The Case Against FTR

[John Forester]

In other discussions we have been considering ways to get repeal of the
FTR law for cyclists, which in California is designated CVC 21202.
Someone wrote that he wanted a description and explanation of how to
proceed. I replied with the following paragraph.

It is impossible to describe and explain the future. Rather, one should
know the direction one wishes to go and one should work out all the
likely ways of making progress. Then, when an event occurs that enables
any one of those ways to achieve progress, the knowledge will be there,
ready for use in making whatever progress can be achieved at that time.
We have several lines of action that may produce progress:
discrimination against cyclists, improper actions by police,
endangerment of cyclists, the legal tangles, etc. We should be ready
whenever some event enables any of these lines of action to bear fruit.

The reply stated that none of my suggestions appeared to lead to repeal
of 21202. To that I replied:
Each of the lines of action I have suggested, in the event that some
event enables us to make use of it, can lead, when we so state it, to
the argument that it occurred because the intention of, say,
discriminating against cyclists, for example, leads to the legal mess,
the legal tangle as I have been calling it, of the traffic laws applying
to cyclists.

Therefore, I am going to write a paper about The Case Against FTR to
illustrate, and to encourage, and to motivate, possible actions on
different lines.


--
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 fore...@johnforester.com
www.johnforester.com

[Martin Pion]

To follow up on John Forester's post, one way to tackle the issue of repeal of FTR (Far To the Right) laws is by working at the local level, i.e. with your local municipality. That turned out to be a successful approach to remove this discriminatory law in my home town of Ferguson, in North St. Louis County, Missouri.

It followed an incident in February 2012, when I was controlling the curb lane on a 4-lane 35 mph road near my home and was stopped and nearly ticketed by a local police officer who pulled me over for obstructing traffic. It started the discussion of this subject.

In March 2012,  I was invited to meet with the local city manager and police chief. The city manager concluded that the existing local FTR law, based on state law, needed repealing after accepting my argument that the typical 12 ft. wide lane was too narrow to share safely. In June 2012 the city council approved language replacing the FTR law with one allowing a cyclist to optionally control or share the lane. I've posted about this extensively on my blog at thinkbicyclingblog.wordpress.com and can provide more specific links to those blogs if of interest.

Martin Pion, B.Sc. LCI #625
mpion "at" swbell.net
314/524-8029

[Martin Pion]

Hello Beck, 

I suggest you view a video I posted at BICYCLING Made SIMPLE: Gerry Noll Shows How after editing to shorten it. It shows how things work when competent cyclists are not constrained by discriminatory laws, such as the so-called "Far To the Right" law to which you refer.

Regards,

Martin Pion, LCI #625

thinkbicyclingblog.wordpress.com 

On Aug 1, 2013, at 4:15 AM, beck michaels <yoope...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Is missouri Bike law so onerous? Missouri's lane positioning law is specific to bikes, fair and equitable, recognizes a host of conditions that legally allow a bicyclist to control a narrow lane..... some bicycle drivers have no complaint with laws that recognize bikes unique operating characteristics, laws that allow us to control lanes of traffic that are too narrow, unsafe to share, or are hazardous.

MO bike law 

 "307.190. Riding To Right, Required For Bicycles And Motorized Bicycles 

Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of 

traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe, exercising due care 

when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, except when making a left turn, 

when avoiding hazardous conditions, when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle or when on a 

one-way street. Bicyclists may ride abreast when not impeding other vehicles. 

( i might get rid of that impeding section, but that's minor)

 An improvement to Missouri law would be to further codify cyclists rights to the lane, similar to Colorado law. Colorado 42-4-1412

1.  
1. Any person operating a bicycle or an electrical assisted bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic shall ride in the right-hand lane, subject to the following conditions:
1. If the right-hand lane then available for traffic is wide enough to be safely shared with overtaking vehicles, a bicyclist shall ride far enough to the right as judged safe by the bicyclist to facilitate the movement of such overtaking vehicles unless other conditions make it unsafe to do so
2. A bicyclist may use a lane other than the right-hand lane when:
1. Preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private roadway or driveway;
2. Overtaking a slower vehicle; or
3. Taking reasonably necessary precautions to avoid hazards or road conditions.
3. Upon approaching an intersection where right turns are permitted and there is a dedicated right-turn lane, a bicyclist may ride on the left-hand portion of the dedicated right-turn lane even if the bicyclist does not intend to turn right.
2. A bicyclist shall not be expected or required to:
1. Ride over or through hazards at the edge of a roadway, including but not limited to fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or narrow lanes; or
2. Ride without a reasonable safety margin on the right-hand side of the roadway.
3. A person operating a bicycle or an electrical assisted bicycle upon a one-way roadway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near to the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as judged safe by the bicyclist, subject to the following conditions:
1. If the left-hand lane then available for traffic is wide enough to be safely shared with overtaking vehicles, a bicyclist shall ride far enough to the left as judged safe by the bicyclist to facilitate the movement of such overtaking vehicles unless other conditions make it unsafe to do so.
2. A bicyclist shall not be expected or required to:
1. Ride over or through hazards at the edge of a roadway, including but not limited to fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or narrow lanes; or
2. Ride without a reasonable safety margin on the right-hand side of the roadway.

Fighting to remove cyclists explicit protections, to leave cyclists subject to legal climate similar to the 1960's for cyclists, isn't progress in cyclists rights. 

IMO, some calls to remove cyclists rights shroud a further marginalization of cyclists that would leave cyclists riding 'just inside the lane' on narrow roads.  Effective Cycling, 6th edition,  instruct cyclists to keep out of the way of traffic except in"special circumstances" (pg 293), to ride "far to the right, just inside the traffic lane"(pg 294) on narrow roads..... fighting to remove cyclists rights doesn't necessarily mean all vehicular cyclists will position themselves squarely in the lane or away from the edge to control narrow lanes. 

Just as there is a difference in lane positioning advice among bicycle drivers,  so too is the opinion on repealing cyclists road rights - Not all bicycle drivers endorse repealing cyclist laws, that allow us to control lanes of traffic whenever necessary for width or expansive safety or operational needs. Some bicycle drivers have no problems operating safely and legally under laws like missouri or colorado's, and welcome explicit, codified, legal protections.

 Mike Beck

 LCI # 3222

---

From: Martin Pion <mp...@swbell.net>
To: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 1:14 AM
Subject: [BicycleDriving] Re: The Case Against FTR

--
--
To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
 
To unsubscribe: bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com
 
Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
Discussion archives: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BicycleDriving" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Bob Shanteau]

On 8/1/2013 11:35 PM, Martin Pion wrote:

Hello Beck, 

I suggest you view a video I posted at BICYCLING Made SIMPLE: Gerry Noll Shows How after editing to shorten it. It shows how things work when competent cyclists are not constrained by discriminatory laws, such as the so-called "Far To the Right" law to which you refer.

On Aug 1, 2013, at 4:15 AM, beck michaels <yoope...@yahoo.com> wrote:

IMO, some calls to remove cyclists rights shroud a further marginalization of cyclists that would leave cyclists riding 'just inside the lane' on narrow roads.

Just as there is a difference in lane positioning advice among bicycle drivers,  so too is the opinion on repealing cyclists road rights - Not all bicycle drivers endorse repealing cyclist laws, that allow us to control lanes of traffic whenever necessary for width or expansive safety or operational needs.

Beck's main point is that repealing the FTR law would leave bicyclists subject to the Slow Moving Vehicle law, which says that drivers of slow moving vehicles must drive in the right-hand lane or as close to the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway as practicable. The problem is that he doesn't understand the "or" in the SMV law. He thinks it means "and", such that SMVs are required to drive at the right edge of the right-hand lane. He is mistaken.

In our article The Marginalization of Bicyclists - How the car lane paradigm eroded our lane rights and what we can do to restore them, Dan Gutierrez and I explain what the "or" in the SMV law means:

===

UVC 11-301 – Drive on right side of roadways – exceptions …

(b) Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, 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, alley, or driveway. The intent of this subsection is to facilitate the overtaking of slowly moving vehicles by faster moving vehicles. …

What does the “or” in “the right-hand lane or as close as practicable to the right” mean?

There has been a lot of confusion about what the “or” in UVC 11-301(b) means. Some people mistakenly interpret the “or” to mean “and”. By this interpretation, a narrow slow moving vehicle (such as a motorcycle) would have to be driven in the right side of the right-hand lane in order to comply with UVC 11-301(b), presumably in order to facilitate passing by faster vehicles in the same lane. Since the UVC specifically grants motorcyclists the right to use a full lane (see below), a driver could get a ticket for passing a motorcyclist without changing lanes. Therefore that interpretation must be incorrect.

A correct interpretation of the “or” in UVC 11-301(b) follows this line of reasoning:

The driver of a slow moving vehicle is in compliance with the law by meeting one of two conditions:

1. Operating in the right-hand lane
2. Operating as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway

On an unlaned road:

• The roadway does not have a right-hand lane for traffic, so condition 1 does not apply.
• The roadway does have a right-hand curb or edge, so condition 2 applies.
• Therefore the driver of a slow moving vehicle operating as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway is in compliance with UVC 11-301(b).

On a laned road:

• The roadway has a right-hand lane for traffic, so condition 1 applies.
• The roadway has a right-hand edge or curb, so condition 2 also applies.
• Condition 1 is less restrictive than Condition 2.
• Only the less restrictive of the two conditions needs to be met in order to comply with the law.
• Therefore the driver of a slow moving vehicle operating in the right-hand lane for traffic is in compliance with UVC 11-301(b).

In 1975, the NCUTLO Panel on Bicycle Laws came to the same interpretation when it considered what would be required of bicyclists on laned roads if the provision were deleted:

UVC 11-301(b) … will effectively require bicycles to stay in the right lane (although it will not require them to stay near the right edge of the roadway) when moving slower than other traffic.

===

Bob Shanteau

[Serge Issakov]

Michael, Martin got cited for violating the local version of that law.  That's what you don't seem to appreciate.  We know the FTR law shouldn't make riding like that illegal. That's why Bob Shanteau and others got those exceptions in there.   But too many people, including law enforcement and judges, not to mention the vast majority of motorists and bicyclists - believe that kind of riding violates FTR never-the-less.  That's the problem... a problem that can only be addressed by removing the law.

Serge

On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 2:55 PM, beck michaels <yoope...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Martin - you will have to explain your position, because it sounds like you're telling the group cyclists are prevented in Missouri from operating a bicycle as depicted in your video.

 Missouri has a Bikes- frap law, or as you like to denigrate it, a 'far to the right' law.

 MO bike-frap law 

 "307.190. Riding To Right, Required For Bicycles And Motorized Bicycles 

Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of 

traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe, exercising due care 

when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, except when making a left turn, 

when avoiding hazardous conditions, when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle or when on a 

one-way street. Bicyclists may ride abreast when not impeding other vehicles. 

So, Martin, you will have to clarify for me.  Does your video depict cyclists riding contrary to state law?

 In other words, do you think cyclists are prohibited from Missouri's BIKES-FRAP law from operating as your video clip depicts? 

 Missouri bike law would certainly allow me to ride as depicted in the video, to widely control lanes of traffic for operational, safety, width or other reasons. Not sure why you think MO bike law is victimizing you so can't ride the same way i would under the bike  laws of the state of missouri, or that riding as depicted in your video is illegal in missouri.

Do you think riding as depicted in your video is illegal in Missouri???

Mike Beck

LCI #3222

---

From: Martin Pion <mp...@swbell.net>

To: beck michaels <yoope...@yahoo.com>
Cc: "bicycle...@googlegroups.com" <bicycle...@googlegroups.com>; Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com>; John Forester <fore...@johnforester.com>
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2013 2:35 AM

Subject: Re: [BicycleDriving] Re: The Case Against FTR

[Martin Pion]

F. Aug. 2, 2013 @ 9:00 pm CT

Hello Beck,

Sorry for my slow response but other things intervened, e.g. supper and watching the Newshour etc. 

The video illustrates how cyclists are now LEGALLY allowed to ride in the City of Ferguson, N. St. Louis County, Missouri, where I live. That is ONLY thanks to action by an enlightened city manager, supported by an overwhelming majority of the city council, which passed an ordinance June 26, 2012, replacing the original FTR section in the local ordinance with wording specifically ALLOWING bicyclist lane control. 

Unfortunately, I wasn't involved in the new wording, which isn't perfect, but IMO still represents a vast improvement, and is the first such ordinance in Missouri, to my knowledge.

I've pasted both the old and new wording below for comparison. Also, here are some relevant posts from my blog which give plenty of background information, beginning with the one describing my getting pulled over for exercising lane control: (P.S. If you find them too wordy just scan through them.) 

Encouraging city & police cooperation with legal bicyclists on narrow multi-lane roads (March 2012)

Bicyclist lane control: Why the law needs changing (June 2012)

Ferguson first Missouri city to repeal bicyclist “Far to Right” discriminatory language, permitting bicyclist lane control (August 2012)

Original wording of ordinance, based on MO state law (my emphasis):

Sec. 44-364. – Riding on roadways.

Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, except when making a left turn, when avoiding hazardous conditions, when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle, or when on a one-way street. Bicyclists may ride abreast when not impeding other vehicles.

(Code 1973, § 42.92.3(2), (3); Ord. No. 96-2809, § 1, 1-9-96)
State law reference— Similar provisions, RSMo 307.190.

New Ferguson Ordinance #2012-3495 replacing the above, approved on June 26, 2012:

Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway may ride in the center of the right lane of travel or may ride to the right side of the roadway; such person may move into the left lane of travel only while in the process of making a left turn. Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle on a roadway shall exercise due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, when making turns, and when streets or lanes are too narrow to share with vehicles. Bicyclists may ride abreast only when not impeding other vehicles.

As for using "denigrating language" to describe what you refer to as "MO bike-frap law" (which would actually be MO bike-fras law, for "far right as safe"), I'm just using what I've seen as accepted.  

BTW, I've been practicing lane control in Ferguson for several years now so getting pulled over last year was a surprise. The Ferguson police officer who stopped me pulled up the local version of the state law on his computer to support the ticket he was writing, which I'm glad to say he eventually tore up (because I was polite!). 

When the city manager reviewed what happened with me the following month he concluded that BOTH of us were arguably correctly interpreting the law, and THAT'S why it needed to be changed - to remove ambiguity.

Sincerely,

Martin Pion

LCI#625

On Aug 2, 2013, at 4:54 PM, beck michaels <yoope...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Martin - you will have to explain your position, because it sounds like you're telling the group cyclists are prevented in Missouri from operating a bicycle as depicted in your video.

 Missouri has a Bikes- frap law, or as you like to denigrate it, a 'far to the right' law.

 MO bike-frap law 

 "307.190. Riding To Right, Required For Bicycles And Motorized Bicycles 

Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of 

traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe, exercising due care 

when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, except when making a left turn, 

when avoiding hazardous conditions, when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle or when on a 

one-way street. Bicyclists may ride abreast when not impeding other vehicles. 

So, Martin, you will have to clarify for me.  Does your video depict cyclists riding contrary to state law?

 In other words, do you think cyclists are prohibited from Missouri's BIKES-FRAP law from operating as your video clip depicts? 

 Missouri bike law would certainly allow me to ride as depicted in the video, to widely control lanes of traffic for operational, safety, width or other reasons. Not sure why you think MO bike law is victimizing you so can't ride the same way i would under the bike  laws of the state of missouri, or that riding as depicted in your video is illegal in missouri.

Do you think riding as depicted in your video is illegal in Missouri???

Mike Beck

LCI #3222

---

From: Martin Pion <mp...@swbell.net>

To: beck michaels <yoope...@yahoo.com>
Cc: "bicycle...@googlegroups.com" <bicycle...@googlegroups.com>; Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com>; John Forester <fore...@johnforester.com>
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2013 2:35 AM

Subject: Re: [BicycleDriving] Re: The Case Against FTR

[Serge Issakov]

Beck is arguing that repealing bike-specific FTR laws is not a good idea because without the supposed "protection" of the exceptions in FTR, bicyclists will be required to ride at the road edge by standard SMV laws.  He supports his argument is supported by statements and publications from the respective DOTs of states that do not have FTR laws.

I forward the substance of his argument below.

Serge

Opening statement:

There are only a handful of states regulating bikes under SMV laws, and out of these half dozen of so states, FOUR of the state DOTs do not interpret the traffic laws in the same opportunistic manner (some) bicycle drivers claim.

Pennsylvania: 

Pennsylvania state laws regulating bike traffic, and the official state DOT instructions to cyclists.  from 
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/75/75.HTM
(b)  Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.--
(1)  Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into an alley, private road 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/pamanual.pdf
3505 
(c) Slower than prevailing speeds.-- A pedalcycle operated at 
slower than prevailing speed shall be operated in accordance with the 
provisions of Section 3301(b), unless it is unsafe to do so. 
[3301(b). Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed. 
Upon all roadways, any vehicles proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at 
the time and place under the conditions than existing shall be driven in the right-hand 

lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge 
of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the 

same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into an alley, 
private road or driveway. This subsection does not apply to a driver who must 
necessarily drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on his intended 
route.] 
Comment: Taken together, 3505 (c) and 3301 (b) state that slower vehicles should keep to the right, 
which is the normal expectation of all road users, while permitting bicyclists to make movements consistent with their intended route.

I don't think the comment means what Beck seems to think it says.  We all agree"slower vehicles should keep to the right"... that's basic speed positioning.

Beck then moves on to Iowa:

 http://iowabicyclecoalition.org/bicycle-resources/bicycle-laws/
321.297 Driving on right-hand side of roadway – exceptions.
1. A vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway upon all roadways of sufficient width, except as follows:
2. Any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic upon all roadways, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection, an alley, private road or driveway.

and the official DOT instructions to cyclists.....

  http://www.iowadot.gov/maps//msp/pdf/bikelaws.pdf
"Bicyclists riding on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic shall ride as close to the right curb or edge of the roadway as practicable."

Indeed, despite the lack of an FTR law in Iowa, the Iowa state DOT does say this.  Anyone on this list from Iowa?  That needs to be corrected!

Then he moves on Kentucky, which does have a horrible SMV law.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=6367
"189.300 Vehicles to keep to right. 
(1) The operator of any vehicle when upon a highway shall travel upon the right 
side of the highway whenever possible, and unless the left side of the highway 
is clear of all other traffic or obstructions for a sufficient distance ahead to 
permit the overtaking and passing of another vehicle to be completed without 
interfering with the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite 
direction or any vehicle being overtaken. The overtaking vehicle shall return to 
the proper traffic lane as soon as practicable and, if the passing vehicle enters 
the oncoming traffic lane, before coming within two hundred (200) feet of any 
approaching vehicle. 
(2) The operator of any vehicle moving slowly upon a highway shall  keep his 
vehicle as closely as practicable to the right-hand boundary of the highway, 
allowing more swiftly moving vehicles reasonably free passage to the left. "
 that one isn't even open to interpretation. but, the interpretation is obvious, and here from louisville official government  instructions to cyclists.....
http://www.louisvilleky.gov/BikeLouisville/bike_laws/
All slow moving vehicles must bear as far right in their lane as is safe and practical, including bicycles. 

North Carolina:

http://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/download/bikeped_laws_Bike_Laws.pdf
"20-146. Drive On Right Side of Highway; Exceptions 
(a) Upon all highways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the 
highway except as follows:   
...........
(b) Upon all highways any vehicle proceeding at less than the legal maximum speed limit 
shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for thru 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. "

 

and the official state instructions to bicyclists.....
from http://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/lawspolicies/laws/

 

"Riding on the Right 
When riding on a roadway, a bicyclist must ride in 
the same direction as other traffic. Also, the bicyclist 
must travel in the right-hand lane and should ride 
as close as practicable to the right-hand edge of 
the highway. [§20-146(a)] Exceptions to this 
law are provided when the bicyclist is making 
these maneuvers: 
• Passing another vehicle moving in the same 
direction [§20-146(a)(1)] 
• Avoiding a dangerous obstruction 
[§20-146(a)(2)] 
• Riding on a one-way street [§20-146(a)(4)] 
• Preparing for a left turn. [§20-146(e)] 
Bicyclists are not required to ride on adjacent 
bicycle paths. "

Massachusetts: 

Massachusetts cyclists report widespread abuses under the interpretations of state traffic laws as they apply to bicyclists, forcing cyclists off busy roads contrary to state law. Even John Allen has been a 'victim' of wrongful control by law enforcement.......Nice climate of road rights there.

from Fred Oswalds' site -
 http://bikelaws.org/Rt2Road.htm#Rowinsky
"Boston area cyclists have for years faced routine harassment by State Police who order them off busy roads despite state statutes that provide a legal right to use the roads." 

........Routine harassment, according to Fred, despite an ostensibly bucolic legal climate for cyclists.
The summer of 2013 finds this groups' own Eli Damon  currently fighting what has every appearance of an unsuccessful fight in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, now gone to federal court, over cyclists being able to control lanes of traffic.  The local police have continued to hold Eli's bike and helment cam, confiscated since last fall. (lets hope it wasn't his number one bicycle)
Boy, that sure sounds like a nice legal climate for bicycle drivers choosing to ride there and exercise their rights- yikes.  IMO, This one looks to end badly for cyclists in Massachusetts, unfortunately. It's going to go to jury of his peers?  It'd be laughable, if it weren't otherwise so treacherous.

[Bob Shanteau]

On 8/4/2013 12:00 PM, Serge Issakov wrote:
>
> Beck is arguing that repealing bike-specific FTR laws is not a good
> idea because without the supposed "protection" of the exceptions in
> FTR, bicyclists will be required to ride at the road edge by standard
> SMV laws. He supports his argument is supported by statements and
> publications from the respective DOTs of states that do not have FTR laws.

His argument is that because the various DOTs misinterpret the SMV laws
according to their prejudice against bicyclists using full lanes (i.e.,
they're stuck in FTR thinking), we need to add a new law enumerating the
rights of bicyclists (including, presumably, the right to use a full
lane). But he doesn't explain why that would get rid of FTR thinking any
better than enumerating the exceptions in the current FTR laws, which
have been around for 38 years and are still mostly being misunderstood
or ignored.

He opposes repealing the FTR law because he thinks it is the exceptions
in that law are what give us the right to use a full lane. He says that
if the FTR law were repealed, the SMV law would be misinterpreted to
require bicyclists to ride at the right-hand curb or edge (i.e., the
anti-bicycle prejudice brought about by FTR thinking).

Basically, he's saying that we need to get rid of FTR thinking before we
can get rid of the FTR law. He's set up a Catch-22, and the only way
out, in his mind, is to pass a new law. Correcting the misinterpretation
of the SMV law is not on his radar.

Bob Shanteau

[Mark Ortiz]

I don’t know about Iowa, but the DOT-published document from NC was done ten years ago on contract by a group at NC State, and has been widely criticized.  It carries the following disclaimer:

 

Every attempt has been made to provide complete and thorough

information on the North Carolina laws pertaining to bicycles

and pedestrians. Neither ITRE nor NCDOT can be held

responsible for any exclusions, omissions nor deletions of relevant

laws. If you have questions or concerns regarding North Carolina

law pertaining to bicycles or pedestrians, you may wish to consult

an attorney.

 

Produced by the Institute for Transportation Research and

Education at North Carolina State University for the North

Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Bicycle and

Pedestrian Transportation.

 

I think I recall some effort to get the wording (of the pamphlet, not the law) changed, but the 2004 version of the document is still what I get in a search.  Perhaps Steve Goodridge or Wayne Pein may know more.

 

 

Mark Ortiz

--

[Wayne Pein]

On 8/4/13 3:00 PM, Serge Issakov wrote:
>
> Beck is arguing that repealing bike-specific FTR laws is not a good idea
> because without the supposed "protection" of the exceptions in FTR,
> bicyclists will be required to ride at the road edge by standard SMV
> laws. He supports his argument is supported by statements and
> publications from the respective DOTs of states that do not have FTR laws.
>
> I forward the substance of his argument below.

> North Carolina:
>
>
> http://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/download/bikeped_laws_Bike_Laws.pdf
> "*20-146. Drive On Right Side of Highway; Exceptions*
> *(a)* Upon all highways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be

> driven upon the right half of the
> highway except as follows:

> *...........
> **(b)* Upon all highways any vehicle proceeding at less than the

> legal maximum speed limit
> shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for thru
> 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. "
>
>
> and the official state instructions to bicyclists.....
> fromhttp://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/lawspolicies/laws/

> <http://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/lawspolicies/laws/>
>
>
> *"Riding on the Right
> **When riding on a roadway, a bicyclist must ride in
> **the same direction as other traffic. Also, the bicyclist
> **must travel in the right-hand lane and should ride
> **as close as practicable to the right-hand edge of
> **the highway.


The "official" NC instructions conveniently use the word "and" where the
statute says "or." So if they can't get that basic element correct....

Wayne

[Wayne Pein]

5 of us wrote a very measured criticism of the document, but were
ignored. Here it is:

http://humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/lawguide_critique.pdf

Wayne

On 8/4/13 4:59 PM, Mark Ortiz wrote:
> I don�t know about Iowa, but the DOT-published document from NC was done

> ten years ago on contract by a group at NC State, and has been widely
> criticized. It carries the following disclaimer:
>
> Every attempt has been made to provide complete and thorough
>
> information on the North Carolina laws pertaining to bicycles
>
> and pedestrians. Neither ITRE nor NCDOT can be held
>
> responsible for any exclusions, omissions nor deletions of relevant
>
> laws. If you have questions or concerns regarding North Carolina
>
> law pertaining to bicycles or pedestrians, you may wish to consult
>
> an attorney.
>
> Produced by the Institute for Transportation Research and
>
> Education at North Carolina State University for the North
>
> Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Bicycle and
>
> Pedestrian Transportation.
>
> I think I recall some effort to get the wording (of the pamphlet, not
> the law) changed, but the 2004 version of the document is still what I
> get in a search. Perhaps Steve Goodridge or Wayne Pein may know more.
>
> Mark Ortiz
>

> *From:*bicycle...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:bicycle...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Serge Issakov
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 04, 2013 3:00 PM
> *To:* BicycleDriving
> *Subject:* Fwd: Fw: [BicycleDriving] Re: The Case Against FTR

>
> Beck is arguing that repealing bike-specific FTR laws is not a good idea
> because without the supposed "protection" of the exceptions in FTR,
> bicyclists will be required to ride at the road edge by standard SMV
> laws. He supports his argument is supported by statements and
> publications from the respective DOTs of states that do not have FTR laws.
>
> I forward the substance of his argument below.
>
> Serge
>
> Opening statement:
>
> There are only a handful of states regulating bikes under SMV laws,

> and out of these half dozen of so states, FOUR of the state DOTs _do
> not_ interpret the traffic laws in the same opportunistic manner

> (some) bicycle drivers claim.
>
> Pennsylvania:
>
> Pennsylvania state laws regulating bike traffic, and the official
> state DOT instructions to cyclists. from
> http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/75/75.HTM

> *(b) Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.--
> *(1) Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the

> *Comment: Taken together, 3505 (c) and 3301 (b) state that slower

> vehicles should keep to the right,
> which is the normal expectation of all road users, while permitting

> bicyclists to make movements consistent with their intended route.*

>
> I don't think the comment means what Beck seems to think it says. We
> all agree"slower vehicles should keep to the right"... that's basic
> speed positioning.
>
> Beck then moves on to Iowa:
>
>
> http://iowabicyclecoalition.org/bicycle-resources/bicycle-laws/

> 321.297 Driving on right-hand side of roadway � exceptions.

> 1. A vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway upon
> all roadways of sufficient width, except as follows:
> 2. Any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic
> at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall
> be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic upon all
> roadways, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge
> of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle
> proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn
> at an intersection, an alley, private road or driveway.
>
> and the official DOT instructions to cyclists.....
>
> http://www.iowadot.gov/maps//msp/pdf/bikelaws.pdf

> <http://www.iowadot.gov/maps/msp/pdf/bikelaws.pdf>
> *"Bicyclists riding on a roadway at less than the normal speed of

> traffic shall ride as close to the right curb or edge of the roadway

> as practicable."*

>
> Indeed, despite the lack of an FTR law in Iowa, the Iowa state DOT does
> say this. Anyone on this list from Iowa? That needs to be corrected!
>
> Then he moves on Kentucky, which does have a horrible SMV law.
>
>
> http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=6367

> "*189.300* *Vehicles to keep to right.*

> *All slow moving vehicles must bear as far right in their lane as is
> safe and practical, including bicycles. *
>
>
> North Carolina:
>
>
> http://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/download/bikeped_laws_Bike_Laws.pdf
> "*20-146. Drive On Right Side of Highway; Exceptions*
> *(a)* Upon all highways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven

> upon the right half of the
> highway except as follows:

> *...........
> **(b)* Upon all highways any vehicle proceeding at less than the legal

> maximum speed limit
> shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for thru 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. "
>
>
> and the official state instructions to bicyclists.....
> fromhttp://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/lawspolicies/laws/

> <http://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/lawspolicies/laws/>
>
>
> "*Riding on the Right*
> *When riding on a roadway, a bicyclist must ride in

> the same direction as other traffic. Also, the bicyclist

> must travel in the right-hand lane and should ride*
> *as close as practicable to the right-hand edge of*
> *the highway. *[�20-146(a)] Exceptions to this

> law are provided when the bicyclist is making
> these maneuvers:

> � Passing another vehicle moving in the same
> direction [�20-146(a)(1)]
> � Avoiding a dangerous obstruction
> [�20-146(a)(2)]
> � Riding on a one-way street [�20-146(a)(4)]
> � Preparing for a left turn. [�20-146(e)]

> Bicyclists are not required to ride on adjacent
> bicycle paths."
>
> Massachusetts:
>
> Massachusetts cyclists report widespread abuses under the
> interpretations of state traffic laws as they apply to bicyclists,
> forcing cyclists off busy roads contrary to state law. Even John
> Allen has been a 'victim' of wrongful control by law
> enforcement.......Nice climate of road rights there.
>
> from Fred Oswalds' site -
> http://bikelaws.org/Rt2Road.htm#Rowinsky
> "Boston area cyclists have for years faced routine harassment by
> State Police who order them off busy roads despite state statutes
> that provide a legal right to use the roads."
>

> ........*Routine *harassment, according to Fred, despite an

> ostensibly bucolic legal climate for cyclists.
> The summer of 2013 finds this groups' own Eli Damon currently
> fighting what has every appearance of an unsuccessful fight in the
> Commonwealth of Massachusetts, now gone to federal court, over
> cyclists being able to control lanes of traffic. The local police
> have continued to hold Eli's bike and helment cam, confiscated since
> last fall. (lets hope it wasn't his number one bicycle)

> Boy, */that/* sure sounds like a nice legal climate for bicycle

> drivers choosing to ride there and exercise their rights- yikes.
> IMO, This one looks to end badly for cyclists in Massachusetts,
> unfortunately. It's going to go to jury of his peers? It'd be
> laughable, if it weren't otherwise so treacherous.
>
> --
> --
> To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:bicycle...@googlegroups.com>

> Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
>
> To unsubscribe: bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com>

>
> Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
> Discussion archives:
> http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
> Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
> Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "BicycleDriving" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com>.

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
> --
> --
> To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
> Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
>
> To unsubscribe: bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com
>
> Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
> Discussion archives:
> http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
> Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
> Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "BicycleDriving" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

--
Wayne

www.bicyclingmatters.wordpress.com
www.humantransport.org
www.bicyclinglife.com

[John Forester]

Beck advances four examples to support his argument.

The first is Pennsylvania. In PA, both the state statute and the official bicycling guide make the same statement, that drivers of slowly-moving vehicles, including bicycles, have the choice of using the right-hand lane for traffic or moving FTR. That is exactly what I have been writing for a long time. Beck chooses to add a comment saying that these support the principle of slower traffic keeping right. So what? Keeping right means using the right-hand lane for traffic, no more than that. Beck's comment is irrelevant.

The next is Iowa. Iowa does not have a bicycle FTR law. Its law for slowly moving drivers is the standard, giving the choice of right-hand lane for traffic or FTR. However, the instruction guide for cyclists says cyclists have to ride FTR. That is not the law, and therefore should not be in the government's instructions for cyclists.

Another is North Carolina. NC's slowly moving vehicles law is the standard, giving the choice of right-hand lane for traffic or FTR. The instructions for cyclists repeat this message, but add that cyclists "should" ride FTR. The FTR suggestion is not in the statute, and therefore should not appear in the government's instructions for cyclists.

The last of Beck's examples is Kentucky. KY's statute requires FTR for all slowly-driven vehicles. The wording of the statute does not appear to be ancient, but it does not reflect modern thinking either. One wonders about the possible effect of coal haulers in getting this statute enacted. This is an example of a state statute that needs reform and modernization, but its existence does not validate Beck's general claim.

Beck's argument, so far as he seems to be presenting an argument, appears to be that America is so permeated by bicycle FTR thinking that it seeps into official instructions for cyclists even when it does not appear in that state's statutes. I agree entirely; that is the point of the paper against FTR which I have nearly completed. However, our conclusions differ. Beck argues that we should bow down to the motorist superiority/cyclist inferiority expressed in the FTR law, counting on the exceptions to save us. I reach a different conclusion. I argue that this national bicycle FTR thinking is based on the cyclist FTR laws (and also the other way around; it is a two-way street). Therefore, we must repeal the cyclist FTR laws to remove the legal basis for the FTR thinking, so that it then cannot have the support of the law and must degenerate into its actual character of nothing more than motorist self-serving discrimination.

On 8/4/2013 12:00 PM, Serge Issakov wrote:

Beck is arguing that repealing bike-specific FTR laws is not a good idea because without the supposed "protection" of the exceptions in FTR, bicyclists will be required to ride at the road edge by standard SMV laws. �He supports his argument is supported by statements and publications from the respective DOTs of states that do not have FTR laws.

I forward the substance of his argument below.

Serge

Opening statement:

There are only a handful of states regulating bikes under SMV laws, and out of these half dozen of so states, FOUR of the state DOTs do not interpret the traffic laws in the same opportunistic manner (some) bicycle drivers claim.

Pennsylvania:�

Pennsylvania state laws regulating bike traffic, and the official state DOT instructions to cyclists.� from�
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/75/75.HTM
(b) �Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.--
(1) �Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into an alley, private road�

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/pamanual.pdf
3505�
(c) Slower than prevailing speeds.-- A pedalcycle operated at�
slower than prevailing speed shall be operated in accordance with the�
provisions of Section 3301(b), unless it is unsafe to do so.�
[3301(b). Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.�
Upon all roadways, any vehicles proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at�
the time and place under the conditions than existing shall be driven in the right-hand�
lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge�
of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the�
same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into an alley,�
private road or driveway. This subsection does not apply to a driver who must�
necessarily drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on his intended�
route.]�
Comment: Taken together, 3505 (c) and 3301 (b) state that slower vehicles should keep to the right,�

which is the normal expectation of all road users, while permitting bicyclists to make movements consistent with their intended route.

I don't think the comment means what Beck seems to think it says. �We all agree"slower vehicles should keep to the right"... that's basic speed positioning.

Beck then moves on to Iowa:

�http://iowabicyclecoalition.org/bicycle-resources/bicycle-laws/
321.297 Driving on right-hand side of roadway � exceptions.

1. A vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway upon all roadways of sufficient width, except as follows:
2. Any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic upon all roadways, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection, an alley, private road or driveway.

and the official DOT instructions to cyclists.....

��http://www.iowadot.gov/maps//msp/pdf/bikelaws.pdf

"Bicyclists riding on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic shall ride as close to the right curb or edge of the roadway as practicable."

Indeed, despite the lack of an FTR law in Iowa, the Iowa state DOT does say this. �Anyone on this list from Iowa? �That needs to be corrected!

Then he moves on Kentucky, which does have a horrible SMV law.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=6367
"189.300 Vehicles to keep to right.�
(1) The operator of any vehicle when upon a highway shall travel upon the right�
side of the highway whenever possible, and unless the left side of the highway�
is clear of all other traffic or obstructions for a sufficient distance ahead to�
permit the overtaking and passing of another vehicle to be completed without�
interfering with the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite�
direction or any vehicle being overtaken. The overtaking vehicle shall return to�
the proper traffic lane as soon as practicable and, if the passing vehicle enters�
the oncoming traffic lane, before coming within two hundred (200) feet of any�
approaching vehicle.�
(2) The operator of any vehicle moving slowly upon a highway shall� keep his�
vehicle as closely as practicable to the right-hand boundary of the highway,�

allowing more swiftly moving vehicles reasonably free passage to the left. "

�that one isn't even open to interpretation. but, the interpretation is obvious, and here from louisville official government� instructions to cyclists.....
http://www.louisvilleky.gov/BikeLouisville/bike_laws/
All slow moving vehicles must bear as far right in their lane as is safe and practical, including bicycles.�

North Carolina:

http://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/download/bikeped_laws_Bike_Laws.pdf
"20-146. Drive On Right Side of Highway; Exceptions�
(a) Upon all highways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the�
highway except as follows:� �
...........
(b) Upon all highways any vehicle proceeding at less than the legal maximum speed limit�
shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for thru 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. "

�

and the official state instructions to bicyclists.....
from http://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/lawspolicies/laws/

�

"Riding on the Right�
When riding on a roadway, a bicyclist must ride in�
the same direction as other traffic. Also, the bicyclist�
must travel in the right-hand lane and should ride�
as close as practicable to the right-hand edge of�
the highway. [�20-146(a)] Exceptions to this�
law are provided when the bicyclist is making�
these maneuvers:�
� Passing another vehicle moving in the same�
direction [�20-146(a)(1)]�
� Avoiding a dangerous obstruction�
[�20-146(a)(2)]�
� Riding on a one-way street [�20-146(a)(4)]�
� Preparing for a left turn. [�20-146(e)]�
Bicyclists are not required to ride on adjacent�
bicycle paths. "

Massachusetts:�

Massachusetts cyclists report widespread abuses under the interpretations of state traffic laws as they apply to bicyclists, forcing cyclists off busy roads contrary to state law. Even John Allen has been a 'victim' of wrongful control by law enforcement.......Nice climate of road rights there.

from Fred Oswalds' site -

�http://bikelaws.org/Rt2Road.htm#Rowinsky
"Boston area cyclists have for years faced routine harassment by State Police who order them off busy roads despite state statutes that provide a legal right to use the roads."�

........Routine harassment, according to Fred, despite an ostensibly bucolic legal climate for cyclists.

The summer of 2013 finds this groups' own Eli Damon �currently fighting what has every appearance of an unsuccessful fight in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, now gone to federal court, over cyclists being able to control lanes of traffic. �The local police have continued to hold Eli's bike and helment cam, confiscated since last fall. (lets hope it wasn't his number one bicycle)
Boy, that sure sounds like a nice legal climate for bicycle drivers choosing to ride there and exercise their rights- yikes. �IMO,�This one looks to end badly for cyclists in Massachusetts, unfortunately. It's�going to go to jury of his peers?� It'd be laughable, if it weren't otherwise so treacherous.

--
--
To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)

�
To unsubscribe: bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com
�

Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
Discussion archives: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links

�

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BicycleDriving" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

�
�

[Bob Shanteau]

On 8/5/2013 1:58 AM, beck michaels wrote:

bob, strict statutory construction might make sense to you, but that's not how the law is being interpreted in several states with these laws as they apply to bicycles.

that's a sign the smv laws are as (purportedly) as  far worse  than bikes-frap laws when it comes to misinterpretation of the laws. Far worse, as states with bikes-frap laws make it clear  in their instructions to bicyclists that cyclists can control lanes of traffic.

 occams' razor suggests it is not the state DOTs that are wrong, but this club of delusional bicycle drivers.

Beck is trying to use an Argument from Authority to prove his assertion that the SMV law requires bicyclists to ride at the right edge of the right-hand lane. In general, such an argument goes like this:

X holds that A is true.

X is a legitimate expert on the subject matter.

The consensus of subject-matter experts agrees with X.

Therefore, there exists a presumption that A is true.

Specifically, he is saying,

Some state DOTs say that the SMV law requires bicyclists to ride at the right edge of the right-hand lane.

The state DOTs are legitimate experts on the subject matter.

The consensus of subject-matter experts agrees with the state DOTs.

Therefore, there exists a presumption that the SMV law requires bicyclists to ride at the right edge of the right-hand lane.

His argument is fallacious on every level:

First, at least one of the state DOTs he quotes says only that the SMV law requires bicyclists to keep right, without defining what "keep right" means. In particular, on traffic signs on laned highways such as freeways, "keep right" means for drivers of slow moving motor vehicles to use the right-hand lane, not the right edge of the right-hand lane.

Second, he assumes that whoever wrote the state DOT guidance is a subject matter expert. But he has not told us who wrote the guidance or the qualifications of that person. So he has not said whether the author of the guidance is a legitimate expert on the subject matter or not.

Third, he identifies only 4 state DOTs that provide guidance to bicyclists as to their responsibilities under the SMV law. He has not said what the other 46 states have to say on the matter, so he cannot say what the consensus is of state DOTs is.

Beck is picking and choosing which subject-matter experts to pay attention to. For instance, he chooses to ignore the report of the 1975 Panel on Bicycle Laws, which consisted of up to 5 subject-matter experts (including a civil engineering professor at Purdue University, the Executive Director of the League of American Wheelmen, the bicycle coordinator of the USDOT, a representative of the Auto Club of Missouri, and a law enforcement officer from Reno, NV). The Panel on Bicycle Laws interpreted the SMV law as only requiring slow moving bicyclists to use the right-hand lane (see below). The SMV provision of the UVC has not changed since 1975, so that interpretation still holds.

Also, I am a traffic engineering expert witness and have testified in court several times as to what traffic engineers expect of road users with respect to the rules of the road, therefore I am a subject matter expert on the rules of the road. Similarly, John Forester is also an expert witness as well as having published a book on bicycle transportation engineering. Both of us are subject-matter experts who interpret the SMV law the same as the Panel on Bicycle Laws.

Thus there is NO consensus of subject-matter experts as to responsibilities of bicyclists under the SMV law.

Furthermore, Beck provides no independent analysis of the SMV law. He has refused to say whether he personally agrees with the state DOTs or whether their guidance extends to drivers of other vehicles, such as loaded trucks going uphill. He does not claim to be a subject-matter expert himself with regard to the SMV law and bicycles, therefore he cannot provide any independent judgement of the quality of the guidance provided by the 4 state DOTs.

In conclusion, Beck has utterly failed to prove his proposition.

Bob Shanteau

----
From the report of the Panel on Bicycle Laws:

UVC § 11-301(b) requires all vehicles proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing to stay in the right hand lane, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when passing or preparing for a left turn. This law will effectively require bicycles to stay in the right lane (although it will not require them to stay near the right edge of the roadway) when moving slower than other traffic.

---

[Bob Shanteau]

In my latest exchange with Beck, I demonstrate how he is using an Argument from Authority, which can be OK, except his argument is fallacious on every level. Here is my analysis of his argument and, for the record, his response. He clearly does not understand why his argument is fallacious and calls my analysis "sophistry."

Beck continues to respond to reasoned debate with insults.It's good that Serge is moderating Beck's posts on this list. There is some new information in this exchange, however, so I think there is some value in posting it to the list.

On 8/5/2013 1:58 AM, beck michaels wrote:

 bob, strict statutory construction [plain language interpretation of the SMV law] might make sense to you, but that's not how the law is being interpreted in several states with these laws as they apply to bicycles.

 that's a sign the smv laws are as (purportedly) as  far worse  than bikes-frap laws when it comes to misinterpretation of the laws. Far worse, as states with bikes-frap laws make it clear  in their instructions to bicyclists that cyclists can control lanes of traffic.

  occams' razor suggests it is not the state DOTs that are wrong, but this club of delusional bicycle drivers.

On 8/5/2013 6:59 PM, beck michaels wrote:

tell that to the pennsylvania state trooper [Pennsylvania is one of the states lacking a bicycle-specific FTR law] when he gives you a ticket for failure to keep right.

 Occam's razor allows the long standing, correct interpretation stand out.

 and a question to combat the sophistry of bob- where does the operator of a narrow pushcart position themselves when moving slowly on a two lane road - anywhere in the lane?

assertions contrary to widespread, longstanding conventions of traffic law? What riding club this, the club of dupes?

[Bob Shanteau]

On 8/6/2013 12:31 PM, beck michaels wrote:

On August 6, 2013 10:32 AM, Bob Shanteau wrote:

The SMV provision of the UVC has not changed since 1975, so that interpretation still holds.

You are lying to the group when you claim the UVC hasn't been modified since 1975.

 the SMV provisions of the UVC has very well been modified..... to make it clearer the intent of the law is to facilitate passing, for the convenience of the motorist..... suggested by John Forester himself, promoted and proposed in 1998 NCUTLO meeting..... so in 1998, these 'traffic experts' and John got together to craft additional language to the UVC SMV provisions that made it clear slowly moving vehicles (like bicyclists) must facilitate overtaking.

Here is the current wording of the SMV law in the UVC:

UVC 11-301 - Drive on right side of roadways - Exceptions

(b) Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, 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, alley, or driveway. The intent of this subsection is to facilitate the overtaking of slowly moving vehicles by faster moving vehicles.

Here is the wording of the SMV law in the 1979 UVC:

UVC 11-301 - Drive on Right Side of Roadway - Exceptions
(b) Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic. or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left tum at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

I said "the SMV provision of the UVC hasn't changed since 1975." I stand corrected. The word "alley" was added and the "intent" sentence was added. The first change is substantive, but since the second change is only explanatory and does not add or subtract any rights or duties, I do not consider it to be substantive.

If you are a student of the UVC, you will be interested to know that the 1930 UVC had a separate provision for streets and highways laned for traffic, which was removed in 1934. The 1948 UVC introduced the "or" clause, the intent of which was apparently the same as the 1930 wording but instead has been the subject of a great deal of confusion. To clear up the confusion, it would be a good idea to go back to something like the 1930 wording.

The 1979 Uniform Vehicle Code Annotated also describes whether the laws of the various states are in substantial conformance with the UVC:

---

Historical Note

Section 10 of the 1926 Code. which is quoted in full in § 11-301(a), supra. required operators to drive upon the right half of the highway and to "drive a slow moving vehicle as closely as possible to the right-hand edge or curb of such highway," unless impracticable and except when overtaking and passing another vehicle. UVC Act IV. § 10 (1926).

The 1930 Code, however. contained three subsections directing a person to drive in the right lane. They provided:

Section 26. Drive on Right Side of Highway.

(b) In driving upon the right half of the highway the driver shall drive as closely as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb of the highway except when overtaking or passing another vehicle, or when placing a vehicle in position to make a left turn. (d) In driving upon a one-way highway the driver shall drive as closely as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb of the highway except when overtaking or passing or traveling parallel with another vehicle or when placing a vehicle in position to make a left turn.

Section 27. Special Regulations Applicable on Streets and Highways Laned for Traffic. Whenever any street or highway has been divided into clearly marked lanes for traffic, drivers of vehicles shall obey the following regulations:
(a) A vehicle shall normally be driven in the lane nearest the right-hand edge or curb of the highway when said lane is available for travel except when overtaking another vehicle or in preparation for a left tum. . . .

UVC Act IV. §§ 26(b) and (d), 27(a) (Rev. ed. 1930). In 1934, the Code sections relating to driving on the right, overtaking and passing. and use of the roadway generally were substantially revised and the above provisions relating to driving in the right-hand lane were deleted. A provision comparable to any of those contained in the 1926 and 1930 editions did not again appear in the Code until 1948 when the National Committee approved the section now designated as UVC § 11-301(b). UVC Act V, § 63(b) (Rev. eds. 1948. 1952); UVC § 11-301(b) (Rev. eds. 1954, 1956, 1962, 1968). The section has not been amended since it was placed in the Code in 1948.

Statutory Annotation

The laws of 29 states and the District of Columbia are in verbatim conformity with UVC § 11-301(b):

Arizona Colorado1 Delaware2 Florida Georgia3 Hawaii Idaho4 Illinois

Indiana5 Iowa Kansas6 Minnesota Mississippi Montana7 Nebraska8

New Hampshire9 New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma10 Pennsylvania11 Rhode Island

South Carolina Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont West Virginia Wisconsin

1. Colorado has an additional law (§ 13-5-35) providing that if a person drives at less than the normal speed of traffic outside cities, he must drive in the right lane or pull off the roadway if he impedes or retards traffic. If there arc uphill lanes or turnouts, drivers proceeding less than the normal and reasonable speed must use them to allow other vehicles to pass or maintain normal traffic flow

2. Delaware has a second law (§ 4125):

On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow moving vehicle, behind which five (5) or more vehicles are formed in line, shall tum off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. As used in this section, a slow moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

3. Georgia adds that no two vehicles shall impede the normal flow of traffic by traveling side by side at the same time while in adjacent lanes: Provided, that this Section shall not be construed to prevent vehicles traveling side by side in adjacent lanes because of congested traffic conditions

4. Idaho has a second law which requires a person who is driving at such a slow speed on a two-lane highway that three or more vehicles are formed in a line behind him and cannot pass to the left safely, to turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. A "slow-moving vehicle" is defined as one proceeding at a speed less than the normal flow of traffic at that particular time and place. Idaho Code Ann. § 49-704A.

5. Indiana has a second provision which requires a person who is driving at such slow speed that three or more other vehicles are blocked and cannot pass on the left Io give the right of way to such other vehicles by ''pulling off to the right of the right lane at the earliest possible opportunity and allowing the blocked vehicles to pass." Ind. Ann. Stat. § 9-4-1-59. Indiana adopted laws requiring drivers on interstate highways to use the "right lanes" if they are traveling at a speed less than the established maximum limit. All trucks and combinations of vehicles on such highways must use the far right lane unless they are passing, entering or leaving the highway or where a special hazard exists. If there are three or more lanes in one direction, trucks and combinations of vehicles must be in the two far right lanes except when entering or leaving the highways or where a special hazard exists. Ind. Code § 9-4-1-59 (Supp. 1979).

6. Kansas has a second law requiring drivers proceeding at such a slow speed and under such circumstances that three or more vehicles are blocked and cannot pass on the left to give right of way to the blocked vehicles at the earliest reasonable opportunity unless it cannot be safely done. § 8-534(c).

7. Montana has a second law (32-2147) requiring a driver blocking four or more vehicles to turn off the road in a turnout or other area to let them pass on two lane highways.

8. A second law requires animal riders, persons driving animal drawn vehicles and drivers of farm tractors to use the nearest available shoulder when their slowness obstructs the normal flow of traffic.

9. New Hampshire (§ 262-A:52) requires school bus drivers to pull over when there are five or more motor vehicles following the bus if road conditions and space permit.

10. Oklahoma substitutes "when" for the Code's "then available for traffic."

11. The Pennsylvania law does not apply to a driver who must be in a different lane to continue on his intended route. Pennsylvania has a second law (i 3364) which provides:

Except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law, whenever any person drives a vehicle upon a roadway having width for not more than one lane of traffic in each direction at less than the maximum posted speed and at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the driver shall, at the first opportunity when and where it is reasonable and safe to do so and after giving appropriate signal, drive completely off the roadway and onto the berm or shoulder of the highway. The driver may return to the roadway after giving appropriate signal only when the movement can be made in safety and so as not to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

12. A second Vermont law (§ 1082) requires all slow-moving vehicles to keep as close to the right side as is practicable and to pull off the highway when impeding traffic to lei it pass

The laws of six more jurisdictions use somewhat different language, but are in substantial conformity with this Code subsection:

California—§ 21654 provides:

(a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, 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.

(b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time, and is not being driven in the right hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute prima facie evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation of subdivision (a) of this section.

See also, § 21655(b), quoted in full in § 11-309(c), infra, expressly requiring certain types of vehicles to be driven in the right-hand lane or as close as practicable to the right edge or curb.

Connecticut - § 14-230 provides:

Driving in right hand lane. . . . Any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic 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 tum at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

See also, § 14-99 which provides:

.... When operating at below the posted speed limits and when so approached or overtaken, the operator of such commercial motor vehicle [one that is so constructed or loaded that driver cannot have a view of the rear] shall drive to the extreme right of the travelled way as promptly as safety will permit, giving the vehicle approaching from the rear opportunity to pass. North Dakota—§ 39-10-08(2) is in verbatim conformity except that it refers to a left turn "in" rather than "at" an intersection.

Oregon has the following laws:

§ 487.170. Slow driver duty to drive on right.
  (1) As used in this section, "slow driver" means a driver who operates a vehicle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing.
  (2) A slow driver commits the offense of failure to drive on the right if he fails to drive in the right-hand lane available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except:
    (a) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction  under the rules governing this movement; or
    (b) When preparing to turn left at an intersection, alley or private road or driveway.
  (3) A slow driver failing to drive on the right commits a Class C traffic infraction.

§ 487.180. Slower driver duty to yield.
  (1) A driver commits the offense of failure to yield to an overtaking vehicle if he fails to move his vehicle off the main traveled portion of the highway into an area sufficient for safe turnout when:
    (a) The driver of the overtaken vehicle is proceeding at a speed less than a designated speed under ORS 487.470;
    (b) The driver of the overtaking vehicle is proceeding at a speed in conformity with ORS 487.470;
    (c) The highway is a two directional two-lane highway; and
    (d) There is no clear lane for passing available to the driver of the overtaking vehicle.
  (2) Failure of slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle by use of safe turnout is a Class C traffic infraction.

§ 487.185. Duty of driver of certain vehicles to drive to right.
  (1) A driver of a vehicle having a gross weight of 8.000 or more pounds, a camper or a vehicle with trailer commits the offense of failure to drive on the right if he does not drive in the right lane of all roadways having two or more lanes for traffic proceeding in a single direction, except:
    (a) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing this movement when such movement can be made without interfering with the passage of other vehicles;
    (b) When preparing to turn left;
    (c) When reasonably necessary in response to emergency conditions;
    (d) To avoid actual or potential traffic moving onto the right lane from an acceleration or merging lane; or
    (e) When necessary to follow highway directional signs that direct use of a lane other than the right lane.
  (2) A driver who violates subsection (I) of this section commits a Class C traffic infraction.

Washington - Law provides:

Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding slower than the legal maximum speed or at a speed slower than necessary for safe operation at the time and place under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, 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.

A second law on slowpokes provides:

On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow moving vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in a line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turn-out exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. As used in this section a slow  moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

Puerto Rico - Requires that on public highways of more than one lane, all heavy motor vehicles, including buses, and other slow-moving vehicles, are under an obligation to keep to the extreme right hand lane, except for those instances noted in the Code.

The laws of the following 15 states contain various provisions that are not in conformity with UVC § 11-301(b):

Alabama - Law is quoted in full in § 11-301 (a), supra, and is somewhat similar to § 10 of the 1926 Code by requiring drivers to keep on the right half of the highway and, in the same sentence, to drive a slow-moving vehicle as close as is reasonably possible to the right-hand edge of the highway. However, it does not apply on one-way streets or highways and therefore is not in substantial conformity with UVC § 11-301(b). See texts of 1926 and 1930 Code provisions in the Historical Notes to § 11-301(a) and this section, supra.

Alaska - Requires slower-moving vehicles to keep in the right lane except upon one-way roadways.

Kentucky - § 189.300 provides:

Vehicles to keep to right.... (2) The operator of any vehicle moving slowly upon a highway shall keep his vehicle as closely as practicable to the right-hand boundary of the highway, allowing more swiftly moving vehicles reasonably free passage to the left.

Louisiana - § 32:71 contains much of the language appearing in UVC § 11 -301 (b). It applies, however, only upon "multiple-lane highways," which are defined as any highway having two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in each direction, and not "upon all roadways" as in the Code. The law also does not contain the phrase "or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway" and excepts a driver overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction "if passing on the left side of it." However, the law then provides;

Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize driving any vehicle in the left lane so as to prohibit, impede or block passage of an overtaking vehicle in such lane and in such event the vehicle in the left lane prohibiting, impeding or blocking passage of an overtaking vehicle shall expeditiously merge into the right lane of traffic.

The law also provides that any person going at least 10 mph under the speed limit must drive in the right lane or near the curb. Such persons may pass or turn left.

Maine - § 85 provides:

Vehicles shall keep to right. - A person in control of any vehicle moving slowly along a way shall keep said vehicle as closely as practicable to the right-hand boundary of the way, allowing more swiftly moving vehicles reasonably free passage to the left.

Maryland - Law provides:

On every roadway, except while overtaking and passing another vehicle going in the same direction or when preparing for a lawful left tum. any vehicle going 10 miles an hour or more below the applicable maximum speed limit or. if any existing conditions reasonably require a speed below that of the applicable maximum, at less than the normal speed of traffic under these conditions, shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

Section 11-1407 requires trucks and slow-moving traffic to use the right lane in tunnels.

Massachusetts - See § 4B, quoted in § 11 -301 (a), supra, which generally requires drivers to use the right lane on a way divided into lanes. UVC § 11-301(b) applies on all roadways. See also, Mass. Ann. Laws § 4, which, in part, requires a driver of a slow-moving vehicle to "reasonably keep said vehicle in the extreme right-hand lane" while ascending to the top of a grade. A regulation requires use of the lane nearest the right side of the roadway except when passing or preparing for a left turn. Another law (ch. 89, § 4C) requires trucks over 2½ tons to use the right lane in ordinary operation when there is "more than one passing lane in the same direction." When overtaking and passing, drivers of such trucks can use the next adjacent passing lane but can use other lanes only in an emergency.

Michigan - § 9.2342 provides:

Whenever any roadway has been divided into 2 or more clearly marked lanes for traffic the following rules in addition to all others consistent herewith shall apply: (a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety. Upon a roadway with 4 or more lanes which provides for 2-way movement of traffic, a vehicle shall be driven within the extreme right hand lane except when overtaking and passing but in no event shall cross the center line of the roadway except where making a left turn.

Section 9.2334 provides:

(b) Except when lawfully permitted to drive on the left half of the roadway as provided in subparagraph (a), upon a roadway having 2 or more lanes for travel in one direction a vehicle shall be driven in the extreme right hand lane available for travel; except that a vehicle may be driven in any lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the same direction of travel when the lanes are occupied by vehicles moving in substantially continuous lanes of traffic or for a reasonable distance prior to making a left tum.

(c) This section shall not be construed to prohibit a vehicle traveling in the appropriate direction from traveling in any lane of a freeway having 3 or more lanes for travel in the same direction. A city, village, township, or county may not enact an ordinance which regulates the same subject matter as any provision of this subsection.

These laws differ from the Code which requires slower-moving traffic to keep in the right lane. The second law requires all drivers to be in the right lane unless passing, driving around an obstruction, preparing for a left tum or when available lanes are occupied by substantially continuous "lanes," and the first law requires a right-lane position except while passing or making a left turn. Also, while the Code would require a slower-moving vehicle to be in the right lane in heavy traffic, the second Michigan law would not because it allows driving in "any lane lawfully available . . . when the lanes are occupied by vehicles moving in substantially continuous lanes of traffic." However, the first Michigan law probably would require a slower vehicle to be in the right lane. When these two laws are considered in connection with Michigan's not having a law like UVC I l1-301(a)4, providing a general exception from remaining on the right half of a one-way roadway, it thus appears:

(1) Michigan would require a vehicle to be in the right lane of a one-way roadway even though it may be the only vehicle on that roadway. The Code would not.

(2) Michigan would not allow a vehicle in the right lane of a one-way roadway to move left to accommodate merging traffic. The Code would.

(3) The Michigan law would not allow use of the left lane in innumerable other instances where such a position on the roadway is indicated by safe driving practices or traffic conditions.

(4) The Michigan law may result in the deployment of signs directing drivers to "Keep Right Except To Pass" on one-way roadways of controlled-access or divided highways rather than the sign supporting the Code's rule of "Slower-moving Traffic Keep Right." See also, UVC i 11 -309(c).

The second Michigan law would also appear to permit passing on the left side of a roadway with two lanes for traffic moving in each direction and does not seem to allow passing in the left lane on the right half of the roadway. But see the first law and see UVC § 11-301(c).

These Michigan laws constitute a substantial variation from the Uniform Vehicle Code and, in effect, utilize rules that were deleted from the Code in 1934 following the advent of one-way and multiple-lane roadways. They have been judged unworkable and impractical in other states and materially contribute to poor utilization of roadway space and to unsafe driving practices. The National Committee has consistently reaffirmed its opposition to applying the general rule of "keep right except to pass" on one-way roadways and on most roadways that are wide enough to accommodate two lines of vehicles moving in the same direction. Though directed at Michigan laws, some of the above comments appear applicable also to existing laws in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, and Pennsylvania and to provisions in the Convention on Road Traffic (U.N. Conference on Road Traffic, 1968).

As to freeways with three or more lanes in one direction, drivers (even those going very slowly) may travel in any lane.

Missouri - § 304.015(5) (3), applicable to roadways with three or more clearly marked lanes, provides:

Upon all highways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic thereon shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except as otherwise provided in sections 304.014 to 304.026.

The sections referred to deal with proper position on the highway, passing and turning movements and right of way. Another Missouri law, authorizing passing on the right (§ 304.016(2) (6)), provides that such authorization "shall not relieve the driver of a slow-moving vehicle from the duty to drive as closely as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway." A second law (§ 304.015(6)) provides:

All vehicles in motion upon a highway having two or more lanes of traffic proceeding in the same direction shall be driven in the right-hand lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle or when preparing to make a proper left tum or when otherwise directed by traffic markings, signs or signals.

Nevada - Law requires a person driving so slowly as to impede traffic on a highway, where there is a lawful higher speed and where the highway is wide enough, to drive to the extreme right of the highway until such traffic passes. Nevada also adopted a law requiring funeral processions to drive as near to the right-hand edge of the highway as practicable.

New Jersey - § 39:4-82, quoted in § 11 -301(a), supra, apparently is in substantial conformity with UVC § 11-301(b). It generally requires a position near the right edge of the roadway irrespective of other traffic. See also, N.J. Stat. § 39:4-88(a), applicable to roadways that have been divided into clearly marked traffic lanes, providing that vehicles "shall normally be driven in the lane nearest the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway when that lane is available for travel, except when overtaking another vehicle or in preparation for a left turn." Another law (§ 39:4-88(e)) prohibits trucks of 10,000 pounds gross weight or over in the left-hand lane of a roadway divided into three or more lanes in any one direction, except to the extent necessary to make a left tum or to leave the roadway by entrance or exit to or from the left lane, or when reasonably necessary in an emergency.

North Carolina - Law provides:

Upon all highways any vehicle proceeding at less than the legal maximum speed limit shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for thru 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.

A second law reads as follows:

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, when appropriate signs have been posted, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle over and upon the inside lane, next to the median of any dual lane highway at a speed less than the posted speed limit when the operation of said motor vehicle over and upon said inside lane shall impede the steady flow of traffic except when preparing for a left turn. "Appropriate signs" as used herein shall be construed as including "Slower Traffic Keep right" or designations of similar import.

South Dakota - Law is identical to the Alabama law discussed, supra.

Virginia - -§ 46.1-206 provides:

Special regulations applicable on streets and highways laned for traffic. - Whenever any highway has been divided into clearly marked lanes for traffic, drivers of vehicles shall obey !he following regulations:
   (a) Any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions existing shall be driven in the lane nearest the right hand edge or curb of !he highway when such lane is available for travel except when overtaking and passing another vehicle or in preparation for a left tum or as permitted in paragraph (d) of this section.

As to such laned roadways, this law is in substantial conformity with UVC § 11-301(b). The Code provision. however, applies to all roadways and Virginia does not have a similar provision.

Wyoming - Law is identical to UVC § 11-301(b) but also contains a phrase providing that it does not apply on "one-way streets." UVC § 11-301(b) does apply on such streets, so the Wyoming law may not be in substantial conformity.

One state - Arkansas - does not have a provision comparable to UVC § 11-301(b).

---

Bob Shanteau

[beck michaels]

Bob, 'traffic experts' should be able to identify that the wording of the SMV provisions have been modified since 1975 to introduce greater statutory clarity that the law requires facilitating passing. Also, traffic experts should be able to pick out of the traffic laws of the states that several states' SMV laws have the CLEAR DIRECTIVES SLOW MOVING VEHICLES MUST OPERATE FRAP.

       Scattered throughout Bob's quote from "UVC vehicle laws, annotated," are clear, statutory instructions that several states' slow moving vehicle laws do, indeed, require slowly moving vehicles operate far to the right to facilitate passing. These requirements are also considered in the book to be  IN COMPLIANCE with the UVC SMV law....and part of the long standing conventions of traffic that form the rules of the road.

""Shall not relieve the driver of a slow-moving vehicle from the duty to drive as closely as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway." or similar, in state after state, and that SMV laws regulating ALL slow moving traffic far to the right is, indeed,  apparently is in substantial conformity with UVC § 11-301(b). It generally requires a position near the right edge of the roadway irrespective of other traffic. 

Logic suggests that in states that lack this clarity,  it is considered so obvious, and so entrenched in long standing conventions and rules of the road as well as the historical basis of SMV laws on laned roadways, there needs be no explanation that a man on a horse, a man drawing a cart, pushing a wheelbarrow, or riding a bicycle has a general duty to keep as far to the right as is safe, and to not indiscriminately control lanes of traffic when it's possible to facilitate passing.  Even under the current "or" wording of the SMV-FRAP law. 

 Hence, the call for greater enumerated rights for bicyclists in most of the states, clearly stating bicyclists can control narrow lanes, and can ride safely positioned at all times away from the right hand edge of the roadway.

Maybe some people don't understand where a person riding a horse or pushing a narrow cart should be positioned on laned roadways, but that's not my problem. Obtusity emphasizes fallacies and doesn't buttress that argument.

The SMV laws are clear, and why states began to more greatly enumerate cyclists rights to control lanes of traffic under the bicycle rights decade of the 1970s. It is truly unfortunate some of the original players have left themselves 'far to the right' so as to not impede faster traffic. 

There is no mistaking the long standing, clearly stated and codified intent of SMV laws. Red below highlights statutes, considered by the authors of traffic laws, annotated, to be in compliance with the directives of SMV-FRAP laws. .

Suggestions these states have the law wrong, that this is not how SMV laws are meant to be interpreted, is a ludicrous and unsupportable position. This is how the SMV law have historically been interpreted, are codifed, and how the laws are still being interpreted in most states that recognize the need for this statutory clarity.   Any suggestion SMV laws as written allow cyclists to indiscriminately control lanes of traffic anytime there's a center stripe on a road does not match the historical, long standing dictate of SMV laws and its attendant traffic convention.

The states that regulate bikes under SMV laws by and large DON'T promote that interpretation either. For example, despite the best efforts of bicycle drivers in NC, The efforts of the bicycle drivers to correct NC interpretation have fallen on deaf ears. It should clear from other states and the history of SMV laws that inchoate suggestions "bikes control a lane, any time there's a center stripe" is NOT how SMV laws are meant to apply to bicyclists. 

 Now that the SMV law clearly indicates it is to facilitate passing, any state that regulates bikes under SMV laws and not BIKE laws allowing lane control, have a clear directive that more greatly suborns cyclists to the right, when regulated under SMV laws.

 Mike Beck

LCI # 3222

---

From: Bob Shanteau <rms...@gmail.com>
To: BicycleDriving <bicycle...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 6:58 PM
Subject: [BicycleDriving] Re: How does a bicyclist "facilitate passing"

On 8/6/2013 12:31 PM, beck michaels wrote:

 the SMV provisions of the UVC has very well been modified..... to make it clearer the intent of the law is to facilitate passing, for the convenience of the motorist..... suggested by John Forester himself, promoted and proposed in 1998 NCUTLO meeting..... so in 1998, these 'traffic experts' and John got together to craft additional language to the UVC SMV provisions that made it clear slowly moving vehicles (like bicyclists) must facilitate overtaking.

Here is the current wording of the SMV law in the UVC:

UVC 11-301 - Drive on right side of roadways - Exceptions
(b) Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, 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, alley, or driveway. The intent of this subsection is to facilitate the overtaking of slowly moving vehicles by faster moving vehicles.

Here is the wording of the SMV law in the 1979 UVC:

UVC 11-301 - Drive on Right Side of Roadway - Exceptions
(b) Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic. or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left tum at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

I said "the SMV provision of the UVC hasn't changed since 1975." I stand corrected. 

[Bob Shanteau]

On 8/11/2013 3:50 AM, beck michaels wrote:

Bob, 'traffic experts' should be able to identify that the wording of the SMV provisions have been modified since 1975 to introduce greater statutory clarity that the law requires facilitating passing. Also, traffic experts should be able to pick out of the traffic laws of the states that several states' SMV laws have the CLEAR DIRECTIVES SLOW MOVING VEHICLES MUST OPERATE FRAP.

I advocate for drivers of vehicles moving slower than other traffic, including bicyclists, to ALWAYS have the right to use a full lane on laned roads and not be required to operate AFRAP. Is that also your position?

If so, then the only difference in our positions is how to get there. I advocate for deleting the AFRAP law and, if necessary, clarifying the slow driver law/slow vehicle law, whereas you advocate for keeping the current SDL/SVL law and changing the AFRAP law to enumerate the right to use a full lane.

We tried enumeration in California in 1975 and in the UVC in 1979. My position is that it hasn't worked. Do you agree?

Recall that I quoted the 1979 Uniform Vehicle Code Annotated:

The 1930 Code, however. contained three subsections directing a person to drive in the right lane. They provided:

Section 26. Drive on Right Side of Highway.
(b) In driving upon the right half of the highway the driver shall drive as closely as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb of the highway except when overtaking or passing another vehicle, or when placing a vehicle in position to make a left turn. (d) In driving upon a one-way highway the driver shall drive as closely as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb of the highway except when overtaking or passing or traveling parallel with another vehicle or when placing a vehicle in position to make a left turn.

Section 27. Special Regulations Applicable on Streets and Highways Laned for Traffic. Whenever any street or highway has been divided into clearly marked lanes for traffic, drivers of vehicles shall obey the following regulations:
(a) A vehicle shall normally be driven in the lane nearest the right-hand edge or curb of the highway when said lane is available for travel except when overtaking another vehicle or in preparation for a left tum. . . .

If the SDL/SVL were amended to make it clear (as the 1930 version did) that on "Highways Laned for Traffic," simply being in the "lane nearest the right-hand edge or curb of the highway" is all that is required to be in compliance with the law, then would you still want that same right to be enumerated for bicyclists in the AFRAP law? If so, why?

Bob Shanteau

[Robert Cooper]

Over on the Cyclists Are Drivers FaceBook group we have been having a discussion about subtlety and complexity, to wit, that subtlety and complexity are not especially effective when it comes to the law and especially since the law applies to all persons, some of whom my have difficulty parsing the law at highway speeds.

Many states license drivers of motorcars who have a chronological age of sixteen years, this without an effective means of screening drivers who have a mental or emotional age of fourteen or even twelve.

I note that the curb weight of a Ford Expedition is 5,801 pounds and that the speed limit on many rural roads is 55 mph and that the maximum speed of similar vehicles is over 100 mph.

With many twelve-year-olds piloting many such contraptions on our nation’s roads, there is little place for subtlety and complexity in the traffic law. Add to this the fact that at highway speed or even on city streets for that matter, decisions must frequently be made instantaneously, by instinct as it were.

Legislatures are writing laws to provide guidance for twelve-year-olds piloting Expeditions at speeds over the limit in mixed traffic. Those laws should be as simple and unambiguous as possible.

Therefore, I advocate one set of laws for all vehicles, and further, that that one set of laws has as few exceptions as possible, perhaps none.

When Right Turn on Red was introduced, I thought is was a bad idea. Red should mean STOP. Red should not mean “stop, except under certain conditions in certain localities, bla bla bla, and on Wednesdays after 3:00 p.m.”

Bob “The Luddite” Cooper