> It does permit them to impede traffic where doing otherwise would be unsafe.
True. Just like farm equipment and horses.
That is neither a minimum speed nor a general injunction against impeding the flow of traffic.
Edited to add: The comment above was changed from an assertion that the CA law didn't apply everywhere. Responding to the new comment:
Yes, there is a specific impediment law. One that generally permits impediment of traffic while placing some bounds on it. The bounds are more lenient than what a bicyclist should be doing - 21656 would totally permit biking (or driving) substantially under the speed limit for hours so long as you're only inconveniencing four cars, but that would make you a jerk. If someone's waiting on you, get over when you get the chance.
It's certainly the case that it's better and safer to ride (or drive) where you have space to stop, and that that should be preferred when picking a route or building a road, but other concerns can sometimes wind up dominating.
So what's stupid about the response? Either their is or there isn't an impediment law. It sounds like there is, just that "impediment" has been specifically defined in CA.
I feel like you were asserting there wasn't an impediment law, then citing me one. Maybe I'm just irritated at everybody else and it's bleeding over into this thread.
Reiterating what I said there, with a slightly different spin - it is not the case that, in general, "impeding the flow of traffic with your travel" is illegal. That is not really changed by the fact that there are some limits on just how extreme some aspects of that impediment can get; there is plenty of room to bicycle in a way that impedes some traffic and does not fall afowl of the law.
Most relevant to the context here, it is not a law that a police officer could use to ticket a cyclist for the mere act of riding slowly relative to cars, even if they are impeding the flow of several cars.
We can agree I suppose to disagree on legal interpretations.