MFFY and bicyclist

On 4/28/2011 3:44 AM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
> . com...

>>> relevant to bicyclists
>>> riding as far right as practicible. Please provide a cite from the
>>> vehicle code applying to you.
>>
>> See § 46.2-905 in the Code of Virginia. Also see the same qualifier in
>> CVC 21202.
>
> Okay, fine. Now please try to justify why, when the bicyclist is below
> the speed of traffic and being honked at, etc. they do not move over
> further to the right when able to do so.

Because they cannot do so. I for instance do not feel comfortable
riding 6 to 8 inches from the curb when I'm going 20+ mph. If I'm
riding up a steep hill and going 7 to 10 mph, I will ride closer to the
right compared to when I'm going faster, but still not that close.

> Conclusion: critical mass type i
> of bicycling--in other words, MFFY bicycling asserting position in
> direct violation of the vehicle code. In the absence of any obvious road
> hazard, the bicyclist MUST, repeat MUST move right, period.

The cyclist is in a better position to see road hazards than a car is
(since your view is largely blocked by the vehicle itself and somewhat
distorted by the windshield. Also, small debris is much more hazardous
to a bicycle tire, which is thinner and doesn't have steel belts
shielding it from punctures unlike a car tire.

>>> And when they were pulled over it was $5 payable on the spot right?
>>> (Until the news screwed that up, and now they have posted speed limits.)
>>> So even then, law enforcement was the final judge as to whether the
>>> speed the driver chose was reasonable and prudent.
>>
>> Again, that's incorrect. Why do we even have a judicial branch of
>> government if law enforcement is the final judge ...?
>>
>
> Correct as far as once the ticket is written, the person will have to
> pay it or have their day in court. No roadside court trials exist, as
> far as I am aware.

Then why did you say law enforcement was the "final judge?" They can
accuse and serve as a witness in court, but they cannot act as a judge.

In article >,
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>"N8N" > wrote in message
...
>On Apr 22, 10:33 am, gpsman > wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 11:28 pm, Harry K > wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 21, 8:26 am, N8N > wrote:
>>
>> > > § 46.2-842.1. Drivers to give way to certain overtaking vehicles on
>> > > divided highways.
>>
>> > > It shall be unlawful to fail to give way to overtaking traffic when
>> > > driving a motor vehicle to the left and abreast of another motor
>> > > vehicle on a divided highway. On audible or light signal, the driver
>> > > of the overtaken vehicle shall move to the right to allow the
>> > > overtaking vehicle to pass as soon as the overtaken vehicle can safely
>> > > do so. A violation of this section shall not be construed as
>> > > negligence per se in any civil action.
>>
>> > >http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.htmlht...us/cgi-bin/leg...
>>
>> Hey, look at you, you almost cited a source!
>>
>> > > so, basically, if someone wishes to pass you, *even if they are
>> > > exceeding the speed limit,* and he makes his intention known by
>> > > signaling, you are REQUIRED to yield. If you are not comfortable
>> > > speeding up to pass the traffic to your right, you should slow down
>> > > and slip in behind the car to your right.
>>
>> Can't do that. The motorist to the rear will not stand for it.
>>
>> About 0.125 seconds after your speed begins to lessen they will move
>> right into that spot.
>>
>> Plus, it is the responsibility of motorists to not maneuver in any
>> manner that may incite another motorist to "teach them a lesson".
>>
>> > Thanks, that is a rare law in the US. Seems odd that it does not
>> > allow a civil suit. I wonder why they specified that.
>>
>> § 46.2-823. Unlawful speed forfeits right-of-way.
>>
>> The driver of any vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit
>> any right-of-way which he might otherwise have under this
>> article.http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...0+cod+46.2-823
>
>That doesn't excuse the LLBer from his responsibility to move over.
>State police have gone on record stating same.
>
>* But the written word of the vehicle code trumps their personal opinions.
>Even if they cite the driver based on their own personal opinions, the
>vehicle code still reigns supreme.

Yeah. The vehicle code. The whole vehicle code. The one where
46.2-823, referring to "this article", is part of Article 2. And
where 46.2-842.1 is part of Article 4, and therefore is not among the
rights-of-way forfeited under 46.2-823. As you have been told in the
past.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.