Me too. I’m arguing that BOTH sides are being unreasonable.
Well then you weren’t clear. I did not make them seperate issues; you did.
In fact, you even enumerated them seperately, to wit:
AHEM!
That’s what they’ve been saying, you knucklehead.
I don’t see a difference between that and the Texas statute’s formulation. Stay right unless road too narrow/ road hazard/ passing/ turning/ other hazards which are unenumerated. The Texas statute does not impart a duty of using a “reasonably necessary” test, but does this mean anything? How do you judge something like that? It clearly throws the whole thing into the lap of the operator of the bicycle, just like Texas law. Moving over from the far right only under reasonable necessity is certainly implied by the “a person operating a bicycle[0] on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:” bit. Moving over from the right is only allowed in Texas under conditions pretty much identical to the ones it is allowed under in California. The statutes are as close to identical as state laws generally get. Perhaps some lawyer who is licensed in both states will come in and give us their opinion on the topic, but there doesn’t seem to be a meaningful difference.
It should also be noted that the duty to keep right only applies, in both California and Texas, if you are going slower than the rest of traffic. When I was helping my brothers train for their cycling races we would often average 30+ mph over distances of 30 miles or more at a time. If the speed limit is 30 and I’m cycling at 30 - 35 MPH then in NEITHER state am I obligated to ride on the right of the lane. If cyclists like Mr. Miskatonic are going the same speed as the rest of traffic then the lane is theirs and they have no legal duty to keep right whatsoever, in either state. You can move away from the curb if the conditions merit it, OR if you are going the same speed as other traffic.
Enjoy,
Steven
You picked this fight with me, Blowero.
What you are not taking into account is the unequal consequences involved here.
Cyclists get het up because idiot drivers could kill them. Stone dead. Kaput. Squashed like a bug.
It tends to focus the mind.
It also tends to make one quite angry when some fuckwit is quite prepared to put your life in danger while themselves risking a scratch in their paint job, for the sake of them getting where they want to go 30 seconds earlier.
You describe “biking vigilantes who want to enforce your view of what is and isn’t safe on everyone else”.
This is crap, because let’s face it, to be accurate what you are talking about is cyclists who want to enforce their own personal safety. The safety of motorists doesn’t even come into the equation, to any significant degree.
You guess wrong. I’ve discussed it with lawyers in riding clubs. They were pretty clear. I certainly hold them to have better interpetations than ‘Blowero & Blowero Law Firms Inc.’
Considering that 95% of the roads I ride on are too narrow,
I’m disputing the situation where you assert that you are not “slower traffic” when you prevent a car from passing you. Don’t conflate the two situations.
[/QUOTE]
You are inventing a problem then.
Considering that some 95% of the lanes I ride on are too small, I made an assumption that I would be travelling in a lane too small. (The other 5% are bike laned or I ride to the right). My comment, was directed at the OP, not you, the OP, who seemed to feel that if cyclists were in his lane, then they should be out of his way.
Quite frankly, you invented a lot of trouble in your attack on me. I may not have explained myself perfectly, but you sure as hell made a bunch of assumptions that are far worse than my explaination errors.
It is pretty much the same since California wrote what is considered the Uniform Vehicle Code that almost all states pretty much copied their bicycle rules that model. (This was not brilliant foresight by California, they were simply getting hints from the Feds since they were the most populous and most car-heavy state). All other states pretty much made copies of this. A few words are changed here and there, but it is going to be pretty much the same all around. Read John Forrester’s “Effective Cycling” for the long version.
So saying that CA’s bicycle laws are going to be drasticly different than TX’s laws is laughable. At most you get different wording (practical/possible, etc.) that isn’t going to make much of a difference on the road.
I don’t have any problem with the particular practice of bicycling. I have noticed that most people who bicycle around towns are the type of person I hate.
I don’t have to worry about cyclists much around my house, in rural Virginia, with curvy, hilly roads where you can’t see what’s round the corner and posted speed limits of 35mph you have to be suicidal to bike out here.
There’s been so many cyclists killed in the last decade you see “share the road”/bicycle signs all over the place.
Unbigoted ones?
Texas? When the fuck did I move to Texas?
<checks notes> Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Seattle, Paris, Netherlands, Oslo, Munich, Frankfurt, Honolulu, Hyeres, Cassis, Manhattan </checks notes> Nope, I’ve biked and driven in lots of places, but never been to Paris.