[bane]

Nope. Keep searching. You found the law that allows bikes to share the road with cars. Now find the laws that I'm talking about. Off the top of my head for CA, 21202, 21654, 22400, and a few others.

Bikes have responsibilities as well, not just unlimited privilege.

edit

Here's a WP page on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_law_in_California

[dllthomas]

"Nope. Keep searching."

As an aside, I'd like to object to this rhetorical technique. "You haven't found the thing that proves me right, therefore I am right" should not be permitted in arguments.

For the record, I don't think your intent was malicious, just calling attention to something I see a bit and don't like.

[bane]

No you're right. It's bad form. It came across as bad form and I was really just too lazy to look it up and post it.

[dllthomas]

Yeah, there's been some good stuff in these threads, and some less good stuff. Tryin' to nudge everyone in the direction of the former - myself included. Thanks :)

[recursive]

The wikipedia page says nothing about minimum speeds.

21202 and 21654 explicitly list restrictions that must be followed when traveling at "less than the normal speed of traffic". This suggests to me that doing so is legal. By the way, 21202 is exactly what I quoted to you, so it's kind of funny that you would repeat it back to me.

22400 deals with impeding traffic, "unless it's necessary for the safe operation" of the vehicle. I don't know who determines what is necessary for safe operation, but travelling at a speed achievable by humans is certainly necessary for the operation of bicycles, and bicycles are explicitly granted permission to use roads.

I certainly don't see any clear legal requirements in general to maintain any specific minimum speed limit.

[bane]

Well, if you're just going to ignore all the parts of the law that apply, then it doesn't really matter what the law says does it?

[dllthomas]

Um, you seem to be doing exactly that, while recursive seems to have read the laws you pointed at - which do not say what you claim them to say.

[elblanco]

No I think he's right. At least around where I live (well, used to live, I'm in Korea at the moment), cyclists are not supposed to ride on roads that disrupt traffic or don't have a sufficient shoulder to pull off onto to let vehicles pass.

By contrast in Korea, they're not supposed to use roads at all and you'll find everything from bikes to scooters sharing sidewalks with people on foot. But bikes aren't real common here anyways with the small apartments and all.

edit actually I was curious and looked it up for Korea. Turns out according to Article 2(17)(a) of the 도로교통법 (road laws), bikes are classified as motor vehicles and have all the same rights and responsibilities as a motor vehicle.

Weird because I almost never see them out in traffic, but usually up on sidewalks or on "bike-only" roads.

[dllthomas]

The subthread was specifically discussing California. It remains my understanding that he was incorrect about CA law - cited specifically, above.

[elblanco]

ehhh...You're probably right. I dunno about CA law.

looking up the conversation, recursive and you seem kind of hung up on this wording "unless it's necessary for the safe operation" which I would interpret as meaning not just speed but actual safety. Of course it's not safe (or possible) to operate a bike at 100 kph. But I personally also don't feel safe clinging to the right most bit of a lane with a dropoff inches away while vehicles whizz around me.

I try not to ride on roads with poor bike safety without having to consult the law, but it seems like that phrase basically enshrines what I already do. If it's a fast road with no shoulder, I really try hard no find a path that doesn't take me on it. Yeah, sometimes you can't avoid it. But I'm not going to get upset with somebody who would rather not be driving their car in the same lane as me. I don't want to be in the lane with them either!

[recursive]

If I were ignoring them, it wouldn't matter what they say. Fortunately, I'm not ignoring them.