A Law Like No Other

[B' Spokes: A very good explanation of what's wrong with our "Ride as Far Right as Practicable" law. I'll add something to this argument, bicycling law does makes no mention of maintaining a straight and predictable course. A Baltimore City Police stopped me once for not riding far right (translation not riding in the parking space of three cars.) I asked if he thought weaving in and out of traffic was safer?

As typical, here are some highlights:]

Most laws are clear and reinforce safety.

Most traffic laws have a clear purpose — to reinforce the rules of movement that make roadway users predictable to one another. These laws don’t interfere with road users’ ability to travel safely. They’re barely even noticeable to the conscientious driver, who appreciates enforcement of them because that makes the system safer for him.

When a normal traffic citation is challenged, it is challenged on the basis of whether or not the driver was breaking a clearly defined law. Did the driver make a complete stop at the stop sign? Did the driver enter the intersection before or after the light turned red. Was the driver going faster than the speed limit? Interpretation of the law itself is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the police officer accurately witnessed the infraction. In many cases, people contest traffic citations in the hope that the officer won’t show up in court (providing automatic dismissal), or they seek to have the points removed from their record. No one would ever argue that they were speeding or running a red light because it was safer.

Bicyclists are the only vehicle drivers who must defend themselves to an officer or judge for driving defensively.

In every scenario, the bicyclist suffers some loss, even though he was operating lawfully!