danarnold

As I predicted Bek, you have started three separate threads dedicated to your incorrect view of the law. In Washington, the RCW's and SDOT, which has spoken specifically to this issue, clearly state the rules of the road apply to bicycles, including the SMV law about impeding 5 or more vehicles on a 2 lane highway, if and only if, there is a turnout that is safe to use.

You are exactly who Robert Hurst is talking about:

'On one side there is a group of earnest, innocent fledglings who honestly believe that any new semi-separated facility will be good for bicyclists and good for America. They hold a precious vision of Amsterdam-izing the country which is dangerous in its simplicity. On the other side is a cadre of pompous, personality-challenged streethogs who offer aggressively insecure and selfishly uncooperative riding ....'

The only difference is that you have managed to retain the worst qualities of both groups.

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

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

no state, no how."

This is the selfish, roadhogish behavior Hurst is talking about. And you consistently ignore the fact that the law only requires you to pull into a safe, turnout, not leave the highway or dismount or go into the brush.

danarnold

In the excellent Robert Hurst article Randya cites, Hurst also goes on to make a good argument for the Idaho Stop sign ordinance.

'What they seemed to be asking me is this: How can we gain Equality With Cars if we're granted superior freedoms to drivers? It does present a dilemma.

Each of these arguments against the Idaho Stop carried a familiar tone. Going back to the high-wheeler era, there has been a certain type of bicyclist -- lately a member of one of the groups above -- who assumes the mantle of victimhood and often expresses a desire for 'equality' on the streets. Victimhood is their default condition. This is strange because bicyclists already enjoy superior legal freedom of movement in addition to the widely accepted non-legal freedoms.'

With the exception of FRAP, we cyclists have many legal freedoms that cars do not. We can ride on sidewalks, the shoulder, a bike lane, a multi use path, but we do not have to use the shoulder or the bike lane. The Idaho law merely codifies reasonable and responsible cyclist behavior, and is arguably the law already in Washington State, under their 'by nature' provision.* I certainly don't feel 'victimized' or 'marginalized' by the SMV turnout law in Washington. It merely codifies courteous behavior and places no burden on the cyclist that is not also on motorized traffic.

*This is admittedly a stretch, has to my knowledge never been tested in Washington, and I only recommend arguing it if you must.

genec

Of course by acknowledging and "endorsing" the Idaho stop law, you do realize that you are in conflict with many of your vehicular cycling colleagues.

njkayaker

It's a big stretch. There is nothing "in the nature" of bicycles that prevents them from stopping. Stopping a bicycle is a normal, regular event for all cyclists!

The "Idaho stop" law makes something legal that, without the law, was illegal. That is, the "Idaho stop" law is strong support for the notion that "rolling stops" are illegal (without the Idaho stop law). Bicycles routinely get ticketed for rolling through stops.

danarnold

Let the buffalo chips fall where they may. Contrary what some have claimed, I've never thought of myself in one particular camp. I like sharrows and prefer them to bike lanes. As I've said several times, bike lanes need to be very well thought out, due to unintended consequences. The main thing I'm concerned about in the message I think they give, which is generally contrary to law, that they are mandatory.

genec

Right, but there is something in the nature of cycling that makes one want to preserve inertia... as it directly correlates to the effort of the cyclist.

While drivers also may want to preserve inertia, the level of effort to stop and start is not a direct effort on the part of the motorist... being a mere flick of the foot.

Due to the direct effort of restarting a bicycle from a stop, cyclists indeed are "by nature" more prone to want to roll though a stop.

danarnold

That's a good argument... in Idaho. I don't know if Idaho has a clause similar to WA's '...which by their nature can have no application'clause.

The key to making the argument would be getting around the 'no application' part. Certainly bikes by their nature can stop. But, by their nature, they do not do the kind of quick stop and restart that a car can do. I feel reasonably confident that if the testimony is that I came close enough to stopping that I was prepared to put my foot down, was able to safely assess the roadway, and came as close to an absolute stop as an average cyclist should be expected, I might have a shot at this. Of course, I don't have to pay for the legal work involved, so I don't recommend it for others, unless they are prepared to pay and pay for appeals.

njkayaker

There is something in the nature of driving that makes one want to conserve momentum (for some drivers). Many drivers want to be able to roll through stops.

Same nature, then, but different degree. And if this effort was really an issue, then people should not be riding even.

It's the nature of the bicycle, not the driver! (As far as I can tell, the intent of the "by nature" provision is to avoid absurdities like the "can't coast" laws being applied to bicycles. It isn't intended to releave cyclists from the "inconvenience" of having to control their vehicles.)

The driver is assumed to be in control. The driver has to be able to stop at will. If they are required to stop, they are required to stop whether or not they want to or whether or not it's convenient for them. This may be the single most-important element of vehicle control!

Cyclists routinely and regularly prove that they can stop. Thus, there is nothing against their "nature" that keeps them from stopping. (Keep in mind that I'm not necessarily against an "Idaho stop" law. It's just without such a law, it's clearly a requirement for cyclists to stop).

Anyway, cars have much, much more momentum than a bicycle+rider has. Thus, a car is more prone to "want" to roll through a stop. Anyway, cars or bicycles don't "want" to do anything. It's the driver that "wants" and is required to be in control of his "wants" (and do what is legally required, not what they "want" to do!).

njkayaker

Fortunately, there is a great deal of commonality in the traffic laws (if there's an exception, so be it. But it's hard to have a general discusssion if you have to list all the exceptions!). Oregon tried to enact the "Idaho stop" law (this implies more generality).

Thus, the argument ends!

In practice, bicycles routinely/overwhelmingly negotiate intersections safely by stopping.

And there's a wide variation in stopping/starting across vehicle types (eg, tractor-trailers, which are even slower to start that bicycles!). Also, all vehicle drivers are required to take the capabilities of their vehicles into account when driving.

If you manage to be in court for this, feel free to use any tactic to get yourself off! Of course, even if you win, you have lost something (time, at least) in going to court.

There are many examples of bicyclists getting tickets for failure to stop. It's typical in some places (eg, Nyack, NY).

Since there is nothing that keeps cyclists from stopping (and it being inconvenient to stop is a lame justification), the advice that is conservative, the advice that clearly can't be wrong, the advice that keeps people from getting tickets in the first place, is that a "rolling stop" is illegal.

Wogster

You do realise that road allowances are always wider then the road itself, typically the minimum road allowance is a chain wide, the chain being an old imperial length measurement of roughly 66'. This is to allow the municipality, county or state space to do maintenance, space for utilities, side walks, plantings, curbs, etc without needing express permission of the property owner, or needing to deal with property owner fences, plantings, buildings, etc to do road maintenance.

Bekologist

you need to lighten up, francis. three different issues. this one, there are bicyclists willingly marginalizing our rights to misconstrue bicyclists have a requirement to leave the highway for following traffic. Even if it were true, bicyclists should not be required to pull off the roadway for following traffic.

simple, basic issue of bicycling advocacy. goes back to the 1880's.


the RCW's and SDOT have not clarified this issue to my satisfaction. there is no specific speaking to the issue, there's an unsubstantiated quote from a newspaper article.

the RCWs declare my duties in the presence of overtaking traffic to operate FRAP.


In addition, bicyclists operate at a 'normal speed' for bicyclists, so a road with a bicycle on it has traffic, a bicycle, travelling at the normal speed upon it while the bicycle rides there. this is echoed in the selz v trotwood decision from a persuasive authority:

bicyclists operate at normal speed for bicyclists and cannot be considered to be impeding a line of traffic just because the bicyclist is not traveling at the speed limit!

for me to be required to leave the road for following traffic i would have to be travelling slower than a bicycle would normally be expected to travel.

danarnold, i suspect I'll see you out there someday, standing on the side of two lane roads while i bicycle by, waving at you!

i suspect the second class opinions about bicyclists is pretty close to home for dan.

genec

But again, as I pointed out before... the effort of the cyclist is directly involved in the stop and especially the restart of the bicycle. The effort of the automobile driver is minimal for a similar stop and restart. Nary a sweat, nary a strain on the part of the motorist. Heck only one foot moving. Hardly comparable to the effort of the cyclists in a stop and restart. A cyclist on the other hand might even have to climb out of the saddle to get his vehicle moving again... quite unlike the motorist. Hence the cyclist is more enticed to preserve their momentum.

And regarding the momentum of the car... there is even a good chance the car has power assisted brakes... oh lordy, how little effort for the poor strained motorist to mash on that pedal... sigh.

danarnold

That one really did make me laugh out loud.

njkayaker

So what? The law doesn't say anything about "effort" being any sort of exception. The effort with respect to what the law requires is irrelevant.

And the effort is still pretty minimal (even children manage to do it). There is nothing "in the nature" of bicycles keeping them from being able to stop. They are designed to stop and (like every vehicle) required to be able to stop.

You are merely arguing that it is inconvenient for the cyclist to stop. It's inconvenient (maybe, to a lesser degree) for everybody. The law doesn't care that it's inconvenient.

The notion that cyclists don't have to stop at stop signs and lights is way more nutty than Bek has said regarding "pulling over"!

prathmann

Agreed.
The greater inconvenience and lower level of risk to others are good arguments to make if trying to gain passage of an Idaho-style stop law. But I don't see how it would be at all convincing to a police officer or to a judge since they are looking at the current law which makes no allowance for varying levels of convenience.

genec

Oh I didn't realize we were discussing the law!

I was discussing the physical differences and why the Idaho law makes sense.

You on the other hand seem to be focusing on what the laws in most states now is, regardless of how much sense it may or may not be for cyclists.

OK got it.

njkayaker

Yup, that's it.

Keep in mind that this thread (and the other two) where about what the law (in WA) said regarding "pulling over".

One of Bek's points was that the "pull over" law didn't explicitly mention "bicycles" (it mentioned "vehicles", which includes bicycles). I brought up "stopping" because I don't think that the WA laws pertaining to stopping mention "bicycles" either. By Bek's logic, that means that stopping is optional for bicycles (which, it would seem, to clearly be false).

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

I do see that there is a rational behind the "Idaho Stop" law but that's a different discussion.

genec

Got it... and that was the discussion I thought was taking place. Fair enough.

danarnold

This paragraph fails two ways:

1. You've used a well know oxymoron, 'Bek's logic.'

2. You've used 'Bek' and 'logic' in the same sentence.

Please refer to rule 34b in your guide.

genec

Waaaait a minute... I didn't get a guide.

joejack951

Besides the fact that it makes you sad, give one good reason why cyclists should be the only slow moving vehicle exempt from having to pull off the roadway onto a safe turnout when delaying 5 or more vehicles?

This issue has nothing to do with advocacy. You, and you alone, seem to feel that the law in discussion is an unfair law. However, you can give no good reason for that opinion.

Right, key word overtaking. If that traffic cannot overtake and begins to build up behind you because of it, and you pass by a safe turnout location, you are breaking the law regardless of your position on the roadway (the single traffic lane in your direction.

The law in discussion does not say that. Only you are saying that. The law says you must use a safe turnout location when other criteria are met. Simply because traffic is piling up behind a cyclist does not mean the cyclist can be cited for impeding traffic. If following traffic cannot pass and is accumulating, as soon as they pass by a useable turnout and ignore it, then they are violating the SMV turnout law.

This law has nothing to do with being a cyclist. It has to do with travelling slower than other traffic on a roadway where passing is not possible and turnouts exist.

danarnold

Bekologist

like i said, the decrepitude of vehicular cycling advocacy these days. even has the bicyclists convinced we have to GET OFF THE ROAD!

Joejack, there are many reasons bicyclists should not be required to get off the road for motor vehicles. bicyclists move slower than motor vehicles, should bicyclists just be banned off the roads?

the spirit of traffic law in the US does not circumscribe bicyclists to pull off the road for faster traffic. that is not the spirit of the law, AND IS NOT THE INTERPRETATION OF 'SMVPOR' LAWS from ANY credible source about bicyclists rights in states and the USA!!!!!

From Bob Mionske to Alan Watchel to state DOTs and bicycling advocacy groups, NO ONE is substantiating the wild claims of these decrepit vehicular cyclists!

joejack951

Please, try to form a relevant argument. Listen to what is being said in response to your posts. Argue against that. Stop making crap up.

danarnold

Glenn Becky is the Sarah Palin of cycling. He doesn't get that we know he's making it up. It doesn't matter how many times or how many people tell him this has nothing to do with getting off the road, he's going to keep saying it. It's OK tho'. Beck is good for practice, for when a real argument comes up.