FRAP case law anyone?
 

There seem to be a lot of threads in the VC sub-forum dedicated to what the law requires regarding as far right as practicable (FRAP). Various people seem to disagree, sometimes passionately, and sometimes, as far as I can tell, both passionately and irrationally, what the law means and what judges will "most certainly" rule. I'm a practical person and view the law as something that is subject to interpretation not on internet forums but in the courts of law that have been designated to actually interpret the law. In all these threads I have only rarely (if at all) seen any reference to an actual case let alone a comprehensive analysis of case law concerning FRAP. So I am starting this thread asking for examples of case law involving cyclists and failure to ride FRAP. The cases could be either criminal (that is a traffic citation) or civil (for example a cyclist was hit but unable to collect damages because they were found to be not FRAP).

So does anyone have actual legal cases involving FRAP they would like to share?

it would depend, akohekohe.

are you talking about BIKES-FRAP laws, or SMV-FRAP laws?

all slowly driven vehicles in all states have a duty to FRAP.

here's an example of two different FRAP laws. one is for bicyclists, one is for other vehicles not bicycles, in south Dakota.

32-20B-5. Operation on roadway--Riding close to right-hand curb required--Violation as misdemeanor. 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. However, a person operating a bicycle may move from the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway to overtake and pass another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction, to prepare for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or roadway or to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.


and for the rest of the vehicles in south dakota


Use of right half of highway required--Slow-moving vehicles--Overtaking and passing excepted--Violation as misdemeanor. Upon all highways of sufficient width, except upon one-way streets, the driver of a vehicle shall drive the same upon the right half of the highway and shall drive a slow-moving vehicle as closely as possible to the right-hand edge or curb of such highway, unless it is impracticable to travel on such side of the highway and except when overtaking and passing another vehicle subject to the limitations applicable in overtaking and passing set forth in §§ 32-26-26 to 32-26-39, inclusive. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

when you ask about FRAP laws, its good to clarify which you are asking about.

which FRAP laws are you asking about?

Both, I'm interested in any case law applying to cyclists and FRAP regardless of whether it arises from Bike-FRAP or SMV-FRAP. If anyone has a SMV-FRAP case that applied to a non-cyclist that might have established case law relevant to cyclists that would be welcome as well, although the poster should make the case for why it is relevant to cyclists.

i think it would be more valuable if anyone could provide a case citation for a ruling that a two lane road has both a right hand lane and a left hand lane for traffic so FRAP provisions in SMV laws don't apply, to be perfectly honest.

I know of a case in Texas where the rider was uncompromisingly riding in the center of the roadway of a divided highway. He thought he was protected by that states FRAP laws, but he got convicted of RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT.

I know of a case in Ohio where the rider was not guilty of impeding traffic, but it was the finding of the court that the rider would have been convicted of failing to operate FRAP if that would have been the charge.

These statements require greater detail. In the Bates case in Texas, Bates was riding near the center of the right-hand lane of a four-lane divided highway, during a time of rather low traffic. The police and prosecutors discovered that they could not prosecute him under normal law, for his position was lawful, so they framed him for something else, acting dangerously. Possibly endangering rabbits scurrying across the roadway? But accurately for endangering the superior attitudes of motorists.

Bek makes much of the judge's unfounded opinion that the Ohio rider would have been convicted of not riding FRAP, but that issue was never discussed in court, no relevant arguments were presented by either side, so that "opinion" is not an official opinion but merely an expression of prejudice.

San Diego... The case of Andrew Woolley. Cited for violation of 21202(a).

Blog with links regarding the case:
http://www.bikesd.org/2009/12/city-a...es-cvc-21202a/

The original court transcript:
http://www.bikesd.org/wp-content/upl...-v-AWooley.pdf

The legal brief and opinion to overturn:
http://www.bikesd.org/wp-content/upl...ents-Brief.pdf

Key sentence in the original court transcript showing the biased notion by the ticketing officer: "It's -- I think that this certainly shows the hazards that are out here in the roadway, even though this section doesn't say "hazardous" or anything about it. you've got to ride to the right. It just says you've got to ride to the right."

More from the officer: "His obligation on the bicycle is to ride down this right-hand side of the road and to avoid things."

I thought that this was the case that it turned out to be.

You know I just "love" it when LEO's substitute their judgement for what the law actually says. And how when they think that something is "unsafe" that it most therefore also be "illegal." And therefore they have the "right" to cite the person in question for a violation of their interpretation of the law.

Do you know if Mr. Wooley ever had the money that he paid for the fine returned to him?

I have no idea of any other than the posted outcome. I tried to contact him but never got a response.

Yeah that "judgement issue" by both the cop and the judge show their strong anti-bike bias.

Would this one count?

ETA: There's also a list here.

...an interesting case in Idaho, one wonders what would have been the outcome if the bicyclist would have been unable to present bicyclist specific rights to the lane, and have instead been subject to Idaho's more strict SMV FRAP law......

The following is the Idaho statute regarding slow-moving vehicles. Note that this is entirely devoted to farm and construction equipment, with nothing about bicycles and nothing about FRAP.
TITLE 49 49-619.Slow moving vehicles -- Restrictions and exceptions, equipment -- Emblems on certain machinery -- Limited exemption. (1) It shall be unlawful to operate a slow moving vehicle on the highways at the following times and under the following circumstances:
(a) From one-half (1/2) hour after sunset to one-half (1/2) hour before sunrise, unless the vehicle or equipment is equipped with lights as required by section 49-916, Idaho Code;
(b) At a speed in excess of twenty-five (25) miles per hour, unless the vehicle or equipment, including towed units of farm equipment, is designed to safely travel at speeds in excess of twenty-five (25) miles per hour, but no such vehicle or equipment shall exceed the posted maximum speed limit and shall be operated by a licensed driver;
(c) In such a manner as to obstruct the free movement of traffic on the highways.
(2) A slow moving vehicle shall be equipped with a braking system and with a mechanical signaling device as required for other similarly constructed vehicles.
(3) All slow moving vehicles, farm tractors, road rollers and implements of husbandry shall have affixed at the rear of the vehicle an emblem identifying them as slow moving equipment. The Idaho traffic safety commission shall recommend to the board the minimum standards for the emblem.
(4) Emergency and snow removal vehicles owned and operated by the state or its political subdivisions when en route to, from, or in the performance of activities essential to the public safety, shall be exempt from the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection (1) of this section.

In general, if one was convicted of a minor offense paid the fine, and later won on appeal what is the recourse for getting the fine returned? I mean if one wins on appeal than shouldn't they get the fine returned to them?

Yep, both of them showed that they were not very supportive of bicycles and thought that even though the cyclist was traveling faster than traffic at that given time that he still had to "hug the right hand curb/edge" of the road. Ironically if I remember correctly in the case of Tortwood v. Selz that was basically the same thing. A cop playing father/mother knows best, and think that because the cyclist was doing something that the cop thought was unsafe that it was therefore illegal.

Even after she had had the law explained to her in court she still got it wrong saying that she would still cite a cyclist for engaging in "unsafe/illegal" behavior. Those cops need to be removed from the road and given a desk job. Particularly if they've been re-trained multiple times and are still getting it wrong.

It is the cyclist FRAP law (CVC 21202 in California) that both provides the motivation and produces the false reasoning that enables the law enforcement system to bring false prosecutions that are no more than harassment. Some people argue that the exceptions written into the modern versions of the cyclist FRAP law powerfully allow cyclists to escape from the FRAP requirement, but there would be no need for exceptions to the FRAP law if the FRAP law did not exist to impose its basic principle upon cyclists.

john foresters' willing deceit of the bicycling community does not go unnoticed.

John, are you continuing to mislead the American Bicyclist with your insatiable fatuity?

Why even try to make such obviously transparent and misleading claims that states like Idaho have no SMV-FRAP law? just cunning wordsmithery, deceit oozing out over the sophistry, that the slow moving equipment statute is different than the lane position statute in Idaho.

Wild, unsubstantiated claims two lane roads have multiple lanes for same direction traffic is bad enough, but this deceit?

for the forums edification and if any one is genuinely interested in cycling advocacy, Idaho most assuredly has a SMV-FRAP law, it is distinct from the SMV equipment law, and it is much less permissive than the BIKES FRAP law in Idaho.

AS is the case in most states.

Bek claimed that the Idaho Slow Moving Vehicle law required FRAP. I looked it up and presented it, and it doesn't. So now Bek claims that there is another Idaho statute regarding slow-moving vehicles. I looked it up, discovered it, and I present the relevant parts here:
49-630.Drive on right side of roadway -- Exceptions. ...
(2) Upon all highways any vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing, shall be driven in the right-hand lane available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the highway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

Bek's new asservation doesn't get us any further than we have been. The Idaho slow-moving vehicle statute has the rather standard requirement for use of the right-hand lane available for traffic, or FRAP. As we have been discussing, Bek claims that the phrase "right-hand lane available for traffic" has its application legally restricted to multi-lane roads, but while Bek has made a great noise about the legal force of his claim, he has never been able to produce documentary evidence of that law.

john, you first quoted the SMV equipment requirements. not the SMV FRAP law of Idaho! :rolleyes:

it is rank sophistry and utterly fatuous to suggest that two lane roads have a right hand lane and a left hand lane for same direction traffic.

Ignoring ones' own previously held reasonableness and committed to print belief about SMV FRAP laws is deceit.

Sophistic claims about FRAP law not applying on two lane roads completely ignores the development of paved roads in America, the historical basis for center lines on roads and the laws of all states regulating traffic under 'right half of road' laws that reserve the other half of the road for opposite direction traffic.

The side over the center line on a two lane road is NOT a 'left lane", it is the opposite lane, for traffic travelling in the oposite direction, giving vehicles in both directions a single lane in each direction. This, under the right half of roadway laws, the other half of a two lane road is generally useable only to pass and not as a 'left hand lane'

Under "Right half of road, SMV vehicles use right hand lane or frap laws" similar to Idahos partially quoted by John (see, john, you found it - Idaho DOES have a SMV FRAP law :rolleyes:) on two lane roads the slowly driven vehicle being passed has requirements to facilitate that pass along two lane roads.

there is only one reasonable explanation for 'right hand lane or FRAP' language in SMV FRAP laws.


suggestions to the contrary, and obtusely attempting to mislead the forum in multiple posts about states SMV FRAP laws, make it clear someone is having a dishonest conversation here.

In most all states, BIKE FRAP laws are far more permissive than SMV FRAP laws. some states like California have SMV FRAP laws that would even make operating a bike away from the right evidence usable in court as expression of guilt, absent the BIKES FRAP law that allows California cyclists broad leeway in choosing a safe road position.

Well, Bek, do you support your argument that, on two-lane roads, the left-hand lane is solely for opposing-direction traffic? That is the other consequence of your foolish play on words. Just give it up and admit that, for each direction of traffic, the left-hand lane is available, indeed expected, for use when overtaking is necessary and safe. That's the fact of the matter about which we all agree, but you are pretending that this is not so, not when it suits your argument, but is so when the opposite result suits you better.

the laws are clear, john. right half of road laws, bub. there aren't left hand lanes on two lane roads.

no amount of sophistry is going to make that whopper ring true. why do you keep derailing threads at bike forums with unreasonable insistence of the contrary?

.....like serge and his obsessive 'conspicuity' obstructionism.

So Bek disparagingly and sneering dismisses the argument that a two-lane road has two lanes, while vigorously and vociferously claiming that a two-lane road has only one lane.

It is significant that the defense of FRAP laws and the bikeways to enforce them has been forced, by the application of reason, into relying on arguments as peculiar as Bek's. This kind of descent is the natural consequence of discussions in which there is great overbalance between the scientific evidence for the two sides.

john should cease uttering unreasonable and unsupportable radicalism that haplessly or duplicitously aims to restrict cyclists.

Feigning the equipment laws for Idaho SMV are operating dictates, what a comedian!!!


any newfangled notions that two lane roads have left hand lanes is out to lunch, "no relevance", to quote a cycling author. Unreasonable!

FRAP. Winter v Perz, michigan. cyclist not guilty of not operating FRAP on two lane road in michigan.

FRAP is expected on two lane roads by all vehicles, in every state by my research (even Massachusetts has a do not unnecessarily delay, turn out to right law) that can readily move further to the right and operate FRAP to positively affect the pass.

Bek, read my website again. What you say is there is no longer there, because I have realized that it is incorrect. Same goes for Effective Cycling, when you get to read the next edition, scheduled for next spring.


Bek claims: "FRAP is expected on two lane roads by all vehicles, in every state by my research." So you believe that, Bek. However, since your belief is conditioned by your peculiar belief that two-lane roads have only one lane, there is no reason for others to place credibility in your belief, but only in the evidence that you present. You make this claim for all states; then you are obliged to present the evidence for all states, so that we may examine and evaluate the strength of that evidence.

how unreasonable of you. REDACTED? Hilarious.

right half of road laws, standard in all states, authorize a single lane each direction of travel on two lane roads, prohibit travel across on the other half of the road except as allowed for passing, in the opposite lane authorized for opposite direction travel, under FRAP laws applicable to facilitate that pass on a single lane each direction road.

this is standard statutory construction, in all states. suggestions to the contrary are just so, so, unreasonable.

do you want to discuss FRAP laws like the Hawaii professor asked for, or continue your unsubstantiations? just above you were flailingly feigning Idaho had no SMV-FRAP laws that vehicles are subject to. What a waste of this forums bandwidth and other posters intelligence.

Bek, only you think that there is debate about the standard use of two-lane roads. In fact, there is no such debate. However, the overtaking that is permitted on such roads does not depend on either FRAP laws or FRAP positioning. You claim that the laws require FRAP for overtaking, but your claim is based, or was based I suppose I should say, on your argument that two-lane roads have only one lane. Since you now appear to have given up that argument, I don't know on what basis you make your claim. And you have never demonstrated that overtaking on two-lane roads requires FRAP placement, rather natural to avoid that demonstration because overtaking obviously doesn't.

what??

laws governing overtaking and stipulating FRAP -like in Idaho, which clearly stipulate FRAP at times- do not govern overtaking and stipulating FRAP at times?


john. you need to let the topic ride. you have no demonstration for your claims, and all the laws as written disagree with your newfangled and unreasonble take on traffic standards. you have stooped to redacting your reasonable statements on road sharing by bicyclists that have withstood your critical edits thru two printings of your books and populated your website until last night.


what sophistic blather.


Yes, john. one more time:


there are duties on slowly driven narrow vehicles to operate safely right, as far right as practicable, on two lane roads in all states, to facilitate passing. A man on a horse, a man pushing a wheelbarrow, and a man on a bicycle all have a clear statutory duty to share a two lane road by operating as far to the right as is safe to facilitate a pass by faster traffic wishing to overtake.

As to a specious "left" lane on a two lane road? "THERE'S A BUS COMING STRAIGHT FOR US IN THIS LEFT LANE, LOU!!"


Insatiably contrarian, unsupportable unreasonableness is such a pox on meaningful dialogue in this day and age.

No, Bek, I refuse to agree to your view that cyclists must always, on two-lane roads, ride FRAP and therefore subservient in both act and feel to motorists. The reasonable principle is that FRAP is required only when riding FRAP enables safe overtaking that would not be possible with normal use of the lane. You support your argument by nothing more than semantic dodges, such as two-lane roads don't have right-hand lanes.

Your arguments, Bek, are those made by the motorists and the bikeway advocates for the inferiority of cyclists. You have your reasons, never stated, for adopting your position, but I believe that the better position is that cyclists are what the laws state, drivers of vehicles, no matter that there exist FRAP and bikeway laws enacted by motorists to make motoring more convenient without real consideration of proper traffic operation.