Bah Humbug

This thread was devoid of any substance when it started. Your "point" depends on assuming that only laws specifically written for bicycles apply to bicycles and that various third-party sources trump the actual text of the law. Both of those pretexts are absurd and would get you laughed out of court, and you dream up a vast conspiracy to explain why everyone is explaining how you're wrong.

Now, if you want to say you disagree with the law, that's a separate point. Still dumber than a brain-damaged hamster, but at least not nearly as bad as this.

danarnold

In addition to the motor vehicle code, the relevant RCW here can be found at 10.77

Bekologist

You guys want to pull off the road for faster traffic, be my guest.

I stand by my defense of necessity that bicyclists are not constrained to pull off the road to benefit faster traffic at any time in Washington State.

please, if you decide you are subject to 'get off the road' please, be my guest. I 'll have none of it. I refuse the interpretations of the 'pull off the roadway' marginalists that bicyclists are required to pull off the road for faster traffic.

sorry, snubbing my nose while you sit there on the side of the road, dutifully following your interpretation to pull off the roadway for faster traffic.

It is my position that Washington state makes a specific statutory exception to bicyclists being required to pull off the road because of the bike specific operating requirement for bicyclists. I opine the specific bicycle statute to operate only as far right as is safe in the presence of overtaking traffic will take precedence in my interpretation of the law that i will not pull off the road for faster traffic.

until I get a ticket for it, I will assume my correct, common interpretation of the law. it seems a wholly inapplicable statute anyway, haven't heard of any cyclists gettign ticketed for it in WA state-

I feel that Common and widely held interpretation of bicyclists position on the roadway in Washington state is to operate only as far right as is safe in the presence of overtaking traffic.

for those of you convinced you need to 'pull off the road' on a two laner, when there's five cars behind and passing is unsafe, i can only chuckle at your marginalized inferiority laden 'pull off the road!' beliefs.

This rabid insistence on statutory equality is an affront to american bicyclists widely held rights to the travelled way in this country. bicyclists have a specific operation requirement in washington state that overrides general vehicle statue requiring slow moving vehicles pull off the road for faster traffic.

hasn't really ever come up, common dissemination of cyclists rights in Washington state by official state agencies make no mention of bicyclists being required to pull off the road.

no compelling court cases upholding this restriction.

absent a more concrete reference to bicyclists purported statutory restriction to 'pull off the road' for faster traffic, i will continue to insist the interpretations of the 'pull off the road' club avidly rebutting me here is incorrect -

bicyclists are not conscripted to pull off the road for faster traffic in washington state.

jputnam

If so, all you have to do is show that law. Why don't you just post the law that says bicycles are not vehicles, or that they're exempt from the slow-moving vehicle law?

moleman76

Maybe after over 500 posts on this topic, it could rest for a while.

Some of the readers may have been convinced that, in given circumstances, bicycles might fall under the classification of "slow moving vehicles".

We do know that Bek does a lot of riding on 2-lane roads which are narrow enough that many motor vehicle operators will not pass. Perhaps, some day, motor vehicle #6 will be a representative of the WSP, and then Bek can report the results to us. Not wishing him a run-in with the Law, but I'd have to agree, when was the last time you heard of, or saw, any sort of vehicle pulled over in what might have been a slow-moving situation? (Does the WSP, etc. have a database of the most common citations? That would be worth looking into, to see if this statute is ever invoked.)

In the meantime, I'll be keeping my eyes peeled for slow moving farm equipment, etc.

Bekologist

RCW 46 61 750 ascribes bicyclists duties to operate like vehicles EXCEPT a few specific statutes. one of those referred to is 46 61 770.

46 61 770 mandates bicyclists ride FRAS in the presence of faster traffic instead under other, general vehicle rules. 4661 770 refers bicyclists operate FRAS in the presence of other traffic and NOT the more general rule for all slow moving traffic.

Why don't you just post something OTHER than an unsubstantiated NON-QUOTE from a newspaper article, joshua, that supports your contentions.

I've never seen any materials from Washington state officially ascribe bicyclists the duty to pull off the road for faster traffic.

if its so, it should be easy for joshua to find some reference to this applicibility to bicyclists.

joshua, if it's so, it should be simple for you to find support for this legal conscription on bicyclists- all you'd have to do is post some explicit reference to the applicability of SMV-I-POR for bicyclists in washington state.

anything official and explicit.


if so, why don't you just post a reference to the explicit applicibility of bicyclists required to pull off the road, and not your connect-a-statute sophmoric marginalizing of bicyclists rights?

mandovoodoo

BEK: “46 61 755 references specifically we follow rcw 46 61 770, not follow 46 61 427. statutory construction - specifics override general statutes. 46 61 755 specifies the exemptions for how we travel; roughly, it means:

"Bikes just FRAP, not vehicles under SMV."

I believe BEK is reasonable in believing himself correct, but that he isn't.

RCW 46.61.755
Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles.
(1) Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and
shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter,
except as to special regulations in RCW 46.61.750 through 46.61.780 and except as to
those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application.

This piece of code distinguishes bicycles from vehicles. And carves out .750 to .780 plus “no application.” A bicycle is a bicycle, not a vehicle, but remains subject to the rights and duties of a vehicle. BEK's argument works if we stop there. Under .770, bicycles are governed by FRAP and SMV are governed by .427. That's an entirely credible argument.

Except bicycles are vehicles under WA code: “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.

By making bicycles specifically vehicles, rather than just non-vehicles that take on some duties, I believe WA intends the SMV law to extend to bicycles. This lies in contrast with my state, TN.

I'm not attempting to reopen the argument. Limiting oneself to selected portions of the code often leads to erroneous conclusions where ambiguity appears. I always check the definitions - all the colorably applicable definitions - to make sure there's not some loose end. As there is here, with bicycles specifically being vehicles rather than simply taking on some of the duties and rights.

Don't flame me - they're not my laws or my state. I just like to read statutes.

Bekologist

46 61 770 is a bicycle specific statute governing operation on the roadway in the presence of faster traffic.



don't worry, joshua, and dan - i know how to ride my bike on 2 lane roads. I certainly share roads riding on shoulders and turnouts under traffic & road conditions you two think this law requires bicyclists to.

I will fight any interpretation by other bicyclists that bicyclists ever be required to pull off the road for faster traffic against our widely granted rights to the travelled way.

Brown bag statute or civil disobedience or a gray area in the law, i will not buy into bicyclists having to "pull off the road, buddy!" for faster traffic.

Washington state makes no explicit reference to this requirement of bicyclists in any official treatment of bicyclists rights in this state.

If this was the case, that the 'pull off the road' laws widely applied, there would be something, somewhere, anywhere, in official state drivers manuals or bicyclist education materials, explicitly ascribing that duty to cyclists, linking the SMV-POR duty to bikes.

find that. Not sophomoric connect-a-statue internet marginalizations of bicyclists rights.

danarnold

I don't know where this, 'bicycles are not vehicles' comes from when the RCW specifically says the opposite, that bicycles are vehicles, thus the SMV law applies to cyclists. But the SMV law does not dictate cyclists pull off the road, just that they use turnouts and wide places when impeding 5 or more. It's very simple.

Bek is simply using his own misinterpretation as a chance to scream about cyclists' rights. After 532 posts, you'd think it would be clear, but Bek perseverates. This is a psychological problem, not a legal one.

"The inability of ceasing a particular action can range in type. In any of the cases, the individual enters or continues a train of thought that is narrowly focused; in a sense, having tunnel vision. This focus could be on anything from a simple idea to a complex problem. Even if the original problem solving strategy is not the working, the person may not be able to change planes of thinking, suggesting a disability in abstract reasoning. This condition is measurable with the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test.

Neurologists have found that individuals who display perseveration often suffer from developmental abnormalities or injury to the brain's frontal lobe. The extent of perseveration ranges from organic illness to brain injury and illicit drug use. Some of these neurological conditions include but are not limited to dementia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, Tourette's syndrome, and catatonia. While the word perseveration has been integrated into mainstream usage, the word itself is distinguished from similar ones such as obsession or compulsion. A person with perseveration may actually enjoy the repetitive activities he or she is engaging in. The term obsession or compulsion is used when such activities become both undesirable actions and unstoppable."

Bekologist

why do you keep coming back to it?

bicyclists are vehicles except we follow the requirement to specifically ride FRAS in the presence of overtaking traffic. our rights to the travelled way do not circumscribe bicyclists to 'pull off the road' for faster traffic under a general SMV law because, despite bicycles being vehicles, are specifically exempted from general duties and legally granted the right to operate FRAS in the presence of faster traffic.

"bicyclists operation on roadway' 46 61 770.

Bah Humbug

Why don't you let us know why you keep coming back to it?

mandovoodoo

Bek, incorrect.

FRAP: "(1) Every person operating a bicycle [NOTE: a vehicle} 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 . . . . A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway may use the shoulder of the roadway or any specially designated bicycle lane if such exists."

Does not supersede the SMV law.

We can read this simplified as "FRAP when traveling less than normal speed, once 5 vehicles are backed up, use turnouts to let them by" and I read the FRAP law as allowing cyclists to use the shoulder to allow cars by as required by the FRAP law.

Really, this isn't a difficult group of statutes to figure out. We're not dealing with Clean Water Act violations or subtle 4th amendment issues. Just straightforward connect the obvious dots.

That the secondary materials don't single this out doesn't make it not so. It's a minor point. Certainly, if you don't like it, talk to the legislature. They're the ones who put it together!!!

Roughstuff

Maybe we have to start singin' the country and western song (about a tractor rider....)....

If you don't like the way I'm drivin,
get back on the interstate!
Otherwise sit back and be nice,
and quit honkin' at me that way!


roughstuff