On 2/2/2011 11:50 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Feb 2, 8:38 am, Duane wrote:
On 2/2/2011 11:26 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

Except that it is your position that bicycles are not subject to the
slow-moving vehicle laws, which if true, would make hash of the
Forester quote. It would mean that bicycles could take the lane
whenever it is "inconvenient" to ride as far right as practicable and
would never have to yield. Also, "convenience" is not one of the
permissible reasons for not riding as far right as is "practicable."
Practicable means "feasible" and not "convenient." In fact, I don't
even know what Forester means by "convenient." To the extent the
quote merely reitrates the rules of the road for bicyclists, I've got
no issue with it except for the quaint need to give a special name to
cyclists who simply follow the applicable laws. -- Jay Beattie.

Where are you talking about where the rule is for cyclists to stay as
far right as practicable? I quoted something similar in the Quebec
Highway code and the replies made it sound like this was a terrible
abomination and an infringement of my right to the road.

I think the "as far right as practicable" is reasonable common sense
and courtesy embodied in the law, as Forester seems to be agreeing in
the quoted paragraph.

As long as you interpret practicable as Jay does.

The Quebec code says "every person on a bicycle must ride on the extreme
right-hand side of the roadway in the same direction as traffic, except
where that space is obstructed or when he is about to make a left turn"

Sort of like what "extreme" and "obstructed" mean. I take that to mean
to keep as far right as I can without hitting potholes, drain gratings
etc. And this seems OK to me. But I got a lot of "sympathy" here for
living in such a backward society. I assumed that this was unusual but
it apparently isn't.