Texas Transportation Code
§ 545.302. STOPPING, STANDING, OR PARKING
PROHIBITED IN CERTAIN PLACES. (a) An operator may not stop, stand, or park a
vehicle:
(1) on the roadway side of a vehicle stopped
or parked at the edge or curb of a street;
(2) on a sidewalk;
(3) in an intersection;
(4) on a crosswalk;
(5) between a safety zone and the adjacent
curb or within 30 feet of a place on the curb
immediately opposite the ends of a safety zone,
unless the governing body of a municipality
designates a different length by signs or markings;
(6) alongside or opposite a street excavation
or obstruction if stopping, standing, or parking
the vehicle would obstruct traffic;
(7) on a bridge or other elevated structure on
a highway or in a highway tunnel;
(8) on a railroad track; or
(9) where an official sign prohibits stopping.
(b) An operator may not, except momentarily to
pick up or discharge a passenger, stand or park
an occupied or unoccupied vehicle:
(1) in front of a public or private driveway;
(2) within 15 feet of a fire hydrant;
(3) within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection;
(4) within 30 feet on the approach to a flashing
signal, stop sign, yield sign, or traffic-control
signal located at the side of a roadway;
(5) within 20 feet of the driveway entrance to
a fire station and on the side of a street opposite
the entrance to a fire station within 75 feet of
the entrance, if the entrance is properly
marked with a sign; or
(6) where an official sign prohibits standing.
(c) An operator may not, except temporarily to
load orunload merchandise or passengers, park
an occupied or unoccupied vehicle:
(1) within 50 feet of the nearest rail of a
railroad crossing; or
(2) where an official sign prohibits parking.
(d) A person may stop, stand, or park
a bicycle on a sidewalk if the bicycle
does not impede the normal and
reasonable movement of pedestrian or
other traffic on the sidewalk.
That language in (d) sure sounds familiar, now doesn't it?
20 comments:
I'm not sure I follow your meaning. There are a couple of speculative conclusions one could draw, but I prefer not to go down that path. Elucidation?
The act of STOPPING (or going slowly) on a sidewalk does not necessarily mean that traffic will be impeded beyond what is normal and reasonable, meaning reasonably 'not blocking' traffic.
It's a window into intent when the same language is used in the vehicle code.
In regards to bicycling in travel lanes, I take this wording to mean that it is practically impossible to illegally impede traffic on a 4-lane or greater road, because moving into an adjacent same-direction lane to pass a slower vehicle seems like extremely "normal and reasonable" behavior to me, and in fact happens all the time between two motor vehicles. The only way I could see that it would make a difference that the slower vehicle is a bicycle would be if the road was so congested that a following motorist literally had no opportunity to change lanes for an extended period of time, which hardly ever happens, at least on my roads. Were it to happen, then I suppose the statute would create a legal requirement for the bicyclist to pull over and let faster traffic pass for a while or seek an alternate route, which in fact some states make explicit by adding wording about number of cars backed up, etc. But not otherwise.
But then, if the judge feels that expecting motor traffic to slow to a bicyclist's speed even momentarily is inherently unreasonable, how do you argue that? :-(
And if traffic on a multi-lane road is as dense as John describes, the situation is usually called a "traffic jam". It is the density of traffic that is impeding all drivers, including cyclists, The absence of cyclists would not allow other other drivers to move more quickly.
The context of the wording is totally different since here impede wording is not preceded with "driving so slowly as to ...".
If you drive a car or motorcycle in the middle of a lane at 15 mph when others in that lane are moving at 45+ mph, that is going to be considered as driving so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic. What's normal and reasonable on such a highway is to encounter and overtake someone going 10 or maybe 15 mph slower than other traffic. If they're going 20 mph slower (25 when others are going 45), that might be debatable. But if they're going a third of the speed, that's going to be considered impeding by most. Reasonable people can and do disagree, but I assure you they are in the minority, and anything else they say will be discounted accordingly if they try to argue 15 mph is not driving so slowly as to impede. If the judge is awake, be prepared to answer this question: if 15 mph is not driving so slowly as to impede, how slow must one travel to be driving so slowly as to impede?
Now, if the driver traveling "so slowly as to impede" is moving about as fast as he reasonably can, then finding him in violation is tantamount to removing his right to travel on the roadway, because he has no ability to travel on that roadway without impeding, and so must leave the roadway to avoid it. That's why he cannot be found to be in violation of the law, not because he's not impeding others.
It is simply not true that traffic has to be so dense as to create a traffic jam in order for a slow driver to be impeding those in his lane.
Consider traffic with two lanes in the given direction in which motorists are moving in both lanes near the speed limit, say 60 mph, with gaps varying from 2-20 seconds long, but often a series of cars with gaps of only 2-5 seconds long. Under such conditions if someone is moving a little bit slower in the right lane, those in the right lane will be approaching him slowly enough to probably have enough time to plan a safe and reasonable lane change and pass. But the occasional motorist will be in a situation where the density in the left lane is temporarily too high to change into it, and will have to slow down to the slow driver's speed, until he is able to change lanes. Shouldn't be a big deal, but the slower that motorist is going the bigger deal it is, and the more likely the slow driving will be considered to be impeding, for several reasons.
1) The slower the slow driver, the faster the closing speed and the shorter the time others have to notice the slow driving and plan a lane change without having to slow to the slow driver's speed.
2) Having to slow at all is arguably/technically being impeded, but of course if it's only a few mph difference it's not a big deal. However, the slower the slow driver, the more significant is the impeding caused by others having to slow to that speed if they are unable to change lanes. The law is not clear on exactly how much slower is impeding, but rest assured that 15 mph when others are moving 60 is well below that threshold, regardless of where that threshold actually is determined to be by most people.
3) Once someone is slowed to the slow driver's speed, the slower that speed is, the more difficult it is to find a gap long enough in the adjacent lane to safely change into it. Using turn signals to negotiate a change can help, but those in the left lane have the right of way and are under no legal obligation to yield.
So the slower the slow driver is moving, the more likely he is to cause impeding in the first place, the more likely the impeding is to be significant, and the longer the impeding is likely to be.
This is why very slow driving in and of itself, whether anyone is actually being impeded at the time, can be a violation. It's assumed that if such slow driving is not currently causing impeding, it's only a matter of time before it will. That's what's meant by "driving so slowly as to impede". The violation of this statute is the slow driving, not the impeding. That's why it's named the "MINIMUM SPEED REGULATIONS". That's why a violation of the CA equivalent of this law is called "DRIVING TOO SLOW" (not "IMPEDING").
Whether you agree with me about this or not, all of this - though not necessarily spelled out in such detail - is assumed to be blatantly obvious to most in our society who drive, including almost certainly any judge.
Therefore, if you try to argue that 15 mph travel in the middle of a traffic lane is not driving too slowly (a.k.a. driving so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic), almost certainly what you will achieve is a loss in credibility, and nothing else.
If you want to win, you have to immediately argue that slow driving was justified (because he couldn't reasonably go any faster, certainly not fast enough to avoid impeding), and therefore could not be in violation of the law.
It is simply not true that traffic has to be so dense as to create a traffic jam in order for a slow driver to be impeding those in his lane.
Consider medium traffic with two lanes in the given direction in which motorists are moving in both lanes near the speed limit, say 60 mph, with gaps varying from 2-10 seconds long, but mostly 2-5 seconds long. Under such conditions if someone is moving a little bit slower in the right lane, those in the right lane will be approaching him slowly enough to probably have enough time to plan a safe and reasonable lane change and pass. But the occasional motorist will be in a situation where the density in the left lane is temporarily to high to change into it, and will have to slow down to the slow driver's speed, until he is able to change lanes. Shouldn't be a big deal, but the slower that motorist is going the bigger deal it is, and the more likely the slow driving will be considered to be impeding, for several reasons.
1) The slower the slow driver, the faster the closing speed and the shorter the time others have to notice the slow driving and plan a lane change without having to slow to the slow driver's speed.
2) Having to slow at all is arguably/technically being impeded, but of course if it's only a few mph difference it's not a big deal. However, the slower the slow driver, the more significant is the impeding caused by others having to slow to that speed if they are unable to change lanes. The law is not clear on exactly how much slower is impeding, but rest assured that 15 mph when others are moving 60 is well below that threshold, regardless of where that threshold actually is determined to be by most people.
3) Once someone is slowed to the slow driver's speed, the slower that speed is, the more difficult it is to find a gap long enough in the adjacent lane to safely change into it. Using turn signals to negotiate a change can help, but those in the left lane have the right of way and are under no legal obligation to yield.
(continued)
(continued)
So the slower the slow driver is moving, the more likely he is to cause impeding in the first place, the more likely the impeding is to be significant, and the longer the impeding is likely to be.
This is why very slow driving in and of itself, whether anyone is actually being impeded at the time, can be a violation. It's assumed that if such slow driving is not currently causing impeding, it's only a matter of time before it will. That's what's meant by "driving so slowly as to impede". The violation of this statute is the slow driving, not the impeding. That's why it's named the "MINIMUM SPEED REGULATIONS". That's why a violation of the CA equivalent of this law is called "DRIVING TOO SLOW" (not "IMPEDING").
Whether you agree with me about this or not, all of this - though not spelled out such detail - is assumed to be blatantly obvious to most in our society who drive, including almost certainly any judge.
If you try to argue that 15 mph travel in the middle of a traffic lane is not driving too slowly (a.k.a. driving so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic), all you will achieve is a loss in credibility.
There's a loss of credibility in the long message thread posted by Principled Pragmatist, in my opinion.
The premises presented overlook one aspect, that is, that a driver is supposed to be operating at speed reasonable for conditions present. It is not a reference to the speed limit.
There are multi-lane roads with what I consider to be high speed limits, and not atypical for such roadways, the drivers will exceed those posted limits.
Those roadways will have other motor vehicles entering the roadway from driveways and secondary streets at speeds appreciably lower than the posted speed limit.
Drivers on the main roadway are required to maintain appropriate vigilance for traffic ahead and adjust accordingly. If the traffic ahead is operating at 15 mph in a 45 mph zone, the approaching driver is not permitted to collide with the entering traffic.
Even when that traffic is established on the roadway, overtaking traffic is required to see such traffic.
If traffic density is such that the overtaking driver is unable to change lanes, it is representative of unskilled, untrained, or inconsiderate drivers.
In the scenario describe where the speed difference is substantial, it can be argued that the overtaking driver, if operating at a speed too high to properly account for slower traffic ahead, is operating unsafely.
As a safe-traffic cyclist, I don't have to worry about credibility as I ride. What I have learned, and have experienced first-hand, is that such operation is many levels of magnitude safer for me, and easier for the other road users, especially on high-speed multi-lane roads.
Experience and safety are far more important than credibility. I do not concern myself with individuals who do not find me credible based on inaccurate feelings or based on zero experience and/or training.
Fred, credibility is important when you're trying to persuade others, especially a judge in court. If you say something that he thinks is patently absurd, it's not going to help your case with him no matter how right you are and how wrong he is. And e likely to not pay as much attention to anything else you have to argue.
As to your argument, of course faster traffic has the responsibility to slow down and not collide with you. That's not the point.
The point is that someone driving so slowly as to require others to slow down so much like that is considered to be someone who is "driving so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic." If you or others disagree with that interpretation of the key phrase from the statute in question, please tell us what you think would constitute "driving so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic." How slowly is "driving so slowly"?
Put another way, say you're testifying in court. How would you respond?
PROSECUTION: Do you think 15 mph travel among 40-45 mph is "so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic"?
YOU: No, sir, I do not.
PROSECUTION: (looks at judge and rolls eyes) Okay, then, I have a general question about how you would interpret this law; it is not specific to bicycling nor even this particular situation. Assuming that the normal and reasonable movement of traffic is about 45-50 mph on a roadway, what is your opinion of approximately how slowly an operator would have to drive on this roadway in order for his driving to be reasonably considered to be, "so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic"?
Fred, PM, others... How do you respond?
In the four citations I've received, a specific statute not related to roadway speed was used on the ticket. In almost all four of those citations, the officer used the phrase "obstructing traffic" but it's not part of the cited statute. The Florida Statutes specific to impeding traffic also are worded as "operator of a MOTOR vehicle" and exclude bicycles by such definition.
I did not need to convince a judge in the four citations. A motion to dismiss was filed, based on the statute for which I was cited. The motion to dismiss included exact references and the notations for how I was not in violation, or how I was fully in compliance.
Dismissed (x4) at unnecessary expense, however.
Serge asked: "
Fred, PM, others... How do you respond?"
Were other vehicles able to pass safely without crossing into oncoming traffic lanes and without unreasonable delay? Was the throughput of traffic over a normal and reasonable distance degraded? If there is no minimum speed set by statute, and traffic could pass safely, then speed has no relevance on impedance.
More specifically, Serge:
"Objection, your Honor. There is no posted minimum speed on this roadway, and my client has not been charged with failure to maintain a posted minimum speed. My client's speed has no bearing on this charge, only whether traffic was unreasonably impeded."
"Objection sustained."
" If there is no minimum speed set by statute, and traffic could pass safely, then speed has no relevance on impedance.
But the statute does set a minimum speed, it's just not specified by a particular number, but rather by a relative condition.
Both the maximum and minimum speeds can be set by a specific posted limit, or by relative conditions.
In the case of maximum speed, 545.351, a.k.a "MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT", sets the upper limit based on what is "reasonable and prudent".
In the case of minimum speed, 545.363. a.k.a. "Minimum Speed Regulations", sets the minimum speed based on what is not "so slowly as to impede".
The statute, 545.363, does set a minimum speed.
To be in violation of the statute you have to be impeding others and acting unreasonably. Driving a sedan at 15 mph is impeding others and is driving unreasonably, so that is and should be a violation of the statute.
Driving a bicycle at 15 mph is impeding others but is not acting unreasonably, so it is not a violation.
To argue that a 15 mph bicyclist is not impeding others is to argue that a 15 mph motorist would not be impeding others. Absurd.
The Florida Statutes specific to impeding traffic also are worded as "operator of a MOTOR vehicle" and exclude bicycles by such definition.
Then you're not getting the charges dismissed because you weren't impeding others. You're getting the charges dismissed because the FL statute explicitly does not apply to bicyclists regardless of whether you're impeding others.
That does not mean you weren't traveling so slow as to impede. That just means you were not operating a motor vehicle.
The TX statute does specify MOTOR.
More specifically, PM:
PROSECUTION: Your honor, the issue here is whether the defendant was in violation of the minimum speed regulations statute, which sets an unposted minimum speed.
The undisputed fact that there was no posted minimum speed is as irrelevant here as would be the lack of a posted maximum speed limit in a case where the defendent is accused of going too fast for conditions in violation of the "Maximum Speed Requirement" statute (545.351).
JUDGE: "[Defense's objection is] overruled".
Serge, you're on a fishing expedition. The Supreme Court has made it quite clear that you can't be tried for acts and violations for which you were not charged.
Reed Bates was charged with impeding traffic, for which the prosecution presented no evidence, and it the other case with reckless driving (changed from the original 'operating a bicycle on the roadway'), for which the prosecution will be unable to present evidence.
It really is that simple.
PM, I don't understand why you point out that "you can't be tried for acts and violations for which you were not charged." Of course. Do you think I've written anything that suggests he should be tried for acts and violations for which he was not charged? If you think I made any false or incorrect statements, please let me know what you think they are, and why you think they are false or incorrect.
My concern is that Reed and his team are going to lose due to making arguments based on unfounded assumptions. Here is an example of a false or at least misleading statement:
"Reed Bates was charged with impeding traffic"
Huh? I thought Reed was charged with violating 545.363, the minimum speed regulations statute. Was he charged with some other statute that regulates impeding rather than speed?
Like 545.361 which sets an unposted maximum speed limit based on conditions, 545.363 sets an unposted minimum speed limit on all roadways relative to the normal and reasonable movement of traffic (any driving which is "so slowly as to impede" such movement is below that limit), and to which all drivers are required to adhere except when necessary to drive slower.
PP, by your arguments, anyone going 54MPH on a two-lane road without a passing lane available would be unlawfully impeding traffic wanting to go 55MPH, since they are not allowed to pass. And, of course, slowing down to pull off of said road and allow them to pass would be impeding them even more.
Post a Comment