why should SMV-impeding-pull off roadway rules apply to bicyclists?

[Beck the biker]

There seems to be a growing false legitimacy surrounding the notion
bicyclists should be and are subject to variations of the "slow moving
vehicle-impeding-pull off roadway"

Rules that require leaving the roadway to allow faster traffic to
pass under certain traffic and roadway conditions run counter to
bicyclists road rights.

From Swift v the city of Topeka in 1890 to much more recent court
decisions, bicyclists have been supported in our rights to ride the
roads at our fair speed unimpeded by suggestions we can impede
traffic.

I quote 'bicycledriving.org in my defense, in the online treatise 'a
guide to improving bicycle laws'

I suspect some of you are familiar with it?

"Some states have statutes prohibiting drivers from impeding traffic.
These statutes should be written so that they apply only to motor
vehicles, not to all vehicles. Otherwise, a broad version of this rule
could be wrongly interpreted as prohibiting operation of bicycles or
horse-drawn wagons whenever following drivers might be
inconvenienced."

I believe - rather radically it seems - among the 'bicycle drivers',
that bicyclists are not required to pull off a roadway under any
states' "impeding" laws. bikes are traffic travelling at our normal
speeds, are traffic, and cannot therefore 'impede'.

If this is civil disobedience, so be it, this is my position about
'can a bike impede traffic or are we traffic' in strong disapproval of
any laws requiring bicyclists to 'pull off 2 lane highways' when five
vehicles backup behind at the nearest safe location.

reprehensible. any marginalizing notions that bikes impede traffic
and can be required to leave two lane roads if five vehicles back up
behind should be exterminated.

Bicycledriving.org supports my general contentions about bicycles
impeding laws and the potential for injustice inherent in this type of
anti-bicycling interpretation of bicyclists road rights.

Beck

[Serge Issakov]

I let this one through because I don't think anyone has yet explained why the turnout law applies to drivers of SMVs (and bicyclists) who are going as fast as they can, even though the impeding law (a.k.a. minimum speed law) does not (per Selz v Trotwood), even though it seems obvious to me.  But I don't have the energy to do it right now.

Anyone?

Serge

[Beck the biker]

quoting 'bicycle driving- a guide to improving bicycle laws' at
bicycledriving.org

"Some states have statutes prohibiting drivers from impeding traffic.
These statutes should be written so that they apply only to motor
vehicles, not to all vehicles. Otherwise, a broad version of this
rule
could be wrongly interpreted as prohibiting operation of bicycles or
horse-drawn wagons whenever following drivers might be
inconvenienced."

this supports bikes not being required to turnout under any 'smv-
impeding-pull out' laws. Bicycledriving.org explicitly supports there
should be notion of bikes impeding traffic in any statute.

what does bicycledriving.org say about the subject?

should bicyclists be able to 'impede' and therefore be required to
pull off 2 lane highways in the face of 5 vehicles behind, or should
bikes be unburdened by this onerous interpretations of bicyclists
rights?

I feel any movement towards acceptance bicyclists could impede
traffic to the degree we are legally required to pull off a two lane
highway when certain conditions are met onerous, reprehensible, and
an affront to american bicycling movement, both historical and current
day.

how far would the misinterpretations of these laws go against
bicyclists?

there is a grave duty to fighting any erosion to bicyclists rights
under the guise of applicability 'smv-impeding-pull off road' laws.

CHP Might as well just proactively ban bikes from all crowded two
lane, narrow roads - officially 'highways' - in California. maybe just
during rush hours to start?

[Beck the biker]

the CVC 21656 should not apply to bicyclists, as the tail end of 21656
demands it apply only to vehicles moving slower than 'normal traffic'
at the time. bikes are regarded as normal traffic - supported by the
broad considerations granted bicyclists thru court rulings like Selz V
Trotwood, that bikes are normal traffic and cannot be impeding traffic
while travelling a reasonable speed for a bicyclist.

funny how all this is interrelated ,eh?

additionally, Bob Shanteau in his duties as a 'liaison' for CABO,
states at a letter he posted to this very google group, and easily
searchable,

"If we truly want to increase bicycle mode share, what we need
instead
are laws that (1) make it clear that a bicyclist has the right to a
full
lane; ......... (4) include bicyclists in the law
that requires slow moving vehicles on 2 lane roads to turn out when
there are 5 or more vehicles behind (CVC 21656); "

interesting, CABO's 'transportation engineering 'liaison' also
publicly states 21656 does not apply to bicyclists.

On Dec 6, 6:58 pm, Serge Issakov <serge.issa...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Serge Issakov]

Yes, bikes are regarded as normal traffic. Do you recognize that
motorized SMVs are regarded as traffic as well?

Do you think 21656 should not apply to drivers of motorized SMVs, as

the tail end of 21656 demands it apply only to vehicles moving slower

than 'normal traffic' at the time, and motorized SMVs are regarded as
normal traffic?

If yes, at least you're consistent. If no, how do you reconcile the
fact that your objection to 21656 apply to bicyclists is based on
their definition as traffic, but that applies to motorized SMVs too?

Please answer these questions to the satisfaction of the members of
this list to show that you are earnest in having an intelligent
discussion about this topic.

Serge

> --
> 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
>

[Bob Shanteau]

Beck the biker wrote:
> additionally, Bob Shanteau in his duties as a 'liaison' for CABO, states at a letter he posted to this very google group, and easily
> searchable,
>
> "If we truly want to increase bicycle mode share, what we need instead are laws that (1) make it clear that a bicyclist has the right to a full lane; ......... (4) include bicyclists in the law that requires slow moving vehicles on 2 lane roads to turn out when there are 5 or more vehicles behind (CVC 21656); "
>
> interesting, CABO's 'transportation engineering 'liaison' also publicly states 21656 does not apply to bicyclists.

I neither said nor implied that CVC 21656 does not apply to bicyclists.
In fact, a careful reading of what I wrote will reveal that I meant the
exact opposite.

CVC 21656 applies to bicyclists traveling slower than other traffic for
the same reason it applies to heavily laden trucks slowly climbing a
grade - to facilitate the movement of faster traffic. CVC 22400(a)
specifically says that drivers of such trucks are excluded from the
requirement not to impede traffic, but CVC 21656 does not exclude the
drivers of such trucks from the requirement to turn out when there are 5
or more vehicles behind on a two-lane road. So a truck driver who is
necessarily traveling slowly up a grade and holds up 5 or more vehicles
is not guilty of impeding traffic, but that same driver traveling the
same speed on the same road holding up the same number vehicles could be
guilty of not turning out if the road has two lanes.

***
CVC 22400. (a) No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow
speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of
traffic, unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation,
because of a grade, or in compliance with law.

CVC 21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of
traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving
vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more
vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest
place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having
jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe
turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it 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.
***

Bob Shanteau

[Bob Shanteau]

Beck the biker wrote:
> this supports bikes not being required to turnout under any 'smv-impeding-pull out' laws.

Could you cite the section number of any 'smv-impeding-pull out' laws?

Hint: There is no such law, making your statement nonsense, and thus the
rest of your argument nonsense as well.

Bob Shanteau

[Beck the biker]

What questions do i need to answer? Do i recognize that smv are
traffic? Yes, slow moving vehicles are traffic.

Do i think that the 21656 should not apply to motorized smv? no, i
think it should apply to motorized vehicles.


How do i reconcile my beliefs that the 21656 should apply to slow
moving motorized vehicles but not bicycles moving at our reasonable
speed?

Bicyclists operate as normal traffic on american roadways. Being
required to pull off a road in favor of faster traffic goes against
the fundaments of american bicycling road rights.

I believe there is an imperative to recognizing and defending this
very compelling aspect of the fundaments of bicyclists road rights.

by the inherent narrow and predominately slower operation of bicycles,
bicycle operators have no just cause to be asked to leave the roadway
to facilitate passing. As far right as is safe is sufficient for even
what some would call 'enabling' passing by traffic behind.

and, as to bicyclists right to the road, bicyclists should not be
required to pull off two lane roadways when traffic is behind or we
would never be able to get anywhere in traffic on two lane roads.

There cannot be any serious consideration of this extremely
marginalizing misapplication of 'smv impeding shall pull off roadway"
in the bicycling advocacy community.

this is how i reconcile my beliefs that bicyclists operate as normal
traffic upon the roadways, do not 'impede traffic' as we are 'normal'
traffic, and therefore are not subject to any suggestion of legal or
implied requirements to pull off of two lane 'highways' when five
vehicles back up behind. i'll do it as a courtesy, sometimes, perhaps.
On my frequent trips to the grocery store on a busy two lane road, its
FRAPINGLY along for me thank you very much!

Beck

On Dec 6, 8:59 pm, Serge Issakov <serge.issa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, bikes are regarded as normal traffic. Do you recognize that
> motorized SMVs are regarded as traffic as well?
>
> Do you think 21656 should not apply to drivers of motorized SMVs, as
> the tail end of 21656 demands it apply only to vehicles moving slower
> than 'normal traffic' at the time, and motorized SMVs are regarded as
> normal traffic?
>
> If yes, at least you're consistent.  If no, how do you reconcile the
> fact that your objection to 21656 apply to bicyclists is based on
> their definition as traffic, but that applies to motorized SMVs too?
>
> Please answer these questions to the satisfaction of the members of
> this list to show that you are earnest in having an intelligent
> discussion about this topic.
>
> Serge
>
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Beck the biker
>

[Serge Issakov]

Thank you, now we're getting somewhere. Maybe.

Previously, you said 21656 should not apply to bicyclists because bicyclists are "regarded as normal traffic". If that's the reason 21656 should not apply to bicyclists (who are moving as fast as they reasonably can), why should it apply to drivers of motorized SMVs (who are moving as fast as they reasonably can) since they are also regarded as normal traffic? BTW, this is not a new question. This is a slight rewording of the key original question in order to provide apparently needed clarification. Here, again, is the original which essentially asks the same thing: > ... how do you reconcile the > fact that your objection to 21656 apply to bicyclists is based on > their definition as traffic, but that applies to motorized SMVs too?

In this explanation you appear to be implying a different reason for why 21656 should not apply to bicyclists . Now you are stating that the reason 21656 should not apply to bicyclists is not only because bicyclists are traffic, but because of "the inherent narrow and predominately slower operation of bicycles".  Ironically, this characteristic of bicycles is exactly why turnout laws are rarely relevant to bicyclists in practice.  Remember, the turnout law does not require anyone leave the road, except on 2 lane roads where passing is not possible for a significantly long time such that 5 or more vehicles accumulate behind and cannot pass (and even then not until a safe turnout location is reached).  Because of the narrow nature of the bicycle, this occurs very rarely.  

But if the reason that 21656 does not, or should not, apply to bicyclists is because of the relatively slow and narrow nature of bicycles, what does this have to do with Selz v. Trotwood, which said nothing about that?

There is no clause in 21656 that exempts bicyclists specifically, not does it exempt drivers of slow and narrow vehicles in general.  That 21656 applies to bicyclists is implied by 21200 (bicyclists have same rights and responsibilities as drivers of vehicles), and stated explicitly in 21202 (bicyclists are subject to 21656).  That's the legal basis for the argument that 21656 applies to bicyclists even though 21656 itself does not explicitly say so (not that this is not an argument that 21656 should apply to bicyclists, which is a separate issue).

So what is the legal basis (not personal opinion) for the argument that 21656 does not apply to bicyclists due to the relatively slow and narrow nature of bikes?

Serge

[John Forester]

Beck is here confounding two different meanings of the word "normal". He states that bicycle traffic is normal traffic, which is one reasonable view, since it is legitimate traffic. He then uses this sense of "normal" to state that bicycle traffic moving at its typical speed constitutes "the normal flow of traffic" as used in CVC 21656. 21656 states: "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."

The first sense of "normal" means something to be expected, something that does not have special considerations. The second sense of "normal" means typical or usual. It is obvious that these two uses and meanings apply to different situations, so that it is illegitimate to confound them for purposes of argument.

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

[Eli Damon]

It seems like people are talking past each other. Let's try to clarify
the issues. Here is my understanding. Feel free correct me if I am wrong
or add something that I miss.

We are talking about a law that applies to the situation where several
faster vehicles are stuck behind a slower vehicle because there is not
enough room for them to safely pass the slower vehicle. In this
situation the law would require the driver of the slower vehicle to pull
off the road temporarily at their next reasonable opportunity to allow
the other drivers to pass.

The apparent purpose of this law is to enforce a principle of common
courtesy. No such law exists in my state of Massachusetts. From what I
have heard I would oppose such a law but I have not reached a conclusion
about how passionately I should oppose it. I can think of several
general questions to ask:

1. Does it address a real problem?

2. Does/Would it effectively fulfill its purpose?

3. Does it logically imply any unreasonable legal consequences?

4. Is it prone to being misinterpreted?

5. Does/Would it cause any practical problems?

1. No one has yet answered this question during the present discussion,
even indirectly. My intuition says that the answer should be "No." That
is, I don't think there is a substantial problem of drivers (including
cyclists) refusing reasonable opportunities to allow other drivers to
pass.

2. Again, no answers so far, although I think many of you have implied
an answer of "Yes."

3. I think that we generally agree that the answer is "Yes." In other
words, if the law were interpreted and enforced correctly we would not
have a big problem with it since we want to get along with people and
are willing take reasonable measures in order to do it. The only problem
is when we are expected to take unreasonable measures.

4. Those who have implied an answer of "Yes" to this question have not
made their reasoning clear to me. Those who answer "No" to this question
say that most people (including police officers) do not understand what
actions on the part of cyclists are reasonable and tend to have an
extremely liberal notion of what action is reasonable. The principal
example is that it is not reasonable to obligatorily (Is that a word?)
pull over anything but very very light traffic since it would be very
difficult to get back into traffic again and you would be obligated to
pull over again as soon you do so you would never get anywhere.

5. I think that this is the main issue in this discussion. Those who
answer "No" say that the law causes the practical problem of giving
police officers, who often do not understand or care about the needs of
cyclists, excessive authority to scrutinize and harass them. Those who
answer "Yes" say that the law is not a cause of this problem since the
law applies equally to all drivers.

I hope this helps to focus the discussion. Eli

[John Forester]

The law in question is in the codes of a few western states with long
mountainous two-lane highways that have many turns.

[Serge Issakov]

Right, curvy 2 lane roads - usually mountainous - is where this law has any application.  Much of coastal Highway 1 that runs up and down the west coast qualifies.  There are long sections - 10s of miles at time - without any long straight stretches that make it possible for one vehicle to safely pass another, much less pass a big truck or RV. 

I think it does fulfill its purpose.  Signs remind slower drivers to use turn outs that might not be there if not backed up by law.

I've never heard of any situation anywhere in which the turnout law created an unreasonable situation.

The only misinterpretation I've ever encountered is the one on this list in which it is seen as requiring cyclists to often use turnouts.

I've never heard of any cyclist harassed by an LEO or anyone else due to the turnout law.

Serge

--

[Beck the biker]

it has binding applicability on all two lane 'highways' which are
simply, roads, in California.

On Dec 7, 12:43 pm, Serge Issakov <serge.issa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Right, curvy 2 lane roads - usually mountainous - is where this law has any
> application.  Much of coastal Highway 1 that runs up and down the west coast
> qualifies.  There are long sections - 10s of miles at time - without any
> long straight stretches that make it possible for one vehicle to safely pass
> another, much less pass a big truck or RV.
>
> I think it does fulfill its purpose.  Signs remind slower drivers to use
> turn outs that might not be there if not backed up by law.
>
> I've never heard of any situation anywhere in which the turnout law created
> an unreasonable situation.
>
> The only misinterpretation I've ever encountered is the one on this list in
> which it is seen as requiring cyclists to often use turnouts.
>
> I've never heard of any cyclist harassed by an LEO or anyone else due to the
> turnout law.
>
> Serge
>

> > 619-644-5481    fores...@johnforester.com

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

> > To unsubscribe: bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com<bicycledriving%2Bunsubscribe@go oglegroups.com>

[Serge Issakov]

Sorry, I meant practically speaking the turnout law only applies on
curvy 2 lane roads.

Yes, technically, on a long straight road it would be legally binding,
but on such roads usually there are enough opportunities for traffic
to pass that the conditions of the turnout law never apply, but this
is especially true if the slow mover is a narrow bicyclist. Remember,
the turnout law does not apply even if 5 or more cars are backed up
behind the slow mover, unless there is also an appropriate place to
turnout. On straight roads, an opportunity to pass almost always
arrives before a good turnout does. Also, in urban and suburban
areas stop signs, traffic signal and other sources of delay commonly
introduce factors that eliminate the slow mover as the primary cause
of the impeding.

Serge

[Bob Sutterfield]

What difference does my width make for the SMV turnout law, or for overtaking drivers' opportunities to pass me?  If the lane is wide enough to share, I'll share it and there won't be any traffic queued behind me, so the SMV law is inapplicable.  If the lane isn't wide enough to share, I'm using all of it, and my own width has no effect the overtaking driver's passing maneuver.  They'll either change lanes to pass, or remain queued behind me.

Serge Issakov wrote:

Yes, on a long straight road [the turnout law] would be legally binding,

[Serge Issakov]

Most bicyclists, including me, tend to move far right even in a narrow
lane sooner or later when faster traffic is behind them. In my case I
do it whenever someone is behind me, after they've slowed down to my
speed, it's a safe place to pass me, and it is likely to help.

The amount of time and distance spent in the oncoming lane required
for a motorist to pass a 15-20 mph bicyclist is significantly shorter
than required to pass a faster (but still relatively slow) and much
wider SMV, so the likelihood of me needed to use a turnout when I'm
bicycling to let someone pass is much less than it is when I'm driving
an SMV. Maybe I'm wrong, but I also think the amount of time distance
spend in the oncoming lane is less to pass a centered or far left
cyclist than a far right cyclist.

Finally, while moving right invites close passes, how close is too
close depends on speed differentials. So I will control the lane to
discourage close passes by default, but once they slow down to my
speed, I'm often more comfortable inviting a shared lane pass by
moving further right. I also don't mind the smiles, waves, nods and
other gestures of appreciation that I get when I do that.

Serge

[Beck the biker]

The suggestion is , in california, on two lane roads, you'd be
required to pull over at soonest opportunity once 5 vehicles backed up
behind. a broad interpretation of this, supossedly applies to
bicyclists and bicyclists in CA are legally bound to pull off the
highway at soonest safe opportunity once five vehicles back up behind
and cannot pass.

there's talk this occurs once a decade for some; i suggest it happens
every ride for some, and would de facto prohibit travel by bicycle on
many busy two lane roads in CA.

there is a strong imperative to ensure SMV-I-POR laws not apply to
bicyclists.

[Serge Issakov]

If this is correct, then it shouldn't be very difficult to find cyclists who say they regularly cause 5 vehicles or more to back up behind them who cannot pass for a significantly long time.

If the fact that at least some bicyclists are affected by this law more often than extremely rarely was established then, maybe, we'd have reason to pursue the cause to have the law changed so that the turnout law doesn't apply to bicyclists, which in CA would mean adding the word "motor" to 21656 so that it clearly states it only applies to "slow-moving motor vehicles", and dropping the reference to 21656 in 21202.  But until such fact is established, I see no imperative at all, much less a strong one, to pursue such a change.  In the mean time, we have much bigger fish to fry (like the repeal of 21202/21208 - have you read about the Woolley case yet?).

Anyway, as long the word "motor" is not specified in 21656, and especially as long as 21202 continues to state that bicyclists are subject to 21656,  there should be no question that bicyclists in CA are legally subject to it.

Serge