"reasonably considers" is not in the law. "Reasonably necessary" is, but nothing that suggest that is a subjective consideration of the person subject to the requirement rather than an "objective" (as that is used in law, which isn't exactly the normal sense) determination applied to the facts.
Again, I think that you err in assigning subjectivity, and your only support is words that normally in law invoke objective standards.
I'm not going to take a poll or ask a lawyer every five seconds as I try to decide where I need to be.
You are, either way, subject to others disagreeing about what is reasonable; and either way, you should seek to educate yourself about what is empirically safer behavior (for reasons much more important than a ticket).
I think youa re obscuring an important distinction: specifically, you are confusing "how you decide to act based on the law" with "what is required by the law".
> I'm not going to take a poll or ask a lawyer every five seconds as I try to decide where I need to be.
Of course not. That doesn't mean, however, that the requirements of the law are based on your subjective judgement. Obviously, with most laws, you are going to use your subjective judgement to decide how to act, even if the requirements of the law set an objective standard that will be applied should the question of whether you complied with the law ever come into controversy.
But your earlier argument was that the law accomodates your subjective judgement of necessity, which is incorrect.
I see how you can get that from what I said, but it was not meant to be a specific claim in any strong sense.
As I said here, though, there are better reasons than "complying with the law" to make sure your subjective assessment of safety matches reality, and given that your subjective assessment of safety matches reality the law does say what I said above.
Yes, really. Per VC 21202, it is explicitly: 1) when passing another bicycle, 2) where the cyclist is planning on making a left hand turn, 3) "[w]hen reasonably necessary to avoid conditions [...] that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge", or 4) approaching anywhere anyone can make a right hand turn. That's "pretty broad", in my book - feel free to disagree, obviously the term is subjective.
"You will probably usually get away with that the same way you'll usually get away with ignoring the law requiring yielding to pedestrians at intersections"
That is a horrendous false equivalence. Violation of that law puts people at risk. I'm advocating an interpretation of a law permitting behaviors that keep people safe.
'But that's not at all what the law says, and I'd be very surprised if there is any reference in the statute, or any case law, that you can point to that suggests your attempt to define "practicable" as "whatever the bicyclist subjectively feels comfortable doing" is a correct interpretation of the statute.'
Not "subjectively feels comfortable doing," but "reasonably considers to be the safer choice". This is the same responsibility everyone has on the road, and it's insane to think that "practicable" is not intended to take safety into account. Riding unsafely is not practicable. I have no idea whether this has been tested in court, but anything else is crazy.