Boyo Jim, per pulykamell’s cited section, you had to drive into the bike lane to get to your stopping point, didn’t you? It seems like that would be ticketable if law enforcement wanted to go that route.
I was not parked. I was stopped. And as far as I can tell after looking at the relevant statutes, I was operating entirely legally.
You and I and pulykamel “drive on” crosswalks and or bike paths perhaps a hundred times a day, because they cross over roads or entrances to parking lots, etc. I would contend that “driving on” means the continual operation of the vehicle in the designated space. And stopping restrictions are specified by statute, and I don’t see any regarding bike paths. Unlike crosswalks, BTW, which the statute specifies as a place I can’t even stop.
I’m not going to dig through walls of text legal definitions, just what a few people have told me, so I reserve the right to be wrong about this:
The difference between ‘stopped’ and ‘parked’ is that when you are stopped you are in a position to immediately move your vehicle to make way for the appropriate legal use of the space. If you are not in a position to do so, or refuse or fail to do so, you are parked.
In other words, if you stop in front of a fire hydrant to answer an critical phone call you are probably OK for a short time, but if a fire truck comes along and needs that fire hydrant you can’t really pull out the “Nuh-uh I was stopped, not parked, my engine was runnin’!” defense after they had to drape fire hoses over your SUV.
Since you were in a bicycle lane, and did not make way for cyclists who needed to use the lane you were not stopped.
BTW, I was surprised by the level of detail of the state statutes. I rather expected all these rules to be laid out by municipalities. However, I didn’t find anything relevant in the Madison city government website.
IMHO, that’s just not a reasonable interpretation of the statute since the statute specifically addresses exceptions to get into driveways, into or out of parking spaces, or to turn at an intersection. I believe it to be more reasonable to interpret the statute as saying you can’t operate a vehicle in or on a bicycle lane unless you meet one of the exceptions specifically outlined. It seems fairly clear that the statute contemplated reasonable exceptions, and your situation doesn’t appear to be one of them.
You obviously see it differently.
Ok, feel free to be wrong.
However, you are correct that if a cop, firefighter or other public safety person cam along and instructed me to move, I would be obliged to do so.
[quote=“Asimovian, post:86, topic:751896”]
IMHO, that’s just not a reasonable interpretation of the statute since the statute specifically addresses exceptions to get into driveways, into or out of parking spaces, or to turn at an intersection. I believe it to be more reasonable to interpret the statute as saying you can’t operate a vehicle in or on a bicycle lane unless you meet one of the exceptions specifically outlined. It seems fairly clear that the statute contemplated reasonable exceptions, and your situation doesn’t appear to be one of them.
Yes, and it also specifically addresses the situations under which stopping is not allowed. Which circumstance fits mine? If none do, then I can be legally stopped.
Or are you saying I was stopped legally, but in a place I where I had to drive illegally to get to?
Wisconsin statute 346.94(12) (PDF) says
You drove upon a bicycle lane, and your purpose of driving upon the lane does not meet any of the exceptions listed. Furthermore, you obviously did not yield the right-of-way to the bicycle that came along. How are you confused about whether you were in violation of this statute?
What I’m saying is that before we get to the question of whether you were stopped legally, you drove into the bike lane illegally per my interpretation of the statute because you didn’t drive into it for any of the reasons for which an exemption has been granted by statute.
I have to admit, I’m sure sounding a lot more dick-like as this thread continues. 
I will be as soon as you demonstrate why you feel calling this blockage ‘stopped’ instead of parked lets you justify it.
If a cop tells you to get out of your own driveway you are probably obliged. In the meantime the moment you obstruct a cyclist from using the lane you are effectively parked. Being in the driver’s seat doesn’t magically change that, having the engine running doesn’t change that, flashers dont’ magically change that.
Where are you seeing these reasons? What I’ve been quoting are restrictions to parking and stopping, not about rules of operation.
Sorry, I missed Troutman’s cite. I’ll take a closer look at it.
I don’t understand your question. I thought your statement was that your actions did not constitute anything wrong or illegal. I (and at least two others) quoted a specific section of the law that you appear to have violated by our reading of the statute. You keep coming back to the fact that your being stopped wasn’t illegal, but I don’t see how you get to gloss over how you got to being stopped even if you are correct about the law on being stopped. I’m not seeing any real wiggle room that says you had a legal reason to enter the bike lane at all.
To me, it’s like saying (in a much more extreme example) that the fact that you were legally parallel parked on a one-way street means we should ignore you having illegally driven the wrong way down that street and then executing a reckless (but stylish!) J-turn to get into the space. The end doesn’t justify the means.
I don’t think there is any reason to believe this is true. It’s just a “these kids today” fallacy.
The real dick is whoever designed a street without either parking or a shoulder. What if the OP had broken down? I pick people up all the time. 99.99% of the time, I can pull right up to the curb to get them. The tiny percentage of the time that I can’t, it’s always because the road is simply built or designed wrong. So I stop in the bike lane, or someone’s front yard, or an alley, or whatever. Or I just idle in the street while other drivers pass me.
Of the three involved here, I’d say the biker is the dickiest, but only because he could tell that you had no other options due to the shitty road situation. He had a right to be upset, he just crossed the line when he personally harangued you for something that was out of your control. The passenger is faultless. It’s not the job of a rider to pick a convenient location for the hired driver. It’s the driver’s job to deal with the situation wherever the passenger said they wanted picked up. And I feel the OP dealt with it the same way I would have.
Pulykamel’s cite was a newspaper article, which I don’t take as authoritative on the specific language of state law. As I said, I didn’t see Troutman’s cite before responding to you, which was a cite of the actual statute from the state government.
The parking/stopping/standing is a complete red herring. It doesn’t matter which of the three Boyo was doing. The relevant statute concerning bike lanes has been cited and it seems to my non-lawyerly eyes that it has been violated, regardless of whether the vehicle was stopped, standing, parked, or moving.
Somehow, I knew I should have just gone the extra step and dug up the actual text. I just took it for granted that since it was being presented as a verbatim quote of the statute in what appears to be a reputable newspaper, that it was accurate. (And it was.) But I had to take care of the baby, so got a bit lazy. Thankfully, Troutman did the leg work. 
(ETA: Actually, just googling the first few words would have been all the work I needed to do…)
So, I have been educated and I have apologies to make.
First, to Mr. Miskatonic – while your definition of “parked” was not entirely correct, neither was mine. According to Wisconsin, there is essentially no difference between “stopped” and “parked” – the driver being in the vehicle is irrelevant. I found a bunch of other cites from other places saying different, but I was wrong to generally apply this to Wisconsin.
And in general, I apologize for growing more dickish as the thread went on and I became convinced of my own righteousness.