Digital_Cowboy

I find these two passages very interesting:

Other than stopping ALL cyclists or issuing locals some sort of license plate for their bicycles how are to know who is or isn't a local commuting?!?!

Uh, aren't they more or less required to construct "special accommodations" if none exist? If they don't and try to reenact the ban wouldn't that be a violation of the court order?

cmparsley

Found this forum via Google search of the most recent legislation that has been presented in my state. I am the president of Falls Area Bicyclists, the largest bicycle organization in South Dakota (currently). I am a League Certified Instructor for The League of American Bicyclists. I am also the service manager at a local bike shop. I have just recently registered as a lobbyist representing Falls Area Bicyclists. I lobbied last year to get our safe passing bill passed; which happened against all odds. This bill, HB 1073 or as some are calling it the "Get Off My Road Bill," Is scheduled to be heard by the House Transportation Committee this coming Thursday, Jan 28th. The primary sponsor of this bill is the chair of that committee. I believe this bill is in retaliation for the safe passing bill from last year. The primary sponsor was 100% against it from the get go.

So now ya'll know who I am, here is what I plan to say as my testimony to the committee later this week:

Here is what I plan to say to the House Transportation Committee on Thursday:

The language proposed in HB1073 dismisses the language in 32-26-26.1 that says,
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle proceeding in the same direction may partially cross the highway centerline or the dividing line between two lanes of travel in the same direction if it can be performed safely.”

This bill seems to assume the faster vehicle cannot do that in a no-passing zone. A solid yellow centerline is striped to discourage passing of other motor vehicles. Traffic engineers place this striping where there is not adequate sight distance to safely pass a motor vehicle that is traveling near the maximum posted speed limit. In the real world, drivers recognize that the distance required to pass a slow moving bicyclist is a small fraction of this distance. When there is little or no shoulder and the travel lane is narrow, competent drivers recognize that there isn’t room to pass within the bicyclist’s lane, and so they wait until the oncoming lane is clear of traffic for an adequate distance to pass the much slower bicyclist before moving into the next lane to pass.

When bicyclists operate in a disciplined, predictable manner, they are less likely to surprise motorists. Predictable roadway users makes for safe, trouble free travel for everyone. Unfortunately, some bicyclists ride in a disorganized and chaotic fashion, drifting or swerving about unpredictably. Some motor vehicle operators make unsafe decisions when driving around bicyclists. This creates uncertainty and stress for everyone. This leads to confusion and conflict. Confusion and conflict lead to crashes. Crashes lead to injury and/or death. Preferred cycling techniques involve maintaining a predictable lane position and consistent speed. A bicyclist that slows unexpectedly, comes to a stop, or makes a sudden lateral movement in the lane is not predictable behavior as roadway traffic.

Many bicyclists I have talked to feel a certain level of anxiety when there is faster traffic approaching from behind. The last thing they are thinking about is intentionally forcing the rest of the roadway traffic to slow down. Most, if not all, would prefer to have the faster traffic just pass them so they can continue on their way, stress free.

According to 32-20B-5
“Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.”

“At the time and place and under the conditions then existing” is conditional language, prescribing when the conduct directed by the statute is required to be adhered to and not a blanket restriction of bicycles to the right-hand edge.

In practice, a bicyclist should be riding in the lane of travel, following a consistent line and at a consistent speed. As faster traffic approaches from behind, it is the bicyclist’s responsibility to scan the right edge of the road to determine if there is an obstruction free, safe place to ride. The bicyclist should also scan for traffic in the oncoming lane. When both the oncoming lane and the right edge of the bicyclists travel lane are clear, the bicyclist should signal that they are moving right, then complete the maneuver. This sends a clear message to the other traffic that the bicyclist is yielding to the faster traffic. It then becomes the responsibility of the faster vehicle to scan the road ahead to determine if it is safe to cross the center dividing line and pass the bicyclist. Then, as prescribed in the law, the faster vehicle crosses the center dividing line leaving the prescribed distance according to the posted speed limit to pass the bicyclist. When the faster traffic is safely past the bicyclist, all return to their original positions in the lane. The language in the current law states exactly this scenario and amending it to say any different would put already vulnerable roadway users in harm’s way.



The first reference is to a line we added to the safe passing bill which allows a faster vehicle to cross the center dividing line, even in a no passing zone, if it can be done safely.

njkayaker

I'm not "hung up" on the title. It's a different thing and a different argument.

It's not relevant merely due to its existance.

What many people here do is claim that something is "illegal" based on it being something they don't like. They make claims like something being "impossible" without any good support. That is, they think that these sorts of things are easier to fight than they (probably) are in reality.

The law isn't requiring bicyclists to panic stop and ride off the road into ravines either. And it doesn't release drivers from being required to avoid hitting things.

People often conflate the "right of travel" (which exists) and "right to travel by bicycle" (which doesn't).

There are all sorts of restrictions and limitations (like licensing) on travelling, which you and others ignore.

njkayaker

The SD "no-passing zone" law says you can't pass any vehicle "proceding" (moving) in a "no passing zone" with no mention of crossing lines. That is, you can't even pass a moving vehicle even in the same lane.

The zone indicator isn't to "discourage" passing. It's to indicate that it's prohibited.

That is, the "no passing zone" law isn't a "don't cross the line" law.

It appears that "vehicle" might not apply to bicycles in SD. If so, that might allow the passing of biyclists in "no passing zones".

https://legis.sd.gov/Statutes/Codifie...atute=32-26-37

cmparsley

Actually, the "notwithstanding" section of our passing law means "regardless of any other law" crossing the center dividing line even in a no passing zone to pass a bicyclist IS allowed. The discussion in committee was about exactly that situation and the line was added to allow passing bicyclists in no passing zones.

Tundra_Man 

The ironic thing is the people who wrote this bill spent more time drawing it up than they've cumulatively lost by every bicycle they've ever encountered in our state.

njkayaker

You mean your "bicycle passing" law (there's another one for passing other vehicles).

The "notwithstanding" appears to apply to the "may cross" phrase. The law appears to just assume that it's OK to pass bicyclists anywhere.

Hermes1

I agree and this proposed law is completely nuts.

genec

I tend to agree... I am surprised that some motorist doesn't capture video and post about their "terrible delays due to a cyclist" with evidence...

kickstart

They probably tried, but gave up waiting for one to go by.

genec

Yup, just like there are no authentic UFO videos, eh.

Digital_Cowboy

Isn't it "amazing" that the majority of delays that motorists encounter on the roads comes from OTHER motorists, NOT cyclists? How do motorists explain that?!?!

+100

dpeters11

I also notice that some of the sponsors of this bill voted for the safe passing bill last year.

rydabent

Shade of the fool legislator in Mo. These idiot seem to keep coming out of the wood work.

Seattle Forrest

In Washington, state law requires you to pull over when 5 or more vehicles are lined up behind you. A lot of slower vehicles ignore it. I've never seen it enforced. State law also allows you to exceed the speed limit while passing a vehicle traveling below it.

dpeters11

Enforcement is a key aspect. In Ohio, you are legally required to use your parking brake every time you park. Most drivers only use it when on a grade. It's not enforced unless it were to actually roll away and cause damage or injury.

rydabent

Old farts that draft legislation like this are the egotistical get off my lawn and get out of my way types.

Hopefully wiser heads will prevail, and that bill will end up in the circular file.

work4bike

This is a crazy, but it makes me wonder what the cycling climate is in SD. Seems like something led to this crazy action. Also, what I don't get is that SD was just in the news this past summer by passing a very friendly bike law New Bike Law 'Good News' For South Dakota Cyclists & Motorists | KDLT.com South Dakota News - News, Sports, and Weather Sioux Falls South Dakota

Tundra_Man 

Bill was struck down yesterday afternoon.

Most people in my area I've talked to said they believe this new bill originated as "retaliation" for the above linked bill. They suspect some lawmakers were pretty miffed about the 3 foot passing law going through and this bill was the result. Thankfully saner heads prevailed in this instance.

Digital_Cowboy

Work4bike,

This is exactly the sort of thing that I've pointed out is likely to happen when cyclists think that they're somehow "above the law." Cyclists as a whole cannot go about acting as if the laws/rules of the road do not apply to them and then to expect that the voting public is going to pass laws that favor them.

Now granted in this case apparently some sort of cycling friendly law(s) was/were passed. But also apparently there are/were those who felt that it was time to "show those cyclists" who was really boss and they tried to pass a new law that would essentially undo all of the positives that had previously been in the law.

Not saying that it's right, not saying that it's right to judge all cyclists on the action of other cyclists. But when motorists/the voting public "constantly" sees cyclist after cyclist running red lights/stop signs, operating without lights at night, operating in the wrong direction to traffic they cannot be surprised when "all" cyclists are painted with the same paintbrush.

So please people the next time you're thinking of practicing the "Idaho stop" in your hometown thinking that people who see you "don't care" think about what happened here in South Dakota. And yes, this time "cooler heads" prevailed, but what about the next time?

Digital_Cowboy

Tundra Man,

I'm glad that "saner heads prevailed," but what about the next time? This is why I believe that we as cyclists NEED to "play" by the rules and laws of the road when we take to the roads. Otherwise we'll see more and more attempts to pass laws like this one.

Tundra_Man 

I agree.

In fact one of our local cycling advocates presented to the committee this very idea. I haven't yet had a chance to review the transcript but it sounds like he did a killer job explaining safe cycling practices and why this particular bill wouldn't improve things.

Digital_Cowboy

Tundra Man,

As I've said, this is something that I've been saying for years. And sadly we have people here who still think that it doesn't matter what they do as "no one really cares" what they do or don't do. The situation that you all were facing in SD proves them wrong. As sadly, we as cyclists are judged by the actions of all cyclists.

indyfabz

Glad I got riding in SD out of the way. Don't have any plans to go back in the near future.

CliffordK

Personally I don't like holding up traffic, or having a car following me for more than 30 seconds or so. I don't need 20 cars backed up behind me to feel the need to let them by.

Usually I can find a driveway or something to pull off in, and with luck, the car is past by the time I get to the other side of the driveway.

And, cars don't seem to have any problem passing if I pull all the way to the side of the road and stop.

I don't think any of this should be LAW... rather it is just common courtesy. The car is extending the courtesy to not drive over the top of the rider, and the rider should extend the courtesy of not insisting the car follow them at 10 mph for their hour long Sunday afternoon ride.

Usually cars can get around just fine... but when not possible, just let them pass.