livedarklions

The language most definitely does not support that. There's 2 requirements, listed on both sides of the word "and". The first is "less than the maximum speed" and the second is "such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic" . Those are clearly not intended to be the same standard as evidenced by the fact that they are both listed. The obvious reason it's written that way is so someone can't argue that the speed limit is unreasonably low, not to impose a duty on someone to drive the full speed limit or get out of the way. There's a principle in legislative interpretation that you should not interpret phrases in such a way as to render them redundant, and you are attempting to read both phrases to mean "less than the maximum speed."

Speed limits are supposed to be the maximum speed, not the average speed, and certainly not the minimum speed. The idea that Joey was legally required to pull over or pass the truck because it was going 5 mph slower than the speed limit is absurd.

Paul Barnard

In Joey's case, if PA law were being applied, do you think the cement truck could be cited for impeding?

Rollfast

It's a cement truck. Probably wouldn't argue with it.

jon c. 

I'd hate to be a cop standing before a judge defending my assessment that 5 mph below the limit was sufficiently impeding that a citation was warranted.

Rollfast

They have no penalty or shame doing their duties. Police cite based on their knowledge of laws and judges/juries decide the verdicts and penalties.

If they violate laws or procedures doing so then that is what they would have to worry about.

And yes, if you are impeding traffic the speed you are traveling is moot.

And if you violate the sentencing terms then you are accountable for it. Please get this figured out, Smith violated his terms and thus his probation. This is about that.This is not a social justice issue, it is violation of his sentencing and probation. We have no control here over it, his lawyers and the prosecution have to deal with it.

livedarklions

Absolutely not. It defies the wording of the statute AND common sense. How many times would you expect the truck to pull over? Every time a car gets behind it? 2 cars? 3 cars? Pulling a truck off and back on to a road is a far more dangerous situation than slightly reduced speed.

This statute is obviously aimed at very slow moving vehicles, not at making sure people drive the speed limit.

livedarklions

Can you imagine how fast the trucking lobbyists would descend on the state capital if that really was the law? They would be paying citations every time trucks had to go up hills.

Paul Barnard

And that brings us back full circle to Mr. Smith's charges and my question of "at what point did his legal presence on the road become impeding?" One car? Two? One minute? Two?

The statute is aimed at people who are traveling at less than the speed limit and are impeding the normal and reasonable movement of traffic. Slower than the speed limit is objective. What is normal and reasonable is a subjective judgement call. Some states have gone so far as to identify a specific number of vehicles. When I was in AK, if you had 5 or more vehicles behind you, the law burdened you to pull over and let them pass. Just curious what you think about where in Mr. Smith's voyage he went afoul of the law. I can tell you from conversations I have had on non-cycling forums, that some motorists think if they have to let off the gas for a cyclist the cyclist has impeded them. That matters because some cops have the same mentality.

Paul Barnard

In your mind it doesn't matter how many cars are stacked up behind someone, it's a matter of how much below the speed limit the operator is going? How many miles per hour below the speed limit would someone have to go to impede normal and reasonable movement of traffic in your mind?

Paul Barnard

When I look at the linked video, Mr. Smith is riding on a narrow winding road with limited sight lines and completely within a no passing zone. No passing zones exist because it is not safe to pass there. Maybe he knew a car couldn't safely pass there, so he took the lane. How do you make the decision as to when it is safe to let them around, and how do you let them around? Where would you position yourself on the road Mr. Smith was on to let cars around?

livedarklions

\
I'm not going to spend a lot of time looking at the video that just happens to have been aired because I assume there was a lot clearer evidence in court. Whether or not what he did at 55 seconds of this video- https://www.wtae.com/article/westmor...-trial/7163723 is technically legal, it clearly is ridiculously dangerous technique designed to be maximally obnoxious. He is riding very close to the center AND signalling the cars to pass, knowing full well that his position requires them to go almost to the left shoulder if they are going to respect PA's 4 foot rule. He would be just as visible in the lane if he were 2-3 feet to the right, and it would give the cars a much easier pass that actually would make him safer. The way he's doing this in the video actually makes it far more likely that a car in the oncoming left lane is going to have to swerve right into him to avoid the cars he forced all the way over

The hand signal to pass, BTW, is pretty good evidence for consciousness of guilt--he's demonstrating that he knows he is impeding traffic.

Let's assume what he's doing there is technically legal--if I was a legislator wanting to change the laws to make them less bike-friendly, that video is a gift. I'd use it to take bicycles out of the one lane exception. I don't practice or live in PA, but I'll bet that exception was put in there to protect the Amish horse-drawn vehicles, BTW.

Paul Barnard

I want to preface my comments by noting that none of this is intended to be adversarial. It's not. It's just folks shooting the bull around a campfire.

We collectively, and that includes myself, have had a hard time answering the question of when his presence went from legal to illegal in the video I linked. In other words, we are reasonable people who can't seem to identify when he impeded the reasonable movement of other cars. We can only say that he was impeding traffic. The standard is subjective, so I know there is no correct answer. And even in that video, the first car in line could have easily passed him. If I were a motorist behind that first car, I'd be wanting them to pass him. I'd hold that motorist as responsible for my delay as I would the cyclist.

In the video you linked, how many fewer seconds (or fractions thereof) would a car spend in the oncoming lane if Mr Smith were a few feet further right? In my mind if I am one of the motorists passing him it's utterly inconsequential. Much ado about nothing from a safety standpoint. From an advocacy standpoint, I think him being further right would send a signal that he is trying to be more accommodating.

I often use hand signals to communicate with motorists. I have been approaching blind curves and could hear cars coming from the other side while a motorist is coming up behind me. I position myself center lane and hold up a hand to communicate that I'd like for them to wait. When in my assessment it is safe for them to come around, I motion for them to come around. Doing that has served me well over the years. YMMV.

When I look at the video you posted from a motorists perspective, I see an idiot who is incredibly easy to negotiate. The salmon I encounter every day in downtown NOLA are more of an issue.

You said his actions were clearly dangerous. I saw nothing in the video that was dangerous. I saw a car wait to pass him when a car was coming in the other direction. Even if his road position was the white fog line, the car behind him couldn't have safely passed with the car approaching in the oncoming lane. Then I saw cars safely passing a cyclist when they had a clear line of sight. None of those passes looked dangerous to me.

livedarklions

I have no interest in debating this further.

Paul Barnard

I didn't see it as a debate at all. I saw it as two bicycling enthusiasts exchanging thoughts and ideas.

livedarklions

We're definitely arguing, which is fine if done civilly (and you're definitely being civil). I'm just bowing out because I'm not finding it interesting or fun. Please don't take offense, none was meant by it.

I'm just sick of Mr. Smith as a topic, and I was trying to politely tell you I was moving on.

wphamilton

A lot of people miss the fact that impeding traffic does not apply to speeds that are reasonable for that vehicle. If the vehicle can only go 40, it's not impeding traffic at 40. This is the standard, consistent way that courts apply those statutes with few exceptions.

The exception is limited access highways with minimum speed laws. If it's 45 and your truck can only go 40, you would get a citation.

Paul Barnard

I respect that. Enjoy your day mate. I am a non-essential federal employee and it's way too windy for me to ride today. My threshold for entertainment is in an odd location!

livedarklions

I enjoy your posts, and hope you get your paycheck soon!

Paul Barnard

Me too. I have a frame that needs to be built. I'll be fine financially for a few months, but I am going to play this on the conservative side.

Maelochs

I agree completely. He moves even Further left, and slows so much he almost loses control ---I wouldn't pass him at that point. he might fall in front of me.

This also, I agree with completely. David Smith is obviously abusing the law---whether one person says "I was convinced a timestamp 57" seconds or anther at 53 seconds, or 1:02, the fact is, almost everyone here agrees he is deliberately obstructing traffic.

What is the point of arguing hypotheticals and imagination, wondering when, if some imaginary rider did some imaginary thing, one might make a certain determination? The law is designed to monitor Real situation, like this one, and almost all of us agree that the law has been violated.

@Paul Barnard, You tell Us when you think he violated the law---you said above you thought he did. Then you tell us what you think the law should say. Then we will have something to discuss----assuming You want to spend the time imagining all that stuff and imagining imaginary responses. I am more interested in this one very real case. if I am going to spend my life imagining, I will imagine pleasant things.

JoeyBike

Once in a great while, I get to quote myself.

Maelochs

I was going to go with the cheap and easy ""Just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD" remark, but ... your posts over the last several days have been throwback to the old rational JoeyBike, and I don't want to risk having you think i am trying to demean you. I have really enjoyed everything you have posted this week.

JoeyBike

Thanks man. It's a new year.

Paul Barnard

I also said above, I couldn't put a finger on when. That's part of why I asked the forum. It's almost as if you think I am baiting with my questions. They aren't loaded at all. We have a standard of reasonableness in the law and I am always interested in what reasonable people think. The reasonable standard is pervasive in our law, and like you, I think it's a generally good standard. At times though it can be a bit difficult or troubling to apply. In this case, I'd say that impeding took place (in the link I provided) when he looked behind and realized that several drivers were unwilling to pass him.

OBoile

It is a lot. I've never had close to that number backed up behind me. That's either a very busy road (too busy for me) or you've been obstructing traffic for a long time.