View Poll Results: Which FRAP law would you rather be subject to in South Dakota?
the BIKES FRAP law
7
50.00%
the SMV FRAP law
1
7.14%
wherever there's more chocolate
6
42.86%
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll
Which law would you rather be subject to?
07-08-11, 11:36 AM
#26
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
Vague aspersions about 'motoring officials' and what they 'say' about bicycle traffic ARE quite funny, however. thanks for the laugh! it might make a person wonder if john is referring to the regulatory agencies like states' departments of transportation or the entire system of traffic regulation.
07-09-11, 01:45 AM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It would be impossible to obey South Dakota law and ride safely, so I'm going to stay out of South Dakota.
I'll take the Missouri FRAS law (MoRS 307.190) - (Far Right As Safe - the obfuscating word practicable does not appear at all).
Bicyclists are better off with a bicycle specific ride right law with exceptions than without one. Bike-specific FRAP laws should not be reapealed. That's a really bad idea that can only make things worse.
Is South Dakota's FRAP law the worst in the country? I hope so. Yikes! That law needs to be changed.
Last edited by JRA; 07-09-11 at 01:54 AM.
07-09-11, 09:38 AM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I've found a state that has a bicycle specific ride right law I like. In fact, I live there.
It would be impossible to obey South Dakota law and ride safely, so I'm going to stay out of South Dakota.
I'll take the Missouri FRAS law (MoRS 307.190) - (Far Right As Safe - the obfuscating word practicable does not appear at all).
Bicyclists are better off with a bicycle specific ride right law with exceptions than without one. Bike-specific FRAP laws should not be reapealed. That's a really bad idea that can only make things worse.
Is South Dakota's FRAP law the worst in the country? I hope so. Yikes! That law needs to be changed.
It would be impossible to obey South Dakota law and ride safely, so I'm going to stay out of South Dakota.
I'll take the Missouri FRAS law (MoRS 307.190) - (Far Right As Safe - the obfuscating word practicable does not appear at all).
Bicyclists are better off with a bicycle specific ride right law with exceptions than without one. Bike-specific FRAP laws should not be reapealed. That's a really bad idea that can only make things worse.
Is South Dakota's FRAP law the worst in the country? I hope so. Yikes! That law needs to be changed.
07-09-11, 09:41 AM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I find your high approval of the Missouri statute interesting, in more ways than one. The nearest official definition of "practicable", provided by the executive director of the National Committee for Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances many years ago, was "practical, safe, and reasonable". In preferring only "safe" you have given up the advantages of practical and reasonable. If if it safe for a cyclist to occupy the furthest right position, the statute requires that he occupy that position; whether that position is not practical or not reasonable for cycling is irrelevant according to the statute.
07-10-11, 02:33 AM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It's interesting to me, too. Considering the quality of many laws that come from the Missouri legislature, my expectations are fairly low. But I do like the Missouri law, especially when comparing it to the South Dakota law. I'm not claiming that it's perfect but, then, perfect is surely too much to expect.
I'm good with 'safe' because that would be the basis of the argument I would make for my lane position away from the curb in a lane too narrow to share. 'Practical' is a much weaker argument and 'reasonable' can be argued even if not explicitly stated in the law. If "safe" is the argument, then that's what the law should say.
Laws should be written in plain English. Few people know what the heck 'practicable' means. My Webster's Unabridged Dictionary says it means 'feasible' or 'capable of being done.' It could be argued that something that isn't safe isn't feasible, but why hide the real point behind a word nobody understands?
I'd strongly oppose attempts to repeal bike specific FRAP laws because it would be a waste of time and effort for no gain.
But I might join efforts to have the word "practicable" removed from all FRAP laws. To me it's gobbledegook.
---
gobbledegook n. Prententious and scarcely intelligible language, esp. of the sort attributed to bureaucrats, sociologists, etc. (coined in 1944 by Representative Maury Maverick of Texas) - from American Slang, edited by Robert L. Chapman, Harper & Row, New York, 1987.
Laws should be written in plain English. Few people know what the heck 'practicable' means. My Webster's Unabridged Dictionary says it means 'feasible' or 'capable of being done.' It could be argued that something that isn't safe isn't feasible, but why hide the real point behind a word nobody understands?
I'd strongly oppose attempts to repeal bike specific FRAP laws because it would be a waste of time and effort for no gain.
But I might join efforts to have the word "practicable" removed from all FRAP laws. To me it's gobbledegook.
---
gobbledegook n. Prententious and scarcely intelligible language, esp. of the sort attributed to bureaucrats, sociologists, etc. (coined in 1944 by Representative Maury Maverick of Texas) - from American Slang, edited by Robert L. Chapman, Harper & Row, New York, 1987.
07-10-11, 11:17 AM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It's interesting to me, too. Considering the quality of many laws that come from the Missouri legislature, my expectations are fairly low. But I do like the Missouri law, especially when comparing it to the South Dakota law. I'm not claiming that it's perfect but, then, perfect is surely too much to expect.
I'm good with 'safe' because that would be the basis of the argument I would make for my lane position away from the curb in a lane too narrow to share. 'Practical' is a much weaker argument and 'reasonable' can be argued even if not explicitly stated in the law. If "safe" is the argument, then that's what the law should say.
Laws should be written in plain English. Few people know what the heck 'practicable' means. My Webster's Unabridged Dictionary says it means 'feasible' or 'capable of being done.' It could be argued that something that isn't safe isn't feasible, but why hide the real point behind a word nobody understands?
I'd strongly oppose attempts to repeal bike specific FRAP laws because it would be a waste of time and effort for no gain.
But I might join efforts to have the word "practicable" removed from all FRAP laws. To me it's gobbledegook.
---
gobbledegook n. Prententious and scarcely intelligible language, esp. of the sort attributed to bureaucrats, sociologists, etc. (coined in 1944 by Representative Maury Maverick of Texas) - from American Slang, edited by Robert L. Chapman, Harper & Row, New York, 1987.
I'm good with 'safe' because that would be the basis of the argument I would make for my lane position away from the curb in a lane too narrow to share. 'Practical' is a much weaker argument and 'reasonable' can be argued even if not explicitly stated in the law. If "safe" is the argument, then that's what the law should say.
Laws should be written in plain English. Few people know what the heck 'practicable' means. My Webster's Unabridged Dictionary says it means 'feasible' or 'capable of being done.' It could be argued that something that isn't safe isn't feasible, but why hide the real point behind a word nobody understands?
I'd strongly oppose attempts to repeal bike specific FRAP laws because it would be a waste of time and effort for no gain.
But I might join efforts to have the word "practicable" removed from all FRAP laws. To me it's gobbledegook.
---
gobbledegook n. Prententious and scarcely intelligible language, esp. of the sort attributed to bureaucrats, sociologists, etc. (coined in 1944 by Representative Maury Maverick of Texas) - from American Slang, edited by Robert L. Chapman, Harper & Row, New York, 1987.
I fear, JRA, that if you had to argue, or have argued for you, the case that you outline above, you would lose. Say that the lane is too narrow to share and you were near its center. You could have traveled closer to the curb without incurring danger to yourself. Therefore, you lose. The argument that you were protecting yourself from possible unlawful actions of others won't carry much weight.
07-10-11, 11:43 AM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,214
Bikes: 2010 GT Tachyon 3.0
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
...I'm suprised you don't remember our conversation where you admitted defining fundamental road users responsibilities such as keeping a proper lookout and operating as far right as practicable would be difficult for you, and i was offering up quite simple explanations. I don't recall the exact words, but you had been telling me you'd face incredible difficulties sussing these fundamental traffic concepts out in a courtroom.
In a courtroom, this would be insane. How do you define "practicable"? 80% of the people on the streets do it; the other 20% are stupid. There's a bike lane, it's obviously practicable to ride in it, it's 3 inches wide. I ride on a wide-enough bike lane here, but dead in the middle is road-gutter border, which means riding my 700c x 32 wheel in the bike lane presents a challenge due to uneven surface ... yet the city has apparently decided that it is "practicable" to ride there. The bike lane is perfectly well maintained, and thus works as designed; I disagree with the local jurisdiction's idea of what's "practicable" here and ride in the lane.
So, in court, can I assert that it's not "practicable" to ride in the 3 inch wide bike lane? It's wider than my elbow's width on the bike, when you measure from the line to the curb; but between the line and the rough border between asphalt and concrete, it's only 3 inches, and I find that untenable to travel on due to severe stability issues and a sharply increased likelihood to lose control (especially to wobble closer to the curb instead of traffic, pedal strike, and fall into traffic). Also the lane of traffic next to it only allows at best 18 inches of passing space, while state law is 3 feet; therefor I am interfering with motor traffic anyway, and it's better for me to just ride halfway into the lane of motor traffic.
However, the state decided I'm wrong when they laid it. The lane is of adequate width and is well maintained. Hundreds of people use it every day without a problem. How will this work in court?
Vague concepts are hard to define. Humans work a lot on "I'm not comfortable with this."
07-10-11, 08:10 PM
#33
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
bluefoxicy, (three inch wide bikelane) 
really? - what's the complaint again? suffragism about an imagined court debate on avoiding unsafe riding conditions?
you avoid unsafe conditions, don't you?
I can explain practicable in 60 seconds, and make it make sense in a court of law.
Practicable - able to be safely done or executed, without endangering self or others. it's possible to stand behind a swinging door, but it isn't safe. If it's possible but not safe, it isn't practicable to do so. Practicable is what a reasonable person would be able to safely put into practice.
THIS thread is a simple comparision of two SMV FRAP laws of the state of South Dakota.
-both require FRAP of slowly driven vehicles regulated by them - which law in the state of South Dakota would you prefer to be regulated under, bluefoxicy, while bicycling in that state?
really? - what's the complaint again? suffragism about an imagined court debate on avoiding unsafe riding conditions?you avoid unsafe conditions, don't you?
I can explain practicable in 60 seconds, and make it make sense in a court of law.
Practicable - able to be safely done or executed, without endangering self or others. it's possible to stand behind a swinging door, but it isn't safe. If it's possible but not safe, it isn't practicable to do so. Practicable is what a reasonable person would be able to safely put into practice.
THIS thread is a simple comparision of two SMV FRAP laws of the state of South Dakota.
-both require FRAP of slowly driven vehicles regulated by them - which law in the state of South Dakota would you prefer to be regulated under, bluefoxicy, while bicycling in that state?
Last edited by Bekologist; 07-10-11 at 08:49 PM.
07-10-11, 08:42 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
There are areas of the law that, because of the techinical nature of the subject, contain terms that aren't common English but we're talking about traffic law for goodness sake. Your theory that laws can't be understood as if written in plain English is poppycock.
07-10-11, 08:46 PM
#35
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
statutory clarity is a commonplace, even universal goal of governance.
The drive towards greater statutory clarity is what led to the word 'safe' replacing 'practicable' in many states' bicycle laws. To more clearly define the law.
There IS a fair amount of statutory obfuscation here at bike forums, by posters intent on misframing bicyclists' legal protections.
Now the following statement is a bad read of the laws...
I'm sorry you think so. South Dakota is quite permissive with the five standard exceptions for full lane use. Bicyclists there are widely allowed to choose a safe road position for any number of specifically enumerated and broadly inclusive reasons, and to 'take the lane.'
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
only in the presence of other traffic,can move left to facilitate passing, making left turns, avoiding intersections, moving or stationary hazards, other road users, surface hazards, or lanes too narrow to share.
Cyclists have an easy time riding legally and safely in that state pursuant to the legal protections afforded by the BIKES FRAP law. I know you'd do fine, JRA, it'd be a lot like riding in Missouri. nearly identical legal operating requirements of bicyclists.
(strictly speaking, JRA, SD laws are MORE permissive than MO- the bikelaws of SD only require a lane sharing position in the presence of other traffic at time and place and under conditions then existing, MO laws are more strict as to adherence to staying to the right by bicyclists. I won't belabour you with the details, but you might want to check it out)
The drive towards greater statutory clarity is what led to the word 'safe' replacing 'practicable' in many states' bicycle laws. To more clearly define the law.
There IS a fair amount of statutory obfuscation here at bike forums, by posters intent on misframing bicyclists' legal protections.
Now the following statement is a bad read of the laws...
Originally Posted by JRA
It would be impossible to obey South Dakota law and ride safely, so I'm going to stay out of South Dakota.
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
only in the presence of other traffic,can move left to facilitate passing, making left turns, avoiding intersections, moving or stationary hazards, other road users, surface hazards, or lanes too narrow to share.
Cyclists have an easy time riding legally and safely in that state pursuant to the legal protections afforded by the BIKES FRAP law. I know you'd do fine, JRA, it'd be a lot like riding in Missouri. nearly identical legal operating requirements of bicyclists.
(strictly speaking, JRA, SD laws are MORE permissive than MO- the bikelaws of SD only require a lane sharing position in the presence of other traffic at time and place and under conditions then existing, MO laws are more strict as to adherence to staying to the right by bicyclists. I won't belabour you with the details, but you might want to check it out)
Last edited by Bekologist; 07-10-11 at 09:03 PM.
07-11-11, 03:42 AM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The first problem I have is the heading, which gives the wrong impression of what the S.D. law says. The bigger problem is the fact that a violation is a crime and conviction (or pleading guilty) gives a person a criminal record. In Missouri, violation of the ride-right law is a traffic infraction with a maximum fine of $25.
So, let's see. In South Dakota, speeding or running a stop sign or red light is a traffic violation while riding a bicycle a foot or two 'too far' away from the curb is a crime? Somebody involved in writing the South Dakota FRAP law does not like bicyclists.
In Missouri, I'm not required to take a lane-sharing position if the lane is too narrow to share, which covers many situations. I'm not worried about what the laws requires if there's no traffic behind me. A ticket for riding too far left in the absence of traffic would be pretty bogus.
07-11-11, 10:58 AM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,272
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4255 Post(s)
Liked 1,354 Times
in
940 Posts
=============
Indeed, as should not surprise anyone, they are both "Class 2 misdemeanors".
https://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/Di...Statute=32-20B
https://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/Di...tute=32-29-2.1
Last edited by njkayaker; 07-11-11 at 11:14 AM.
07-11-11, 10:59 AM
#38
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
I submit to no mere mortal laws. FREEDUMB!
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
07-11-11, 11:07 AM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,272
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4255 Post(s)
Liked 1,354 Times
in
940 Posts
I'm sorry you think so. South Dakota is quite permissive with the five standard exceptions for full lane use. Bicyclists there are widely allowed to choose a safe road position for any number of specifically enumerated and broadly inclusive reasons, and to 'take the lane.'
https://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/Di...atute=32-20B-5
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.
Last edited by njkayaker; 07-11-11 at 11:16 AM.
07-11-11, 05:47 PM
#40
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
DXMan makes erroneous statements. He correctly writes that a slowly-moving driver with traffic backed up behind him is required to move off the roadway at the first safe place to allow overtaking. He then states that the bike-FRAP law does not require this. The following is Indiana Vehicle Code:
IC 9-21-5-7
Reduction of speed; impeding normal and reasonable movement; right-of-way to other vehicles
... A person who is driving at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles are blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off to the right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable opportunity and allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.
DXMan is wrong when he claims that this does not apply to persons riding bicycles, who are given the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. Therefore, his argument that this demonstrates that drivers of SMVs are conditional road users while cyclists are legitimate road users has no validity. Both of these drivers are legitimate road users, as Indiana, so far as I can find, has no cyclist-FRAP statute.
Indiana's SMV statute is typical, except that it explicitly arranges the two choices of lateral position in different clauses:
IC 9-21-8-2
Roadways; use of right half; exceptions; traveling at reduced speeds
(b) Upon all roadways, a vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions then existing shall be driven:
(1) in the right-hand lane then available for traffic; or
(2) as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway;
Indiana statutes out of the way, DXMan argues that I should not have avoided answering Bek's question. I avoided providing an answer to a specific and unusual statute pair because Bek is a liar. If I had stated that my answer applied to only one state, Bek would have still given my answer as if it applied generally. Bek has only his own conduct to answer for as the source of my refusal to play his game.
IC 9-21-5-7
Reduction of speed; impeding normal and reasonable movement; right-of-way to other vehicles
... A person who is driving at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles are blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off to the right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable opportunity and allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.
DXMan is wrong when he claims that this does not apply to persons riding bicycles, who are given the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. Therefore, his argument that this demonstrates that drivers of SMVs are conditional road users while cyclists are legitimate road users has no validity. Both of these drivers are legitimate road users, as Indiana, so far as I can find, has no cyclist-FRAP statute.
Indiana's SMV statute is typical, except that it explicitly arranges the two choices of lateral position in different clauses:
IC 9-21-8-2
Roadways; use of right half; exceptions; traveling at reduced speeds
(b) Upon all roadways, a vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions then existing shall be driven:
(1) in the right-hand lane then available for traffic; or
(2) as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway;
Indiana statutes out of the way, DXMan argues that I should not have avoided answering Bek's question. I avoided providing an answer to a specific and unusual statute pair because Bek is a liar. If I had stated that my answer applied to only one state, Bek would have still given my answer as if it applied generally. Bek has only his own conduct to answer for as the source of my refusal to play his game.
07-11-11, 07:38 PM
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
07-11-11, 09:43 PM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Sorry to spoil your salad, JF, but DXMan is not wrong here. There is no requirement in Indiana for bicycles to pull over under the SMV law. That is all I intend to say about it, JF; I'm not going to engage you any further, as your verbose and circuitous arguments are headache-inducing. Perhaps you should research a bit more into IN law, as I have. (And NO, I'm not going to all the trouble of giving you chapter-and-verse; find it yourself.)
07-12-11, 07:12 AM
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,272
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4255 Post(s)
Liked 1,354 Times
in
940 Posts
Interesting. It was a bad guess. That is, what you guessed would be the case wasn't likely to be true. The (traffic) law generally works fairly reasonably and regularly.
It would be bizarre if a FRAP-failure was treated as more severe than running a red light. You recognized that that would be bizarre but you didn't take it as a hint that your guess wasn't likely a good one.
It would be bizarre if a FRAP-failure was treated as more severe than running a red light. You recognized that that would be bizarre but you didn't take it as a hint that your guess wasn't likely a good one.
07-12-11, 07:29 AM
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,272
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4255 Post(s)
Liked 1,354 Times
in
940 Posts
Originally Posted by Law quoted by John Forester
IC 9-21-5-7
Reduction of speed; impeding normal and reasonable movement; right-of-way to other vehicles
... A person who is driving at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles are blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off to the right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable opportunity and allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.
Reduction of speed; impeding normal and reasonable movement; right-of-way to other vehicles
... A person who is driving at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles are blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off to the right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable opportunity and allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.
Last edited by njkayaker; 07-12-11 at 07:33 AM.
07-12-11, 08:42 AM
#45
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
Indiana is a state with archaic bicycle laws that regulate bikes under SMV laws and requires FRAP at nearly all times on the part of a bicyclist.
Indiana's law regulating a bicyclists road position is similar to the South Dakota SMV law. These SMV laws are uniformly interpreted by several states to require slowly driven bicycles to operate to the right, as far to the right as practicable, except (in Indiana) 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.
Indiana bike laws are LOUSY compared to South Dakota's.
If bicyclists had a choice of Indiana or South Dakota as a template for bicycle statutes, the South Dakota bicycle laws are far, far more permissive.
what does indiana traffic law have to do with a consideration of South Dakota laws?
This thread is a comparison of the regulations governing South Dakotas' slowly driven vehicles, wether South Dakota's SMV FRAP law or the BIKES FRAP law is more permissive.
Indiana's law regulating a bicyclists road position is similar to the South Dakota SMV law. These SMV laws are uniformly interpreted by several states to require slowly driven bicycles to operate to the right, as far to the right as practicable, except (in Indiana) 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.
Indiana bike laws are LOUSY compared to South Dakota's.
If bicyclists had a choice of Indiana or South Dakota as a template for bicycle statutes, the South Dakota bicycle laws are far, far more permissive.
what does indiana traffic law have to do with a consideration of South Dakota laws?
This thread is a comparison of the regulations governing South Dakotas' slowly driven vehicles, wether South Dakota's SMV FRAP law or the BIKES FRAP law is more permissive.
Last edited by Bekologist; 07-12-11 at 09:51 AM.
07-13-11, 11:47 AM
#46
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Simple, JF; a BICYCLE is NOT defined as a "motor vehicle". And I TOLD you I wasn't doing this FOR you. Believe me or don't, I really don't care. I DO regret wasting my time coming to this sub-forum, and allowing myself to be sucked in; trust me, it WON'T happen again.
07-13-11, 12:25 PM
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,272
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4255 Post(s)
Liked 1,354 Times
in
940 Posts
https://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod.../ar21/ch5.html
The issue is whether "motor vehicle" applies to the second sentence.
IC 9-21-5-7
Reduction of speed; impeding normal and reasonable movement; right-of-way to other vehicles
Sec. 7. A person may not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with the law. A person who is driving at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles are blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off to the right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable opportunity and allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.9.
Reduction of speed; impeding normal and reasonable movement; right-of-way to other vehicles
Sec. 7. A person may not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with the law. A person who is driving at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles are blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off to the right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable opportunity and allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.9.
Last edited by njkayaker; 07-13-11 at 12:33 PM.
07-13-11, 07:16 PM
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
That's one issue. Another issue is that the heading of IC 9-21 refers to "other vehicles," implying that the section applies to vehicles. For the purposes of IC 9-21, a bicycle is not a vehicle:
https://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod.../ar13/ch2.html
What lawmakers intended is unclear but it could be argued that IC 9-21 does not apply to bicycles.
https://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod.../ar13/ch2.html
IC 9-13-2-196
Vehicle
(c) For purposes of IC 9-20 and IC 9-21, the term does not include devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
Vehicle
(c) For purposes of IC 9-20 and IC 9-21, the term does not include devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
07-14-11, 07:21 AM
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,272
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4255 Post(s)
Liked 1,354 Times
in
940 Posts
That's one issue. Another issue is that the heading of IC 9-21 refers to "other vehicles," implying that the section applies to vehicles. For the purposes of IC 9-21, a bicycle is not a vehicle:
https://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod.../ar13/ch2.html
What lawmakers intended is unclear but it could be argued that IC 9-21 does not apply to bicycles.
https://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod.../ar13/ch2.html
What lawmakers intended is unclear but it could be argued that IC 9-21 does not apply to bicycles.
Note that IC 9-21 is the general "rules of the road" section, which we know bicyclists have to adhere to (it includes the "stopping at a stop sign" law).
=========
Indiana defines "bicycle" as a "vehicle". (Not all states do that.)
IC 9-13-2-14
Bicycle
Sec. 14. "Bicycle" means any foot-propelled vehicle, irrespective of the number of wheels in contact with the ground.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.1.
Bicycle
Sec. 14. "Bicycle" means any foot-propelled vehicle, irrespective of the number of wheels in contact with the ground.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.1.
IC 9-13-2-196
Vehicle
(c) For purposes of IC 9-20 and IC 9-21, the term does not include devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
Vehicle
(c) For purposes of IC 9-20 and IC 9-21, the term does not include devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
https://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod...ar21/ch11.html
IC 9-21-11-2
Roadways; rights and duties
Sec. 2. A person riding a bicycle upon a roadway has all the rights and duties under this article that are applicable to a person who drives a vehicle, except the following:
(1) Special regulations of this article.
(2) Those provisions of this article that by their nature have no application.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.9.
Roadways; rights and duties
Sec. 2. A person riding a bicycle upon a roadway has all the rights and duties under this article that are applicable to a person who drives a vehicle, except the following:
(1) Special regulations of this article.
(2) Those provisions of this article that by their nature have no application.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.9.
Like every state, Indiana cares about the operation of bicycles on the roadway. And, like every state, a bicyclist has the same "rights and duties" of a driver of a vehicle.
Thus, "a person who is driving" applies to bicyclists too.
Last edited by njkayaker; 07-14-11 at 07:26 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bshanteau
Advocacy & Safety
208
09-16-13 04:06 PM
genec
Advocacy & Safety
17
04-21-10 02:51 PM
