wphamilton

In Maryland, bikes are required to use the shoulder only on roads where bikes are prohibited. As far as I can tell. (21-1205.1 Bicycles, motor scooters, and EPAMD’s prohibited on certain roadways and highways; speed limit)

Colorado appears to be the same as Alaska (42-4-1412. Operation of bicycles and other human-powered vehicles.)

I don't find the mandatory shoulder use in NY either.

So I learned something: in Alaska and Colorado you do have to be on the shoulder if it's ride-able so it's at least not unprecedented.

And possibly Kentucky, if this decision holds up.

genec

OK I watched the whole darn thing... I saw areas with good shoulder and lots of areas with some pretty poor shoulder. From about 4:50 to about 5:30 the shoulder of the road was pretty poorly torn up. I saw that the rumble strip covers only about 1/2 of the shoulder and might actually act as a "barrier" to MV, thus providing some protection to the cyclist. I also saw some bad debris, a few parked vehicles and some pretty minor debris.

But the thing I noticed the most was that while the MV traffic was fast, it was only heavy near the traffic lights... for the most part there is room for a motorist to move to the left lane to avoid a cyclist. The traffic lights appeared to be the biggest impediment to the smooth flow of traffic on that road.

As a cyclist, I would consider riding the shoulder only where possible... just in an effort to stay out of the way of distracted drivers... but at the same time I would not hesitate to take the lane where necessary; there was plenty of room for motor vehicles in the next lane over... I would also be inclined to take the lane around those right turn and merging areas. And last, I would highly recommend more very bright lights on the back of the helmet or backpack or whatever... so they can be seen a long way behind... and overtaking traffic would have plenty of notice that the lane is occupied and to move over.

Would I take the lane the whole way... no, as I said, there was some very serviceable shoulder there and the rumble strip would actually act to protect a cyclist in that shoulder.

As far as debris... watch for it and avoid it... some of the stuff shown was bad, but other debris shown appeared to be just gilding the Lilly.

The biggest issue would be in moving back and forth in and out of the shoulder... fast MV traffic can make that a daunting task. I can understand that frustration. But being a co-operative cyclist can also go a long way in positive cycling PR.

spare_wheel

You are confusing legality with morality. The law has no opinion on "wrongness" or "rightness".

It's nice to know that bumblefrack district courts are infallible! USAnia truly has the best justice system in the whole world.

spare_wheel

"You have to decide" effectively requires that Ms. Schill read the mind and mood of a random law enforcement official (who might be grumpy because they were out of jelly doughnuts).

That opinion reminds me of this:

spare_wheel

Car head.

genec

Nah... just someone who has ridden on enough 50MPH arterial road to know what a PITA motorists can be. Taking the lane doesn't help.

Motorists think they own the road, and just because you can take the lane, doesn't always make it a good idea.

Earl Grey

Good for you, but I stand by the position that bringing civil rights into a debate about lane position (in any fashion) is hyperbolic, and could also be considered somewhat "sensitive". I'm apparently not alone in my poor comprehension, though I admit this wasn't the most egregious example. I've seen the comparison made explicitly and without any irony in A&S.

Earl Grey

I agree it's a problem, but don't FRAP laws always effectively put you into this position?

kickstart

Another thing to consider is just because something is legal, that doesn't make it reasonable and prudent for ourselves or others under all conditions

As a truck driver the law only compels me to give a cyclist 3 feet. Does that mean its OK for me to pass a cyclist at 60 mph in a semi with only 3 feet between us? Who here would argue its OK because the law allows me to? Its wrong and we all know it, shouldn't we expect the same from ourselves as we do from others?

We're supposed to match our actions to intent of the law, not match the intent of the law to our actions.

spare_wheel

Nice non sequitur.
IMO, the only thing that would make vocal opponents of cycling happy would be to stop cycling.

mcnabb100

They could, and if somebody kept driving their car 20mph down the highway they would.

Minimum Speed Limit: A person shall not operate a motor vehicle at a speed that will impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic. 189.390(6)

spare_wheel

And this is why I donated money to Ms. Schill's defense fund. I think she was being a bit of an a-hole but I effing defend her right to be an a-hole (as should anyone who supports a right to the road for bikes).

spare_wheel

Oh please. This was just a suburban road not a limited access freeway.

genec

I don't think you'd have to go that far... really. The only "reason" opponents of cycling have anything to say at all is due to their perception that the roads belong to cars. Fix the roads in such a way so that cyclists are "out of the way" and add paths where possible... and I believe most of the noise from those opponents of cycling would go away... but as long as a few cyclists are trying to share high speed arterial roads... there will be noisy opponents to cycling.

So it isn't so much as "stopping cycling" as it is "putting cycling in it's own place." (no doubt that will smack of heavy segregation to some here)

But really there are places where such separation works... there just isn't the "will" to do so in automotive-centric US of A. ("drill baby drill")

Camilo

As to the quoted text above - I definitely feel better on a shoulder with rumble strips. I do believe it would give an audible warning for wandering cars, not only for me, but to the distracted driver him/herself.

My personal opinion, after watching some of the video, is that the rider was not riding "as far right as practicable", and therefore guilty of an infraction. I didn't watch the whole video, but there's no way I'd ride in the lane on a road like that with a perfectly rideable shoulder as shown on the parts of the video I watched, in which the rider was in the lane and not the shoulder. That, to me, there is no evident reason for it and it's selfish and unwarranted.

On the routes I ride, I ride a variety of high speed highways, some divided, some with nice wide shoulders, some with narrower shoulders, all pretty normal in terms of debris and gravel, etc. I usually ride a skinny tired bike (23mm tires) and don't have problems with the occasional debris and gravel. I don't expect to ride on a perfectly clear shoulder.

Everyone's riding situation is different and I don't intend to project my habits and comfort level onto anyone else. But I've been riding in urban, suburban and rural roads and highways since the 70s. I ride the shoulder whenever it's available, even if it's not in great shape. It's just something I feel comfortable doing and a habit I have. I don't have any problem taking the lane when on a road that doesn't offer an alternative and/or when I have to make a turn, etc. But just to avoid a dirty or rough shoulder, nah.

Debris and occasional glass? big deal, it's part of riding on the road. Look ahead, and steer your bike around and through it. My bike tires, even the "commuter" with 32 mm tires are very narrow, and with attentiveness, foresight, forethought, and the ability to actually react to road conditions by steering the bike, I could easily avoid nearly all of the debris and gravel on that shoulder. And, the stuff I can't avoid, well if glass like that automatically punctures your tires, you've got the wrong tires for commuting. And I usually ride lightweight bikes with 23mm "racing" tires and rarely, if ever get a flat riding dirty shoulders on busy highways. With the commuter with heavier, tougher tires, change that to "never". Again, not telling anyone how to ride, but I've been riding roads like that for over 40 years, and just can't agree that the lane was FRAP in the portions of the video I watched.

jeichelberg87

I reviewed the Alaska law...not that I am going to be riding a bicycle there anytime soon, but would you please point out where Alaska is requiring the use of the shoulder?

Just in case...are you stating that bicycles absolutely cannot leave the shoulder of the roads in Alaska?

spare_wheel

Agreed on both accounts.

benjdm

It says shall, as opposed to may. If the shoulder is maintained in good condition a bicyclist must use it.


No, just that when a shoulder suitable for cycling on is present, a cyclist must use it.

VTBike

When I said that she was "wrong", I was referring to the fact that she was "wrong" about whether or not her actions were within the letter of the law. If you read what I wrote, it's unfathomable that you took it any other way.

CrankyOne

Thanks for yours and others responses. I ran this by four colleagues, all professors at a top 50 uni's (so not overly dumb) and none realizing I was the author. None came away with anything but what I'd intended, none assumed there was any inference of equality, and none were offended in any way including one who is a black woman. Maybe A&S posters are a bit more sensitive than most.

In any case, I still stand by my original point that just because a cop thought she was being bad and a judge agreed doesn't mean she was in any way. Even if the law clearly states that she was wrong doesn't mean she was.

VTBike

So instead of learning how to speak effectively with your intended audience (bicyclists) you are going to treat them as if they were a group of university professors. Interesting strategy.

jwarner

This isn't exactly true, although cars are king here as one might expect in an oil/development loving town, and quite frankly, I ride wherever I am least likely to get killed, which in some cases means taking the lane, in other cases, linking back alleys, side roads, and sidewalks together. Flame away on that one if you like... getting out on a couple of our busier roads like Northern Lights, Benson, or Tudor in Anchorage is asking to get run over, left for dead, and run over again until the traffic cannot physically move forward anymore because something bigger is in the way. I'm not proud, and happy to do what it takes on the road to live another day and avoid the most conflict possible (without being ridiculous).

Unfortunately, due to the wording of the codes governing road users, it can, and has been successfully argued that the cyclist bears the responsibility for car/bicycle accidents, even when the cyclist seems to have the right of way. This is pointed out in the following article after a tragic accident with an extremely unjust ending: Bicycle laws in Anchorage, Alaska, protect drivers who hit cyclists after running red light | Alaska Dispatch. <-- this on should really anger any person with an ounce of common sense and decency.

As for where we are supposed to ride in AK, the following is copied and pasted from the state legislature's site (https://www.legis.state.ak.us/) using the latest version published:

13 AAC 02.400. Riding bicycles on roadways and bicycle paths (a) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, and shall give way to the right as far as practicable to a motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction when the driver of the motor vehicle gives audible signal. (b) Persons riding bicycles on a roadway may not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding bicycles two abreast may not impede traffic and, in a laned roadway, shall ride within the farthest right lane. (c) When a shoulder of the highway is maintained in good condition, an operator of a bicycle shall use the shoulder of the roadway.

Part C is a bit funny as I don't think I've seen a "maintained shoulder" in over 25 years of riding around this state. I still spend as much time as possible in them when they exist because it is safer, I run good tires, and find it much easier to fix the occasional flat than parts of my body.

Skipping down to part (f) of the same section, it tells us what to do if we are intending to turn left (which would be impossible from the shoulder of the road).


(f) A person riding a bicycle intending to turn left shall, unless he dismounts and crosses as a pedestrian, comply with the provisions of sec. 200 of this chapter. The operator of a bicycle must give a signal by hand and arm continuously during the last 100 feet traveled unless the hand is needed in the control or operation of the bicycle. When stopped to await an opportunity to turn, a hand and arm signal must be given continuously by the operator.

Not to get off topic, but since it came up, I thought I would toss that out there so someone didn't end up with some (I'm sure unintentional) bad info.

Edited to add, it looks like someone else covered it... it still seems worthwhile to leave if anyone is headed this way to ride, but mods, please delete if you feel is not adding to the discussion.

Chris516

In Maryland, cyclists' are supposed to ride 'as far right as practicable'. Which IS NOT, a judgment call on the part of a motorist. That judgment call is to be made BY THE CYCLIST. Maryland also is now putting up signs as reminders to motorists' that say "(symbol of bike) MAY USE FULL LANE".

rydabent

Ok let me ask this. Who but the cyclist on any given piece of road can decide FRAP????

VTBike

I have a feeling that staying on the shoulder might make them happy.