Bekologist

right. And duties of slowly driven vehicles is to FRAP. there is no unsafe implied in practicability.


cyclists are usually the only class of vehicles with express rights to lanes too narrow to share as slowly driven vehicles. avoid advocacy that seeks to take away cyclists rights.

John Forester

This is false for the SMV (CVC21654) but it is true for the cyclist FRAP (CVC21202). The CFRAP law is predicated on the assumption that bicycles are slow-moving and their drivers do not deserve the full rights of drivers of vehicles. The way that even governmentally-issued documents that are not legal opinions, such as motorists' handbooks, express this view is clear evidence that this is the principle of the CFRAP laws. In short, under CFRAP, the cyclist is presumed guilty by virtue of being a cyclist. This is clearly not true of the California version of the SMV law, which allows slow movers the full use of the right-hand lane, regardless of its width, but which applies the assumption of guilt only when the officer testifies that the accused was moving slowly and was in a lane farther to the left. That is, only when the cyclist has already moved to a lane further left does the presumption of guilt apply, but that same presumption of guilt applies to any cyclist not FRAP just by being a cyclist.

John Forester

This is false. Under the SMV laws, on any significant road, meaning a road with vehicle-lane stripes, the SMV laws require the slow-moving vehicle to use the right-hand lane for traffic. Only on roads without any vehicle-lane stripes, meaning low-volume residential roads and very-low-traffic rural roads, does the FRAP requirement apply. That's what the SMV laws say.

John Forester

Beck, you are making the claim about the "standard and long standing position" that the phrase "the right-hand lane available for traffic" does not apply to two-lane roads, but only to multiple-lane roads. Since you claim that in legal terms this is the "standard and long-standing position", then you must be able to provide legal support from appellate opinions for your claim. If you cannot provide such legal support, your opinion is no more than hot air.

prathmann

First note that North Carolina's official position on traffic laws is expressed directly in the vehicle code that has been adopted by that state. Any other materials which may or may not conflict with the adopted vehicle code are not legally binding. The appellate courts of North Carolina would be the ones to have the final say on any interpretation of confusing language within the vehicle code, so if you claim that such is the case with the SMV section you have the responsibility to cite the relevant court decisions which support that view. I have asked you to provide such in the past but have received no response. My view is that the language of that section is in very plain English and needs no special interpretation other than to read it as exactly what it says.

When a SMV driver is required to be in the right-hand lane or as far to the right on the roadway as practicable then the driver normally has a choice of how to comply. Only in the event where there is no right-hand lane, i.e. a road without any lane marking, would the driver be required to stay as far right as practicable.

The language construction is the same as if I asked a friend to "bring me a Coke or a Pepsi from the soda fountain." If he finds both available there then it's his choice which one he brings me and he would find it odd and offensive if he brings back a Coke and I then complain and say that he should have known I really wanted a Pepsi. But if the fountain has no Coke then his choice disappears and he should get the Pepsi.

Bekologist

so, john forester and pratthmann both think the statutory duty of slowly moving vehicles to pull as far to the right as practicable ONLY applies to unlaned roads, and slowly driven vehicles have no duty to facilitate passing on two lane roads, and have no duty to operate FRAP.

-A Hilarious and wholly unsupportable interpretation of SMV-FRAP laws.

claims 'right hand lane available for traffic' somehow denotes traffic conditions along two lane, single lane each direction roadways, and that along a two lane highway, slowly driven vehicles have no duty to operate FRAP to facilitate passing?

a hilarous, fringe, and wholly unsupportable interpretation of roadway standards and definitions, entirely at odds with the rest of the traffic engineering world.

Cyclists, avoid advocacy that is tied to such far out, unsupportable interpretations of traffic laws and claims of protecting cyclists while trying to remove our rights.

Brontide

I think what's even funner than this thread is if you search for "SMV FRAP" all you have is Beck and Forrester making the same arguments on multiple mediums.

FRAP is *practicable*; to me that means riding an aggressive position in the right lane that requires overtaking traffic to leave the travel lane to pass me which is the only safe way when the lane is too narrow to split. Honestly I have never come upon a roadway in upstate NY that was wide enough to split. Occasionally there are defensible bike lanes or clean breakdown lanes, but those are not the norm and can come and go within 100 yards.

Basically my goal is not to inconvenience anyone and if the lane is shareable then I share, but if it's not ( and most of the time it's not ) then I make sure my road position is aggressive and defensible from overtaking traffic who are all too happy to squeeze by me if I give them the opportunity. I can find nothing in the law that denies me that riding position until there is a line of cars behind me who are unable to pass in a reasonable amount of time.

Heck I got buzzed last week when I pulled FRA-possible to give an emergency vehicle right of way when approaching from behind. Driver of an unrelated car buzzed me at 40 mph rather than yielding right of way.

sggoodri

I agree with your observations; I doubt any of us who defend our road rights want to inconvenience anyone if it's not really necessary. And since our goal is to be as polite as is safe for us, perhaps "aggressive" is not the best word to describe lane control. I suggest that the word "assertive" is more appropriate. We can't harm anyone by doing so; we're just taking our place and turn in line. "Aggressive" is a word favored by our detractors to marginalize us in the eyes of both motorists and traffic-averse cyclists.

Bekologist

If you want to be 'polite' in your road use, sgoodri, you should accept the laws of your state and the responsibilities set out for bicyclists by the NCDOT and its' DMV, and get into step with the duties your state requires of slowly driven, narrow vehicles like bicycles to operate as far to the right as practicable on all roads.

North Carolina bicyclists are required, under the SMv-FRAP laws, to operate FRAP on all roads without explicit exceptions for avoiding unsafe lane widths, right turns, or other hazards not expressed in the North Carolina SMV-FRAP laws. of course, like the police manual steve is misdesigning and the drivers manual states that yes, bicyclists do have the right to take the lane when needed for their safety.

Suggestions bikes can, at times, take an entire lane for their safety is not a mandate from NCDOT, the raleigh police or the NC-DOT's DMV somehow implying bicyclists are in any way absolved of the clear statutory duty in North Carolina under SMV-FRAP laws to operate as far to the right as practicable.


whats' aggressive and even delusional is any advocacy that predicates laws written like the standard SMV-FRAP law only applies on unlaned roads and slowly driven, narrow vehicles have no duty to facilitate passing on two lane roads, where facilitating safe passing is at its most crucial.

Ludicrous positions on traffic laws must be avoided.

Astroturf advocacy that supports removing cyclists rights, like the fight in California by some 'advocates' to repeal BIKES-FRAP and subject bicyclists to the far more onerous SMV-FRAP laws, (relying on the fallacy slowly driven vehicles do not have to share two lane roads), is no friend of bicycling.

gcottay

Like many experienced riders I share the the lane when doing so is safe, take the lane when sharing is unsafe, and pull aside as safely possible in those (for me, rare) conditions when taking the lane creates a long parade. If a faulty state law were to criminalize this practice and efforts to modify it failed I would not change my cycling practice in the slightest.

Brontide

Bekologist,

You say a lot, but, honestly, I still can't determine what your position on this is. I understand you think you have a firmer grasp of the motor vehicle code that the NCDOT and you seem to say conflicted things in regards to safe cycling.

Are you saying that I need to take up an unsafe road position where there are any vehicles behind wishing to overtake, really? One lane in each direction with painted lanes and no viable shoulder I should have to pull over for each overtaking vehicle in order to facilitate buzzing?

And you call other ludicrous.

Brontide

For new york, my lane posistion is not only safe, but legal.

benjdm

And DOT-approved:

John Forester

It is more ludicrous, for an advocate of cyclists, to agree with Beck's verbose ideological advocacy that, on typical two-lane roads, cyclists ride where motorists want them, with their lateral position an open invitation to motorists to overtake by squeezing through the narrow gap between the cyclist and the opposite-direction traffic in the adjacent lane. Certainly this appeases the popular dislike of bicycle traffic, which Beck has admitted to be his motive, but at increased danger to both motorists and cyclists, besides being an abject surrender of cyclists' legal rights.

Bekologist

yes, legally allowed by the virtue of BIKES-FRAP provisions of your state traffic code.

would you want that express, legal right taken away and replaced with a statute that said a bicyclist would be providing evidence of being guilty of violating the law simply by operating away from the right?

This is the scenario being so glibly bandied about as preferable for california cyclists, by people unwittingly or malevolently calling to restrict cyclists under laws far more onerous towards cyclists than BIKES-FRAP laws like you too, enjoy, in New York, brontide.

The repeal of cyclists protections that you expressly enjoy in your state is being promoted by those that also think SMV-FRAP laws do not require slowly driven vehicles share the roads safely, along roads with road condition that makes considerate road use the most crucial by slowly driven vehicles.

the illogic they promote suggests that SMV-FRAP laws do not apply along roads that make FRAP by slowly driven vehicles most crucial. Wild suggestions that FRAP does not apply on two lane roads is a totally ludicrous and unsupportable take on traffic law.


their fallacious argument is that,under the SMV-FRAP laws bikes have no duty to share two lane or multiple lane roadways and would have no duty to FRAP under SMV-FRAP laws anytime a roadway is striped. These stormtroopers are even willing to blatantly mislead about the clearly defined , statutory duties of cyclists in states like North Carolina with only SMV-FRAP laws.

Removing bicyclist specific protections under law, brontide, would leave cyclists in a far worse place. yet, there is a disturbing trend of astroturf cycling advocacy seeking to remove cyclists specific protections under law.

Avoid astroturf advocacy that seeks to sell cyclists down the river under the guise of protecting our rights with a false framing of the duties of vehicles under SMV-FRAP laws.

Brontide

Still not making any sense to me, sorry.

Bekologist

sorry you can't see some 'advocates' want to remove cyclist specific protections under law, like you entertain in New York, and replace them with much more onerous laws.

they base their faulty advocacy on a mistaken belief slowly driven vehicles have no duty to FRAP on the roads FRAP laws are most crucial on, and that bicyclists would be under no obligation whatsoever to share the road anytime there are road stripes.

astroturf advocacy that is fighting to take away your right to take the lane under BIKES-FRAP laws in New York.

sgoodri and john forester are both aligned with a movement to remove New York bicyclists explicit rights under BIKES-FRAP laws to take lanes unsafe to be shared.


astroturf advocacy is masquerading in the bicycling community, and is seeking take away cyclists rights. this movement is ludicrous and based on an unsupportable interpretation of SMV-FRAP law. unsupportable bike advocacy that aims to restrict cyclists should be steered well clear of.

Brontide

Show me where generic FRAP requires SMV ( including bikes ) to operate their vehicle in an unsafe manner with regard to overtaking vehicles ( especially on substandard width roads ) and I might agree with you, otherwise you keep flapping but you don't make any sense. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, no such changes are pending to the law in NY either.

Bekologist

there's no unsafe implied anywhere in any traffic statute. practicability predicates safety.

however, explicit protections under law are far better than implied ones, and most assuredly better than a law - like California's - that says a bicyclist would be providing an admission they break that law by not riding to the right.

SMV-FRAP laws generally contain no express provision for unsafe lane width, only BIKES -FRAP law. if New Yorks bike specific FRAP law was revoked, cyclists in your state would have no clear and explicit right to take lanes unsafe to share.

Sgoodri, in North Carolina, has no express right to take the lane if it is too narrow to share. his state requires bikes operate FRAP on all roads for faster traffic, and leaves the duty to overtake safely or not on the part of the overtaker.

Brontide, you'd be surprised what's going on in your state. there is a movement of 'bicycle drivers' intent to repeal all states BIKES-FRAP laws.

Brontide

Well... I've just checked all pending bills and can find nothing... so, where's the beef?

Bekologist

.....probably fomenting their sinister campaign with the national division.

chill dude. you understand very well what i'm describing.

there is a movement afoot to take away bicyclists rights under a guise of protecting them. this movement relies on misinterpreting traffic statutes and perpetuating a flawed understanding of long standing rules of the road with wild claims vehicles have no duty to FRAP on any laned road. absurd.

Bekologist

woah, woah! stop the horses, there, John.

I've clearly explained, and illustrated with your California traffic codes, that it is the SMV-FRAP law that embodies the principal of prima facie guilt for failing to operate FRAP. Not the BIKES-FRAP law, which contains no such provisions.

Your statements about the law deliberately or haplessly misleads about both California traffic code as well as the duties of slowly driven vehicles under SMV-FRAP laws, which are fairly uniform across the states and provide far less explicit protections for cyclists.

John Forester

This argument contains two different assertions. One is that the phrase "right-hand lane available for traffic" does not mean what it says but applies only on roads with two or more lanes in each direction of travel. I earlier asked you, Beck, to supply the legal appellate opinion that the meaning of this phrase is restricted to the condition that you claim. You have not provided that legal opinion. Therefore, I say that your convoluted argument, built to suit your ideology, that the meaning of the phrase is more restricted than normal English would hold, should be considered false unless and until an unopposed appellate opinion so holds. Therefore, we should base our discussion on that conclusion rather than on your argument. The text of my previous request is repeated in the paragraph that follows.

Beck, you are making the claim about the "standard and long standing position" that the phrase "the right-hand lane available for traffic" does not apply to two-lane roads, but only to multiple-lane roads. Since you claim that in legal terms this is the "standard and long-standing position", then you must be able to provide legal support from appellate opinions for your claim. If you cannot provide such legal support, your opinion is no more than hot air.

Given the conclusion that the phrase "right-hand lane available for traffic" applies to both two-lane and multi-lane roads, then the California SMV law has no effect until the supposed offender has moved from the right-hand lane available for traffic to another lane that is to the left of this lane. In short, the cyclist law kicks in the moment the cyclist has left the right-hand edge, while the slow-moving vehicle law does not kick in until the offender, considered a cyclist for this discussion, has gone all the way across the right-hand lane and is in another lane further left. Clearly, the SMV law, when applied on roads with traffic lanes, gives the cyclist a lot more leeway than does the cyclist FRAP law.

The second assertion in Beck's argument is that the "prima facie evidence of guilt" stated in the California SMV (21654) law makes it much more coercive than does the cyclist FRAP law (21202). Beck argues that it does, but Beck's opinion is immaterial in a court of law. Each law can have judicial effect only after an officer testifies that the offender was moving more slowly than other traffic and was not in the permitted lateral position. Both laws require the same type of testimony, and in each case that type of testimony establishes a prima facie evidence of guilt, from which the supposed offender can escape only by providing a legitimate explanation for his action. There is no difference between the laws in the evidence necessary to justify a trial; it is the same in each law.

In summary, Beck's legalistic argument depends on two assertions, the first of which has no support in appellate law and the second of which has no support in legal procedure. We should not allow ourselves to be bothered again with this ideological argumentation, that is unless and until Beck provides legal opinions that support his argument.

Bekologist

no, its much, much more common sense than that!

look at what another bicycle expert had to say about the duty of bicyclists to share two lane roads, and the standards of statutory construction.....


funny how, when someone begins to pull a Benedict Arnold, of course their message changes.

It is reasonable to conclude if this is not what that phrase means, the phrase would have no relevance.

a reasonable person needs no appelate court decisions to understand what is so, so obviously clear about statutory duties of all vehicles to share two lane roads.

-assertions to the contrary are unsupportable and would be laughed out of a courtroom.

what appelate court decisions backs YOUR new, unfounded interpretation of traffic code?

really, the gall!

False statements about the law haplessly or duplicitously mislead about both California traffic code as well as the duties of slowly driven vehicles under SMV-FRAP laws, which are fairly uniform across the states and provide far less explicit protections for cyclists.

John Forester

Since Bek has chosen to have the same subject in two different discussions, I simply copy the reply I made to the other discussion.

Yes, I made a mistake, just like Bek's. But once I worked out the traffic engineering aspects together with the actual words of the slow vehicle statute in the historical context in which it was written, I realized that Bek's view that cyclists on two-lane roads with typical lane width must ride FRAP did not facilitate safe overtaking, but encouraged unsafe overtaking into the face of opposite-direction traffic. The critical difference for us concerns the specific conditions under which the width or narrowness of the slow vehicle actually facilitates safe overtaking, and the answer is that narrowness facilitates safe overtaking only when the outside through lane is wide, which is the atypical condition. With typical conditions the width or narrowness of the slower vehicle has no effect on the safe overtaking opportunities. Motorists haven't had to think this matter through; they find it easiest, and conforms to their idea that cyclists don't have traffic skills, to just tell us to ride FRAP and let them work out when it is safe. Which we have had plenty of evidence of, they don't understand.

I think that Bek should mature his understanding, but that would require that he grow out of his popular attitude of subservience to motorists, apparently done for political ideological motives. It is clear that Bek, currently, doesn't want motorists to think that cyclists are getting uppity.

Now Bek admits, by indirection, that he has not found legal support for his contention that the phrase "right-hand lane available for traffic" has its meaning restricted to roads with more than two lanes. He challenges me to find legal support for my contention that that phrase applies to roads with two or more lanes. I don't know of any appellate opinions on this subject. However, of the two views, Bek's restricts the meaning to less than the words themselves imply. Therefore, to apply his restriction to the common words would require some legal opinion on the subject, which he has not found. If such appears as a relevant and responsible appellate opinion, then the matter would be decided. But it would have been very easy for the legal draftsman to state Bek's restriction if it were intended, by adding such words as "available for that direction of traffic", which he did not do. I conclude, based on the actual wording, the other wording that was not inserted, and the historical background, that the phrase "right-hand lane available for traffic" applies to both two-lane and multi-lane roads.