 vehicles behind them. They must pull over if there is a "sufficient area" if there are 5 or more vehicles. The "may use the shoulder if designated" law implies that vehicles are not required to pull off just anywhere.

Bekologist

once again, all members of the 'pull off the roadway when it gets busy' cycling inferiority club are suffering from an incorrect, margnalizing notion that somehow, bicyclists are required to leave the roadway in California or Washington state.

I could care less how the 'connect a statute' analysis of a purported bicyclists restrictions to pull off the roadway seems to make sense,

NO STATE THAT HAS A SMV-I-POR law has any suggestion in drivers manuals or bicyclist operating manuals that bicyclists are required to pull off the road when traffic gets bad! not on mountain roads when traffic back up, not a mention of this SMV-POR law even applying!

an oversight on the states part detailing cyclists duties on the road? or marginalizing screed by the bike forums 'legal beagles'?

the state driver manuals and bicycling education materials go into great detail about other, seemingly less important nuances of traffic law regarding bicycling, but never, ever do the states supossedly requiring this of bicyclists make any overt mention of bicyclists pulling off the road.

There also is no mention of this requirement in any scholarly analysis of laws as they apply to bicyclists from either Bob Mionske or Alan Watchel. HOW IN THE WORLD did the much brighter legal stars than dan arnold - the guys that wrote the books and scholarly essays on cycling and the law - neglect this seemingly fundamental statutory duty of bicyclists?

an oversight here too?



the legal beagles of bike forums, as bright as they consider themselves, are only marginalizing bicyclists rights and not fairly representing our statutory duties in states with SMV-POR laws with their 'connect a statute' semantics.

any of the crew that is rebutting with a requirement to ride with a lantern, or whatever else they've dug up on cyclists statutory duties, please explain satisfactorily how states, state DOTs, state bicycling programs, bicycling advocacy programs, and cycling scholars all omit this statutory restriction on our rights.


please explain this amazing coincidence - How is it that ALL these separate organizations, states, DOTs, governing bodies, advocacy groups and legal scholars offer no credence to the pull off the road nonsense? How come, among this huge variety of authority there is absolutely not a whit of published support for your specious, marginalizing fakery?

but for some 'bicycledriving' jokers and a handful of bike forums posters, there's no support for these wild mischaracterizations about bicyclists requirements to pull off the roadway.

like I said, this must be one hell of an oversight!!

jputnam

So have you found any that specifically address railroad crossing gates applying to bicycles?

Could it be there's no need for bicycle-specific materials to address rules that apply to all vehicles?

Unless you come up with something more convincing than references to what happens not to appear in secondary sources, I'll continue to side with WSDOT and BAW that the law applies to all vehicles, including bikes.

danarnold

Give it a rest Bek. You are so wrong you give the appearance of someone with an obsessive compulsive disorder. NO one agrees with you. This law, Washington's version anyway, is very easy to understand, if you want to. You are confusing what you want the law to be with interpreting it. The latter takes objectivity, something you could book up on.

Bekologist

no, the entire rest of published and internet works about bicyclists rights does agree with me.

objectively, there is ample support for my point of view, and none for yours.

keep up your good work on the membership drive for the 'pull off the road' cycling club though!

Bekologist

BAW considers that statute as applying , specifically ,to motor vehicles if you'd care to take a look a their website. the Bicycle Alliance of Washington don't include it in their list of WA statutes that apply to bicyclists.

so you'd agree with BAW then. Your secondary, unattributed 'not a quote' from the seattle times?

so.... why do you think Bob Mionske would overlook this seemingly fundamentally important rule if it applied to bicyclists? he covers a lot about our right to the roadway and many other statutory restrictions on bicyclists seemingly much more minor than this.

how would a guy who wrote THE BOOK on bicyclists and the law overlook this seemingly fundamental statutory requirement?

Wogster

You know Bek repeating something in a thread 18 446 744 073 709 551 616 doesn't make it so. Laws that apply only to motor vehicles, will say motor vehicle within the statute. If the word motor (or motorized) is not in the statute, then it applies to all vehicles motorized or not. According to RCW 46.04.670 a vehicle includes a bicycle, it states:

RCW 46.04.670
Vehicle.


"Vehicle" includes every device capable of being moved upon a public highway and in, upon, or by which any persons or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, including bicycles. The term does not include power wheelchairs or devices other than bicycles moved by human or animal power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. Mopeds shall not be considered vehicles or motor vehicles for the purposes of chapter 46.70 RCW. Bicycles shall not be considered vehicles for the purposes of chapter 46.12, 46.16, or 46.70 RCW. Electric personal assistive mobility devices are not considered vehicles or motor vehicles for the purposes of chapter 46.12, 46.16, 46.29, 46.37, or 46.70 RCW.

RCW 46.61.427 states:

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.

Because 46.61.427 uses the term vehicle rather then motor vehicle, and it's not a chapter with a specific exemption for bicycles like 46.70, it means that 46.61.427 applies to bicycles, along with FRAP.

IANAL, but it looks clear enough to me, now if your riding in Washington state and you are charged under 46.61.427 then feel free to fight it in court..... Realize that every state has it's own laws, so what applies in Washington, may not in California, you would need to look up the appropriate statues and see what they say.

jputnam

Indeed, they include it in the same section of their site listing the law that defines bicycles as vehicles, plainly another statute that applies only to motor vehicles, right? (46.04.670)

Are you seriously prepared to argue that the law defining bicycles as vehicles does not apply to bicycles, simply because of where it appears on the BAW's summary of bicycle-related RCWs?

If you'll compare the listings on the BAW site with the layout of the RCW itself, the bicycle-specific regulations are listed first, those of broader application in the next section. But, like the law defining bicycles as vehicles, the laws in the second part of the BAW site may indeed apply to bicycles as well as motorists, except for those laws defined only for motor vehicles, or those that by their nature cannot apply to bicycles.

This second section of their site is also where they've chosen to list the definition of a highway, a definition that applies to bicycles as well as other vehicles. It's where they list 46.61.115(b), allowing cyclists to pass cars on the right if it's safe and there's space for bicycle traffic.

Are you prepared to argue those laws don't actually apply to cyclists because of where BAW chooses to list them in their summary of bicycle-related RCWs? And if so, how do you counter BAW's own language explaining that they do apply to cyclists?