I'm looking for legal advice on how to correct Idaho's you must cycle as close as possible to the curb regardless of the risk law. I was ticketed for riding four feet off the curb which I have done for over a decade with not one vehicular contact. I have actually run into a curb before back when I first started cycling. And I know how dangerous that can be. That and close passers and unpredictable road debris are why I started staying away for the curb.
I would like to take this to federal court and sue the state of idaho over interference with the right to travel. As I don't own a car it is undeniably an interference of my ability to travel to make it less safe than necessary to travel. Below is proof of the danger this law poses.
So I need advice on how to file this suit basically.
THE BEST VID I HAVE SEEN OF WHAT CYCLING 2 FEET OFF THE CURB INVITES.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-GEhAa5dVlQ
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GY2BJNvU7oo
ANOTHER REALLY GOOD VID OF WHAT CYCLING CLOSE TO THE CURB CAN DO.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RVYdbHCddJQ
I sent the following to the ACLU and the Rutherford Institute. I was wondering if you could get people to call them and tell them to pursue the case. It might get their attention.
ACLU of Idaho
Executive Director: Greg Morris
[email protected]
P. O. Box 1897
Boise, ID 83701
United States
(208) 344-9750 Fax: (208) 344-7201
Web: http://www.acluidaho.org
The Rutherford Institute • Post Office Box 7482 • Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482 •• (434) 978-3888 • [email protected]
-----Original message-----
Sent: Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 08:00:19
From:
To: [email protected],[email protected]
Subject: denial of right to travel. (fixed)(now added vids)
Please read all of this. The state of Idaho has denied my right to travel safely by not only denying me the right to the full lane while cycling but also requiring me to me approximately 1 to 2 feet off it max. I do not own a car. This starts with a few vids to show you my point. The drivers manual even states that sharing the lane with other traffic is dangeorus. Please read the whole thing, watch the trial audio, and take a look at the manual. Every need that is noted in the manual for motorcyclists is undeniably needed for cyclists as well and I elaborate on that below. Cycling that close to the curb gives NO room for error. And error in these cases can easily mean death.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f21frXBo-xA
THIS ONE IS REALLY GOOD.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KGnbYuzy-B0
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yC3sdllJIBU
Cycling that close to the edge, in other words as close to the edge as is practicable according to the state of Idaho, caneasily get you killed.
I have been denied my right to travel safely. Below is a vid of the audio recording of my trial.
https://drive.google.com/folder/d/0B3MFEqsepd3lQmVXUmxjOWhhUmM/edit
Below is my argument as it currently stands.
[MUCH LONGER ARGUMENT ] IF IS IT NOT SAFE IT IS NOT PRACTICABLE. THE STATE HAS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT BEING NEARER TO A CURB IS SAFER THAN HAVING THE LEGAL RIGHT TO THE WHOLE LANE AND THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE STATE’S RECOGNITION OF THAT RIGHT AND ENFORCEMENT OF THAT RIGHT. As the danger presented by other traffic is a matter of proximity a maximum reasonable distance between the cyclist and other traffic is required to prevent interference of safe travel. There is no way to argue that taking a full lane is less safe than taking only the amount afforded by being a foot or two or whatever off the curb. I will not argue that taking more than a full and single lane is necessary. I have no interest in arguing that cyclists may cycle side by side as I think it to be idiotic. As the state (local, fed, state level etc..) must facilitate the safe travel for its citizens as it is the only owner of the roads which are publicly accessible, travel being a right, it must not impede that travel by making it less safe than necessary for a person to travel. It is NOT necessary for a cyclist and a car to share a lane, and it is NOT necessary for a cyclist and a stream of passing traffic to share a lane. Traffic may safely pass a cyclist by fully changing lanes when it is possible to do so. When it is not possible they may safely wait until it is. To say that the convenience of being able to share a lane, even if transiently, with a cyclist outweighs the need of the cyclist to stay safe is an illegal argument on the part of the state. It does NOT balance the needs of the motorists with the cyclist. It effectively states that the life and health of the cyclist are of no concern to the state and therefore the state may favor the convenience of the motorist. Thanks to the Idaho drivers manual sections 5-2 through 5-3 and the statements made about the needs of the motorcyclist to have the full lane and my assertion that these need are the same as those for cyclists, and also thanks to the cycling section of the Idaho drivers manual, sections 5-6 through 5-9, and the statements under “be predictable”, which shows that cycling to the absolute right and then swerving to the left to avoid debris is NOT a good idea, especially since it would get you killed if there is traffic to your left, and would of course make you unpredictable, you meaning cyclist, and thanks to the part under “Passing distance” which EXPLICITLY states that a 12 foot wide lane is not wide enough to share with a cyclist. Therefore it is undeniable that is it not safe for the cyclist to share the lane with regularly or irregularly passing traffic. Below is the argument I was originally trying to make.
1) As the sole proprietors of the pathways by which people travel, travel being necessary to all freedoms and rights as one cannot make use of any freedom or right without so much as the ability to eat, which requires travel to a grocery store, or converse and develop the concepts which influence ones speech, free speech being an undeniable right, or associate freely as one must travel to meet those with which one would associate, the freedom of association being an undeniable right, or petition the government or any number of other activities necessary to one's life and liberties no government has the right to make travel more dangerous than it must be.
2) Also the state has no right to determine why and when a person may travel for any reason. In other words if a bunch of motorist wish to jam up the road traveling to the mall that is their right so long as they are attempting to travel, and do so safely, and not purposley to clog up the road, for example as a crowd would in a protest, and so to it is the right of a person to choose their method and path of transportation based on their whims just as the motorist would. In other words they have a right to use a bicycle as a method of transportation. The purchase or even use of an automobile is not a tax one must pay to secure their right to travel. And one has the right to take the path they wish even and more so especially if it is a matter of convenience, cost, time, safety or whatever purpose that that person chooses to favor in their pursuit of travel.
Also, I would like to address another point of which may or may not have relevance here. I am not certain on this. Some places have laws that prevent cyclists from traveling in line in too great a number, such as is done in races. There are some problems with this. One, what if they are not traveling together? Must they stay a certain distance from each other? What if they are traveling together? I would say that they must stay far enough apart so as not to crash or create an unnessecary risk of crashing into each other but they do have a right to travel in groups as motorists have this same right. Let's say a group of cyclists wishes to go see a movie together. Should they have to go through the absurd complexity of timing their excursion so that they aren't traveling together? Also would they be a group or individuals going to the same place? I would say that they should have the same liberties as motorists in this area.
3) One has a right to travel safely on their chosen route and to do what is necessary, given both the physical conditions of the path/road and what is necessary given the behavior of their fellow travelers and the psychological conditions that motivate that behavior as these are both factors that influence safety, to maintain their safety. For example, if a cyclist must travel in the middle of the lane or even the far left side of a right lane of far right side of a left lane, either to prevent traffic from pushing them into the curb or ditch or to prevent traffic from pushing them into other traffic should the cyclist be in a left lane that cyclist has a right to take measures to mitigate this threat. One has a right to take preventative measures to ensure one's safety. And interference with this right to ensure one's own safety while traveling whether the interference comes from a law, or the interpretation of that law by anyone including an officer or a civilian, is a violation of one's rights and likely just about all of them given the necessity of travel to so much as stay alive, life being necessary for liberty and one's rights, as any reduction of the ability to maintain one's safety while traveling is an impedement and therefore a deterent to travel. Given the necessity of travel for one's rights and liberties the government, whether local, state, or federal has no right whatsoever to deter travel. It only has the right to facilitate it and therefore if a cyclist is somehow blocking traffic while traveling while using an entire and single lane of a pathway or roadway then the government responsible for that pathway, whether local, state or federal, has neglected its responsibility to facilitate that travel. You may think this could also mean that the state may have the right to create a law to force one, for example a cyclist, into a less safe position on the road to better facilitate the higher speed of a motorist. This would be incorrect as at that point the state is saying that one person may put another person's life at greater risk as a matter of convenience. This is not a burden for an individual to bear as a threat to one's life is a greater impedement and even a total impedement to one's implicit right to travel and all other rights to which travel is necessary. Also, as the state has no right to force people to endanger their lives for the sake of traveling by their chosen means and as the state, state meaning whichever government entity is responsible for a particular road/pathway, has the right to limit the speed of those traveling to increase safety, and as the right to limit the lowest speed one may travel only extends to the capacity of a particular vehicle and its pilot to to safely maintain that speed, and just as the law cannot motivate a person to travel 40mph in a downpour when they only feel safe going 20mph, the law cannot also require that a cyclist maintain a speed which the cyclist is not capable of moving at or, such as may be the case going, for example, down a mountain at a speed at which the cyclist may feel unsafe. It is therefore undeniable that the state may only limit the speed to an upper or lower level so as to facilitate safe travel and not to limit it in such a way that impedes travel. And as everyone has an equal right to travel regardless of their chosen mode of transport and regardless of whether not it is capable of high speeds, a cyclist cannot be required by the state to either maintain a minimum speed or move into an unsafe lane position. In other words the state has no right to limit the upper or lower level of speed at which a person may travel if it is not for the sake of facilitating safe travel. And of course this means that they may not debar cyclists or any other alternative vehicle from using a roadway simply because they are not capable of a minimum speed. Everyone has a right to travel everywhere that is publicly accessible. The state may not bar travel to publicly accessible areas explicitly or even implicitly by, for example, requiring a minimum speed be maintained which is not possible for that particular vehicle to maintain safely.
Also, the condition in which motorists wrongly think the cyclist has no right to be further to toward the center of a lane creates a psychological situation that causes them to behave in such a way that they think they have a right to force the cyclist out of the way. This further requires the cyclist to use the whole lane as the whole lane is needed to avoid this aggressive and potentially deadly action.
Now I'll go over why a cyclist must use the entire lane to maintain their safety and the fact the the state acknowledges this whether you like it or not. Also the requirements to maintain safety do not change whether the sate of Idaho, a certain city or local government, or the federal government owns and maintains a pathway/roadway and responsibility over it. Therefore the acknowledgements by the state of Idaho that lean toward safety in the Idaho drivers manual are reasonable and undeniable and even should they at a later date be changed if that change does not err on the side of safety. If it does not err on the side of safety it is not applicable as the argument I made above still applies and of course that argument at base is that a person has a right to maintain their maximum safety while traveling and the state has no right to interfere with their attempts to maintain their safety. All attempts to circumvent this logic have hopefully been nullified at this point.
Also, the psychological situation which is common and in which a motorist thinks they have a right to force a cyclist into an unsafe position on the road/pathway is a situation created by various authorities and their lack of interest in enforcing the law, a badly worded law, and the interest of these various authorities in using their position and the power which it gives them to illegally press their personal views, [whether the view be that of a psychopathic police officer thinking that he should force a cyclist to endanger their life for the sake of other people's conveninece or just because the cyclist seems to be an easy target to harrass and aid in the meeting of a quota, or "expectation" which is now a more popular term, or the interest of a prosecutor for the same reasons or because they are too ignorant and stupid to know what they are doing.] This psychologically based threat is an illegal construct which the cyclist bears no duty to mitigate. The cyclist is a victim of criminal behavior. And just as someone being mugged has no LEGAL duty to stop their attacker the cyclist has no LEGAL duty to stop nor impede the dangerous psychological and behavioral situation created by these or any other authority's illegal and faulty interpretation of the law and their enforcement of this interpretation and the propagandistic effect that this interpretation carries. Therefore the cyclist who rides to farther to the side of a lane to any degree smaller than using the entirety of the lane that is useful for their safe progression is not doing so because they consent to the danger of doing so but because they are being coerced into doing so by the authorities that assert that they must do so. For them to use anything less than the full lane is NOT evidence of their consent to this danger.
And on bicycle lanes. Most and perhaps no bicycle lane is safe. In this city the bike lanes have a tendency to be narrow, have debris in them, be in door zones, end abruptly and without warning in sidewalks (your traffic engineer actually designed the one on whitewater to be this way for whatever deranged reason) which is particularly dangerous at night for those unfamiliar with them and the fact that the city would design things in such a deadly way, are absurdly narrow such as on emerald and especially the parts at intersections where the cyclist is squeezed between the right turn lane and the going straight lane and any other dangerous things I've failed to mention. Further more as we'll see below any lane less than twelve feet wide, which the state states is a lane whose width is too narrow to travel safely while sharing with other traffic and due to an argument I will make regarding motorcycling and the states acknowledgments of the behavior and lane positioning motorcyclists must embrace to maintain their safety and my argument that this also holds true for cyclists and even more so than for motorcyclists, any lane, whether intended exclusively for cyclists or all traffic, that requires a person to maintain a distance from other traffic and safety less than that afforded by a 12 foot wide lane is a lane which no government may require anyone to use including cyclists and therefore most, and likely all, bike lanes are dangerous to such an extent that no government may require their use by anyone.
On this note there's also the issue of traffic integration. This is especially an issue if the bike lane ends and also if there are opportunities for traffic to turn right. As motorists do not pay attention to what's in the bike lane they have a tendency to run over cyclists in what is called a right hook. I had this almost happen at least once while in a residential area and was nearly run over on emerald when some dullard in a suburban decided to use the bike lane as a passing lane. Motorists do not take bike lanes seriously and that makes them a hazard and therefore not safe and therefore not practicable to use.
Also, Dan Simons pointed out that motorists tend to notice things where they expect them to be. And even though they may expect a cyclist to be in a bike lane or to the right of a regular lane and theoretically may be more likely to see them there it also puts the cyclist in their peripheral vision, something that glare may make even worse, and also, given the dangers of traveling to the right, such as being squeezed into the curb by a line of those passing by, and given those dangers acknowledged by the state below, traveling to the right is still too dangerous to practice and the situation in which cycling to the right may theoretically make a cyclist more visible in certian areas, it may also make them less visible on roads where cyclists are not expected or even as expected, and it is also a situation created by the illegal interpretation of a badly written law and the propagandistic effects this improper interpretation creates. Therefore cycling to the right is STILL an unbearable and undeniable excessive risk. And if cyclists were to have been using the full lane as they should have been then this would not even be an issue. This perceptual problem is an illegal creation created by those wrongly interpreting this badly written law.
Now I will go over the state's acknowledgements of traveling too close to other traffic as being too dangerous to practice. I will also take this moment to state the following. For cyclists and other slow moving traffic the stream of traffic, whether constant or irregular, is actually more dangerous to share a lane with, due to the fact that each driver has to notice, acknowledge, and maneuver around the cyclist which is a more calamitous set of affairs than to simply have a driver travelling to the side constantly, and in any case sharing a lane with other traffic is acknowledged as too dangerous to practice whether it's one vehicle constantly travelling to the left or right or a transient stream of vehicles as at least the same danger of collision exists regardless and an even greater danger of collision with a constant or irregular stream maneuvering around a cyclist in which the stream was originally progressing more or less directly to the rear of the cyclist before coming upon the cyclist. Therefore the statement that sharing the lane with other traffic is unsafe is correct regardless of the context.
I am going to read some excerpts from the Idaho drivers manual and make some comments as I do so.
"• Lanes: Motorcycles are entitled to the same full lane width as all other
vehicles. Good motorcycle riders are constantly changing positions
within the lane so they can see and be seen, and to avoid objects in the
road. Never move into the same lane alongside a motorcycle, even if the
lane is wide and the motorcyclist is riding far to one side."
1) how is it that a motorcyclist needs a full lane while a cyclist doesn't? It obviously protects the motorcyclist to have a full lane by putting more distance between them and other traffic. Given that this is the case it is undeniable that cyclists need the same level of protection as the only difference between the two is the speed at which they travel, and sometimes not even that.
2) it is undeniable that the need to constantly change lane positions to increase visibility and avoid debris exists. It is undeniable that the use of the entire lane is required to engage in constantly changing lane positions and avoiding debris. It is also undeniable that cyclists face the same issue.
[Given this it is undeniable that current cycling law is written in such a way as to endanger cyclists and that the requirement to stay to one side of the lane, and especially 2 feet off the curb, is illegal. It is also obvious that since the cop that wrote me the ticket for cycling 4 feet off the curb instead of 2 feet was a motorcycle cop he also knew this. Therefore he knew that he was coercing me into endangering my life by writing that ticket and I would like to file charges on him.]
The Idaho drivers manual also states
"• Road surface: Unusual road surfaces and irregularities in the road that
don’t affect other vehicles can create problems for motorcycles. Gravel,
debris, pavement seams, small animals, and even manhole covers may
force a motorcycle rider to change speed or direction."
This issue obviously effect cyclists as well and perhaps even more so.
Given this it is obvious that it is not practicable to use anything less than than the full lane.
[These issues effect cyclists as well. Given that all of this is undeniable it is obvious that the code 10-14-6 section C was written with full knowledge that it endangers the lives of cyclists and it is undeniable that the city and any other governmental entity writing a law similar is knowingly and criminally endangering the lives of cyclists. It is also obvious that the continued enforcement of this code is illegal and that the parties enforcing it are willingly and knowingly engaging in criminal acts against cyclists.]
And it is obvious that I have the legal right to use the full lane as it is not practicable to ride in a manner that is unsafe.
Also consider this from the cycling section of the Idaho drivers manual
"• PASSING DISTANCE — A typical 12-foot-wide travel lane is not wide
enough to safely share with a bicyclist. Cycling instructors and riding
manuals teach bicyclists to ride at least 3 feet from the edge of pavement
to avoid accumulated edge debris and have enough space to the right,
away from traffic, for an emergency maneuver."
If it's not safe to share the lane then how would it even be safe to share the lane with those passing? It wouldn't. It would impede the maneuvers necessary to avoid hazards.
And given the phsyical and psychological conditions that cause motorists to think and feel as though they should force cyclists to the right it becomes even more necessary for the cyclist to assert their right over the entire lane. Therefore use of the entire lane is required.
Furthermore I have the right to use whatever lane is most applicable to my endeavour of travel and to use the entirety of that lane as doing so is necessary to go the direction needed. For example, if I am turning left I have the right to use whatever left lane I have to use to achieve this goal including the middle lanes/s until I can safely maneuver to the left lane. If I am turning left out of a parking lot or similar space I have a right to be in a left lane until I can get to a right lane safely. Also if I happen to be going in a right lane and the width of the road changes to have a greater number of lanes so that I am no longer in the farthest right lane I still have the right to use the same lane I was in so long as it is a temporary change, let's say less than 2 or 3 miles, and even more of a right to be in it in heavy traffic as re-merging with it further down the road can be especially dangerous. And with all of these maneuvers I have the right to the entire lane, and even moreso when in the left lane due to the danger posed by oncoming traffic.
I should note here that I have the right to the full use of the left lane even more than any other as being farther to the left could end up with me being squeezed into oncoming traffic.
I would like to take this to federal court and sue the state of idaho over interference with the right to travel. As I don't own a car it is undeniably an interference of my ability to travel to make it less safe than necessary to travel. Below is proof of the danger this law poses.
So I need advice on how to file this suit basically.
THE BEST VID I HAVE SEEN OF WHAT CYCLING 2 FEET OFF THE CURB INVITES.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-GEhAa5dVlQ
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GY2BJNvU7oo
ANOTHER REALLY GOOD VID OF WHAT CYCLING CLOSE TO THE CURB CAN DO.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RVYdbHCddJQ
I sent the following to the ACLU and the Rutherford Institute. I was wondering if you could get people to call them and tell them to pursue the case. It might get their attention.
ACLU of Idaho
Executive Director: Greg Morris
[email protected]
P. O. Box 1897
Boise, ID 83701
United States
(208) 344-9750 Fax: (208) 344-7201
Web: http://www.acluidaho.org
The Rutherford Institute • Post Office Box 7482 • Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482 •• (434) 978-3888 • [email protected]
-----Original message-----
Sent: Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 08:00:19
From:
To: [email protected],[email protected]
Subject: denial of right to travel. (fixed)(now added vids)
Please read all of this. The state of Idaho has denied my right to travel safely by not only denying me the right to the full lane while cycling but also requiring me to me approximately 1 to 2 feet off it max. I do not own a car. This starts with a few vids to show you my point. The drivers manual even states that sharing the lane with other traffic is dangeorus. Please read the whole thing, watch the trial audio, and take a look at the manual. Every need that is noted in the manual for motorcyclists is undeniably needed for cyclists as well and I elaborate on that below. Cycling that close to the curb gives NO room for error. And error in these cases can easily mean death.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f21frXBo-xA
THIS ONE IS REALLY GOOD.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KGnbYuzy-B0
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yC3sdllJIBU
Cycling that close to the edge, in other words as close to the edge as is practicable according to the state of Idaho, caneasily get you killed.
I have been denied my right to travel safely. Below is a vid of the audio recording of my trial.
https://drive.google.com/folder/d/0B3MFEqsepd3lQmVXUmxjOWhhUmM/edit
Below is my argument as it currently stands.
[MUCH LONGER ARGUMENT ] IF IS IT NOT SAFE IT IS NOT PRACTICABLE. THE STATE HAS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT BEING NEARER TO A CURB IS SAFER THAN HAVING THE LEGAL RIGHT TO THE WHOLE LANE AND THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE STATE’S RECOGNITION OF THAT RIGHT AND ENFORCEMENT OF THAT RIGHT. As the danger presented by other traffic is a matter of proximity a maximum reasonable distance between the cyclist and other traffic is required to prevent interference of safe travel. There is no way to argue that taking a full lane is less safe than taking only the amount afforded by being a foot or two or whatever off the curb. I will not argue that taking more than a full and single lane is necessary. I have no interest in arguing that cyclists may cycle side by side as I think it to be idiotic. As the state (local, fed, state level etc..) must facilitate the safe travel for its citizens as it is the only owner of the roads which are publicly accessible, travel being a right, it must not impede that travel by making it less safe than necessary for a person to travel. It is NOT necessary for a cyclist and a car to share a lane, and it is NOT necessary for a cyclist and a stream of passing traffic to share a lane. Traffic may safely pass a cyclist by fully changing lanes when it is possible to do so. When it is not possible they may safely wait until it is. To say that the convenience of being able to share a lane, even if transiently, with a cyclist outweighs the need of the cyclist to stay safe is an illegal argument on the part of the state. It does NOT balance the needs of the motorists with the cyclist. It effectively states that the life and health of the cyclist are of no concern to the state and therefore the state may favor the convenience of the motorist. Thanks to the Idaho drivers manual sections 5-2 through 5-3 and the statements made about the needs of the motorcyclist to have the full lane and my assertion that these need are the same as those for cyclists, and also thanks to the cycling section of the Idaho drivers manual, sections 5-6 through 5-9, and the statements under “be predictable”, which shows that cycling to the absolute right and then swerving to the left to avoid debris is NOT a good idea, especially since it would get you killed if there is traffic to your left, and would of course make you unpredictable, you meaning cyclist, and thanks to the part under “Passing distance” which EXPLICITLY states that a 12 foot wide lane is not wide enough to share with a cyclist. Therefore it is undeniable that is it not safe for the cyclist to share the lane with regularly or irregularly passing traffic. Below is the argument I was originally trying to make.
1) As the sole proprietors of the pathways by which people travel, travel being necessary to all freedoms and rights as one cannot make use of any freedom or right without so much as the ability to eat, which requires travel to a grocery store, or converse and develop the concepts which influence ones speech, free speech being an undeniable right, or associate freely as one must travel to meet those with which one would associate, the freedom of association being an undeniable right, or petition the government or any number of other activities necessary to one's life and liberties no government has the right to make travel more dangerous than it must be.
2) Also the state has no right to determine why and when a person may travel for any reason. In other words if a bunch of motorist wish to jam up the road traveling to the mall that is their right so long as they are attempting to travel, and do so safely, and not purposley to clog up the road, for example as a crowd would in a protest, and so to it is the right of a person to choose their method and path of transportation based on their whims just as the motorist would. In other words they have a right to use a bicycle as a method of transportation. The purchase or even use of an automobile is not a tax one must pay to secure their right to travel. And one has the right to take the path they wish even and more so especially if it is a matter of convenience, cost, time, safety or whatever purpose that that person chooses to favor in their pursuit of travel.
Also, I would like to address another point of which may or may not have relevance here. I am not certain on this. Some places have laws that prevent cyclists from traveling in line in too great a number, such as is done in races. There are some problems with this. One, what if they are not traveling together? Must they stay a certain distance from each other? What if they are traveling together? I would say that they must stay far enough apart so as not to crash or create an unnessecary risk of crashing into each other but they do have a right to travel in groups as motorists have this same right. Let's say a group of cyclists wishes to go see a movie together. Should they have to go through the absurd complexity of timing their excursion so that they aren't traveling together? Also would they be a group or individuals going to the same place? I would say that they should have the same liberties as motorists in this area.
3) One has a right to travel safely on their chosen route and to do what is necessary, given both the physical conditions of the path/road and what is necessary given the behavior of their fellow travelers and the psychological conditions that motivate that behavior as these are both factors that influence safety, to maintain their safety. For example, if a cyclist must travel in the middle of the lane or even the far left side of a right lane of far right side of a left lane, either to prevent traffic from pushing them into the curb or ditch or to prevent traffic from pushing them into other traffic should the cyclist be in a left lane that cyclist has a right to take measures to mitigate this threat. One has a right to take preventative measures to ensure one's safety. And interference with this right to ensure one's own safety while traveling whether the interference comes from a law, or the interpretation of that law by anyone including an officer or a civilian, is a violation of one's rights and likely just about all of them given the necessity of travel to so much as stay alive, life being necessary for liberty and one's rights, as any reduction of the ability to maintain one's safety while traveling is an impedement and therefore a deterent to travel. Given the necessity of travel for one's rights and liberties the government, whether local, state, or federal has no right whatsoever to deter travel. It only has the right to facilitate it and therefore if a cyclist is somehow blocking traffic while traveling while using an entire and single lane of a pathway or roadway then the government responsible for that pathway, whether local, state or federal, has neglected its responsibility to facilitate that travel. You may think this could also mean that the state may have the right to create a law to force one, for example a cyclist, into a less safe position on the road to better facilitate the higher speed of a motorist. This would be incorrect as at that point the state is saying that one person may put another person's life at greater risk as a matter of convenience. This is not a burden for an individual to bear as a threat to one's life is a greater impedement and even a total impedement to one's implicit right to travel and all other rights to which travel is necessary. Also, as the state has no right to force people to endanger their lives for the sake of traveling by their chosen means and as the state, state meaning whichever government entity is responsible for a particular road/pathway, has the right to limit the speed of those traveling to increase safety, and as the right to limit the lowest speed one may travel only extends to the capacity of a particular vehicle and its pilot to to safely maintain that speed, and just as the law cannot motivate a person to travel 40mph in a downpour when they only feel safe going 20mph, the law cannot also require that a cyclist maintain a speed which the cyclist is not capable of moving at or, such as may be the case going, for example, down a mountain at a speed at which the cyclist may feel unsafe. It is therefore undeniable that the state may only limit the speed to an upper or lower level so as to facilitate safe travel and not to limit it in such a way that impedes travel. And as everyone has an equal right to travel regardless of their chosen mode of transport and regardless of whether not it is capable of high speeds, a cyclist cannot be required by the state to either maintain a minimum speed or move into an unsafe lane position. In other words the state has no right to limit the upper or lower level of speed at which a person may travel if it is not for the sake of facilitating safe travel. And of course this means that they may not debar cyclists or any other alternative vehicle from using a roadway simply because they are not capable of a minimum speed. Everyone has a right to travel everywhere that is publicly accessible. The state may not bar travel to publicly accessible areas explicitly or even implicitly by, for example, requiring a minimum speed be maintained which is not possible for that particular vehicle to maintain safely.
Also, the condition in which motorists wrongly think the cyclist has no right to be further to toward the center of a lane creates a psychological situation that causes them to behave in such a way that they think they have a right to force the cyclist out of the way. This further requires the cyclist to use the whole lane as the whole lane is needed to avoid this aggressive and potentially deadly action.
Now I'll go over why a cyclist must use the entire lane to maintain their safety and the fact the the state acknowledges this whether you like it or not. Also the requirements to maintain safety do not change whether the sate of Idaho, a certain city or local government, or the federal government owns and maintains a pathway/roadway and responsibility over it. Therefore the acknowledgements by the state of Idaho that lean toward safety in the Idaho drivers manual are reasonable and undeniable and even should they at a later date be changed if that change does not err on the side of safety. If it does not err on the side of safety it is not applicable as the argument I made above still applies and of course that argument at base is that a person has a right to maintain their maximum safety while traveling and the state has no right to interfere with their attempts to maintain their safety. All attempts to circumvent this logic have hopefully been nullified at this point.
Also, the psychological situation which is common and in which a motorist thinks they have a right to force a cyclist into an unsafe position on the road/pathway is a situation created by various authorities and their lack of interest in enforcing the law, a badly worded law, and the interest of these various authorities in using their position and the power which it gives them to illegally press their personal views, [whether the view be that of a psychopathic police officer thinking that he should force a cyclist to endanger their life for the sake of other people's conveninece or just because the cyclist seems to be an easy target to harrass and aid in the meeting of a quota, or "expectation" which is now a more popular term, or the interest of a prosecutor for the same reasons or because they are too ignorant and stupid to know what they are doing.] This psychologically based threat is an illegal construct which the cyclist bears no duty to mitigate. The cyclist is a victim of criminal behavior. And just as someone being mugged has no LEGAL duty to stop their attacker the cyclist has no LEGAL duty to stop nor impede the dangerous psychological and behavioral situation created by these or any other authority's illegal and faulty interpretation of the law and their enforcement of this interpretation and the propagandistic effect that this interpretation carries. Therefore the cyclist who rides to farther to the side of a lane to any degree smaller than using the entirety of the lane that is useful for their safe progression is not doing so because they consent to the danger of doing so but because they are being coerced into doing so by the authorities that assert that they must do so. For them to use anything less than the full lane is NOT evidence of their consent to this danger.
And on bicycle lanes. Most and perhaps no bicycle lane is safe. In this city the bike lanes have a tendency to be narrow, have debris in them, be in door zones, end abruptly and without warning in sidewalks (your traffic engineer actually designed the one on whitewater to be this way for whatever deranged reason) which is particularly dangerous at night for those unfamiliar with them and the fact that the city would design things in such a deadly way, are absurdly narrow such as on emerald and especially the parts at intersections where the cyclist is squeezed between the right turn lane and the going straight lane and any other dangerous things I've failed to mention. Further more as we'll see below any lane less than twelve feet wide, which the state states is a lane whose width is too narrow to travel safely while sharing with other traffic and due to an argument I will make regarding motorcycling and the states acknowledgments of the behavior and lane positioning motorcyclists must embrace to maintain their safety and my argument that this also holds true for cyclists and even more so than for motorcyclists, any lane, whether intended exclusively for cyclists or all traffic, that requires a person to maintain a distance from other traffic and safety less than that afforded by a 12 foot wide lane is a lane which no government may require anyone to use including cyclists and therefore most, and likely all, bike lanes are dangerous to such an extent that no government may require their use by anyone.
On this note there's also the issue of traffic integration. This is especially an issue if the bike lane ends and also if there are opportunities for traffic to turn right. As motorists do not pay attention to what's in the bike lane they have a tendency to run over cyclists in what is called a right hook. I had this almost happen at least once while in a residential area and was nearly run over on emerald when some dullard in a suburban decided to use the bike lane as a passing lane. Motorists do not take bike lanes seriously and that makes them a hazard and therefore not safe and therefore not practicable to use.
Also, Dan Simons pointed out that motorists tend to notice things where they expect them to be. And even though they may expect a cyclist to be in a bike lane or to the right of a regular lane and theoretically may be more likely to see them there it also puts the cyclist in their peripheral vision, something that glare may make even worse, and also, given the dangers of traveling to the right, such as being squeezed into the curb by a line of those passing by, and given those dangers acknowledged by the state below, traveling to the right is still too dangerous to practice and the situation in which cycling to the right may theoretically make a cyclist more visible in certian areas, it may also make them less visible on roads where cyclists are not expected or even as expected, and it is also a situation created by the illegal interpretation of a badly written law and the propagandistic effects this improper interpretation creates. Therefore cycling to the right is STILL an unbearable and undeniable excessive risk. And if cyclists were to have been using the full lane as they should have been then this would not even be an issue. This perceptual problem is an illegal creation created by those wrongly interpreting this badly written law.
Now I will go over the state's acknowledgements of traveling too close to other traffic as being too dangerous to practice. I will also take this moment to state the following. For cyclists and other slow moving traffic the stream of traffic, whether constant or irregular, is actually more dangerous to share a lane with, due to the fact that each driver has to notice, acknowledge, and maneuver around the cyclist which is a more calamitous set of affairs than to simply have a driver travelling to the side constantly, and in any case sharing a lane with other traffic is acknowledged as too dangerous to practice whether it's one vehicle constantly travelling to the left or right or a transient stream of vehicles as at least the same danger of collision exists regardless and an even greater danger of collision with a constant or irregular stream maneuvering around a cyclist in which the stream was originally progressing more or less directly to the rear of the cyclist before coming upon the cyclist. Therefore the statement that sharing the lane with other traffic is unsafe is correct regardless of the context.
I am going to read some excerpts from the Idaho drivers manual and make some comments as I do so.
"• Lanes: Motorcycles are entitled to the same full lane width as all other
vehicles. Good motorcycle riders are constantly changing positions
within the lane so they can see and be seen, and to avoid objects in the
road. Never move into the same lane alongside a motorcycle, even if the
lane is wide and the motorcyclist is riding far to one side."
1) how is it that a motorcyclist needs a full lane while a cyclist doesn't? It obviously protects the motorcyclist to have a full lane by putting more distance between them and other traffic. Given that this is the case it is undeniable that cyclists need the same level of protection as the only difference between the two is the speed at which they travel, and sometimes not even that.
2) it is undeniable that the need to constantly change lane positions to increase visibility and avoid debris exists. It is undeniable that the use of the entire lane is required to engage in constantly changing lane positions and avoiding debris. It is also undeniable that cyclists face the same issue.
[Given this it is undeniable that current cycling law is written in such a way as to endanger cyclists and that the requirement to stay to one side of the lane, and especially 2 feet off the curb, is illegal. It is also obvious that since the cop that wrote me the ticket for cycling 4 feet off the curb instead of 2 feet was a motorcycle cop he also knew this. Therefore he knew that he was coercing me into endangering my life by writing that ticket and I would like to file charges on him.]
The Idaho drivers manual also states
"• Road surface: Unusual road surfaces and irregularities in the road that
don’t affect other vehicles can create problems for motorcycles. Gravel,
debris, pavement seams, small animals, and even manhole covers may
force a motorcycle rider to change speed or direction."
This issue obviously effect cyclists as well and perhaps even more so.
Given this it is obvious that it is not practicable to use anything less than than the full lane.
[These issues effect cyclists as well. Given that all of this is undeniable it is obvious that the code 10-14-6 section C was written with full knowledge that it endangers the lives of cyclists and it is undeniable that the city and any other governmental entity writing a law similar is knowingly and criminally endangering the lives of cyclists. It is also obvious that the continued enforcement of this code is illegal and that the parties enforcing it are willingly and knowingly engaging in criminal acts against cyclists.]
And it is obvious that I have the legal right to use the full lane as it is not practicable to ride in a manner that is unsafe.
Also consider this from the cycling section of the Idaho drivers manual
"• PASSING DISTANCE — A typical 12-foot-wide travel lane is not wide
enough to safely share with a bicyclist. Cycling instructors and riding
manuals teach bicyclists to ride at least 3 feet from the edge of pavement
to avoid accumulated edge debris and have enough space to the right,
away from traffic, for an emergency maneuver."
If it's not safe to share the lane then how would it even be safe to share the lane with those passing? It wouldn't. It would impede the maneuvers necessary to avoid hazards.
And given the phsyical and psychological conditions that cause motorists to think and feel as though they should force cyclists to the right it becomes even more necessary for the cyclist to assert their right over the entire lane. Therefore use of the entire lane is required.
Furthermore I have the right to use whatever lane is most applicable to my endeavour of travel and to use the entirety of that lane as doing so is necessary to go the direction needed. For example, if I am turning left I have the right to use whatever left lane I have to use to achieve this goal including the middle lanes/s until I can safely maneuver to the left lane. If I am turning left out of a parking lot or similar space I have a right to be in a left lane until I can get to a right lane safely. Also if I happen to be going in a right lane and the width of the road changes to have a greater number of lanes so that I am no longer in the farthest right lane I still have the right to use the same lane I was in so long as it is a temporary change, let's say less than 2 or 3 miles, and even more of a right to be in it in heavy traffic as re-merging with it further down the road can be especially dangerous. And with all of these maneuvers I have the right to the entire lane, and even moreso when in the left lane due to the danger posed by oncoming traffic.
I should note here that I have the right to the full use of the left lane even more than any other as being farther to the left could end up with me being squeezed into oncoming traffic.
