Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Is it legal to ride on a bike lane stripe?

Is it legal to ride on, or near, a bike lane stripe?

Here are some relevant CA laws, but I suspect other states have similar laws:

Laned Roadways

21658. Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, the following rules apply:

(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.
...

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21658.htm

Also:

Permitted Movements from Bicycle Lanes

21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane, ...

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21208.htm

So, it seems to me that if you're riding close enough to the stripe to be encroaching on the adjacent lane, and you're not in the process of changing lanes, that you're technically in violation of 21658(a) and/or 21208.

RELEVANCE
Okay, I'm not trying to suggest that bicyclists need to worry about getting ticketed for riding on or near a bike lane stripe. But it does seem to me that there could be a legal liability issue if a cyclist is sideswiped and the motorist could show that the cyclist was encroaching on the traffic lane. No?

I see this as a fairly important issue because it makes the two feet wide section of roadway - one foot to each side of the center of the bike lane stripe - technically illegal for a 2' wide cyclist to ride on with his tires, unless he's in the process of changing lanes for some legitimate reason. And that's a problem because typically the bike lane debris gets much worse the further you ride to the right of the stripe.

You think way too much about the silliest crap, and this is silly.
Does California not have a 3 feet passing law? Would that law not trump this one in the case of "overtaking motorist side swiped cyclist while cyclist was riding in bike lane"?
Of course there is a spin on this isn't there?

And that's a problem because typically the bike lane debris gets much worse the further you ride to the right of the stripe.
Wouldn't that call up the "practical" and "practicable" phrases in bike laws?

Is it legal to ride on, or near, a bike lane stripe?
Before answering this question, inquiring minds need to know how many angels can dance on a bike lane stripe? What are the relevant CA laws?:rolleyes:

When this pressing legal question is settled then we can all move on to worrying along with HH about his legal conundrum. :rolleyes:

Wouldn't that call up the "practical" and "practicable" phrases in bike laws?
In many states, including CA, the "shall ride as far right as practicable" law only applies on roads without bike lanes.

On roads with bike lanes, what kicks in is "shall ride within the bike lane".

The real question is, how are these statutes enforced? Are there any instances of a bicyclist getting into a sideswipe accident with a car and catching the blame for riding "outside" the bike lane, even if the tires of the bicycles were inside?

My opinion is that this legal interpretation is all somewhat contrived. Unless some legal research is presented here, this is all speculation, and pretty much groundless as well. The interesting result is that if it is found that overhanging the bike lane line is not allowed, then it reinforces the interpretation that bike lanes are another traffic lane in the eyes of the law. This interpretation can then be used to sue for wider and more standardized bike lanes since these lanes are now part of the traveled way of the road. If a bicyclist is required to be fully within the lane, then a very good argument can be made that this lane then needs to meet standards for full useage, which means that there can be no more substandard width lanes anywhere, by law. Or that substandard bike lanes cannot be designated as bike lanes anymore.

The only time I find myself consistently overhanging a lane line is when the bike lane is less than 5' wide or has very bad pavement along it's length. I actually wouldn't mind for a court to interpret the law this way. It formalizes the bike lane, reinforces that it is a real travel lane, and forces that lane to be up to fair standards for bicycle travel. A city would be vulnerable to lawsuits from cyclists who make the case that a defined bike lane doesn't meet standards for bicycling and puts a valid road user in danger.

Interesting.

However, without HH doing some legal legwork for us, this thread is pure speculation.

The legality of it will not change my decision about riding on it or not. Or in or out of a bike lane etc.
Not even a little. Would it really matter to anyone? It's our safety we care about?

The rain however will. Painted lines can be slippery in the rain.



inquiring minds need to know how many angels can dance on a bike lane stripe?

Why are they so happy they want to dance? :lol: ;)

Why are they so happy they want to dance? :lol: ;)
Because they "Got the Feeling"! Unh!

Or maybe it's a more sedate California VCer "Notion."

Because they "Got the Feeling"! Unh!

Or maybe it's a more sedate California VCer "Notion."


:beer: :roflmao:

The real question is, how are these statutes enforced? Are there any instances of a bicyclist getting into a sideswipe accident with a car and catching the blame for riding "outside" the bike lane, even if the tires of the bicycles were inside?

My opinion is that this legal interpretation is all somewhat contrived. Unless some legal research is presented here, this is all speculation, and pretty much groundless as well. The interesting result is that if it is found that overhanging the bike lane line is not allowed, then it reinforces the interpretation that bike lanes are another traffic lane in the eyes of the law. This interpretation can then be used to sue for wider and more standardized bike lanes since these lanes are now part of the traveled way of the road. If a bicyclist is required to be fully within the lane, then a very good argument can be made that this lane then needs to meet standards for full useage, which means that there can be no more substandard width lanes anywhere, by law. Or that substandard bike lanes cannot be designated as bike lanes anymore.

The only time I find myself consistently overhanging a lane line is when the bike lane is less than 5' wide or has very bad pavement along it's length. I actually wouldn't mind for a court to interpret the law this way. It formalizes the bike lane, reinforces that it is a real travel lane, and forces that lane to be up to fair standards for bicycle travel. A city would be vulnerable to lawsuits from cyclists who make the case that a defined bike lane doesn't meet standards for bicycling and puts a valid road user in danger.

Interesting.

However, without HH doing some legal legwork for us, this thread is pure speculation. Dude, the OP poses a QUESTION. That's all. Everybody else gets to ask questions. Why can't I?
Your post - that's pure speculation. It's certainly not an answer.

Hey HH can you post a laymans definition of " practicable"

Hey HH can you post a laymans definition of "practicable"
The difference between practical and practicable is that practical refers to be able to do something once, while practicable means it's practical to do it that way repeatedly.

Example: While it may be practical to ride in a door zone in some instance, it's arguably not practicable to ride in door zones because sooner or later someone is likely to open a door right in front of you and cause you to crash.

Is it legal to ride on a bike lane stripe?

It's legal, but have you considered the moral question?

You think way too much about the silliest crap, and this is silly.
Does California not have a 3 feet passing law? Would that law not trump this one in the case of "overtaking motorist side swiped cyclist while cyclist was riding in bike lane"?
Of course there is a spin on this isn't there? CA does not have a 3 foot passing law. And if I'm not mistaken, at least some of them do not apply on roads with bike lanes.

Edit: I wasn't dreaming. See post #18 (thanks Al).

C. Subsection B of this section does not apply to a bicyclist who is injured in a vehicular traffic lane when a designated bicycle lane or path is present and passable."

Dude, the OP poses a QUESTION. That's all. Everybody else gets to ask questions. Why can't I?
Your post - that's pure speculation. It's certainly not an answer.

Of course you can pose a question. Just realize that all the responses, including mine, are pure speculation. My post is as good an answer as any you'll get here - and, of course, speculative. I suggest if you want a real answer, you sift through some actual legal precident from actual court cases, preferably with your local bicycle lawyer.

I'm not attacking you. Just pointing out that all you'll get here is speculation. No more, no less.

practicable (http://www.answers.com/practicable?nafid=3)

practical (http://www.answers.com/practical?nafid=3)

Something is practicable if it is feasible as well as useable. Something is practical if it is useable; the word doesn't speak to feasibility. Riding in a bike lane might be a practical way of riding, but it might not be a practicable action if the bike lane is covered in rocks or scary gobblins.

21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under any of the following situations: (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane. (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. (3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions. (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized. (b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be affected by the movement.


21750. The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle or a bicycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle, subject to the limitations and exceptions hereinafter stated.

21750. The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle or a bicycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle, subject to the limitations and exceptions hereinafter stated.
The limitations and exceptions stated afterwards are not limitations to the safe passing law, but rather limitations and exceptions to when the driver can pass.

I think this question/concern is particulary relevant in AZ.

The AZ 3ft passing law has civil pentalties if the cyclist is hit and severely injured or killed. However, if a bike lane or path is present and passable, these civil penalties do not apply if the cyclist is injured in 'vehicular lane.' Sec. C only says Sec. B does not apply, but the given exception in my opinion does weaken Sec. A - after all the law is saying that killing a cyclist outside a bike lane has a lesser penalty, this can be read that hitting one, passing closer than 3ft when cyclist is outside BL is less the motorists fault.

"28-735. Overtaking bicycles; civil penalties
A. When overtaking and passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction, a person driving a motor vehicle shall exercise due care by leaving a safe distance between the motor vehicle and the bicycle of not less than three feet until the motor vehicle is safely past the overtaken bicycle.

B. If a person violates this section and the violation results in a collision causing:
1. Serious physical injury as defined in section 13-105 to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars.
2. Death to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars.

C. Subsection B of this section does not apply to a bicyclist who is injured in a vehicular traffic lane when a designated bicycle lane or path is present and passable."

(It is also another good reason not to have any bike lane stripes approaching any intersection where a cyclist will destination position)

Al

"28-735. Overtaking bicycles; civil penalties
A. When overtaking and passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction, a person driving a motor vehicle shall exercise due care by leaving a safe distance between the motor vehicle and the bicycle of not less than three feet until the motor vehicle is safely past the overtaken bicycle.

B. If a person violates this section and the violation results in a collision causing:
1. Serious physical injury as defined in section 13-105 to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars.
2. Death to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars.

C. Subsection B of this section does not apply to a bicyclist who is injured in a vehicular traffic lane when a designated bicycle lane or path is present and passable."


So if some yahoo from Williams is driving fully within his lane in his Ford F-250 with oversized-for-towing rear-view mirrors, fully within his lane, mirror edge to mirror edge, and he clips with his right side mirror a cyclist's left shoulder that is encroaching into the vehicular traffic lane because the cyclist's tire is only a couple of inches to the right of the stripe, the driver is not in violation of 28-735.

Anyone else read it any differently?

So if some yahoo from Williams is driving fully within his lane in his Ford F-250 with oversized-for-towing rear-view mirrors, fully within his lane, mirror edge to mirror edge, and he clips with his right side mirror a cyclist's left shoulder that is encroaching into the vehicular traffic lane because the cyclist's tire is only a couple of inches to the right of the stripe, the driver is not in violation of 28-735.

Anyone else read it any differently?

How is it interpreted by the justice system in Arizona?

It's legal, but have you considered the moral question?
Oh the Humanity!:eek:

Best available evidence, that I just made up, indicates that riding on a bike lane stripe is immoral because it leads to global warming. Sez so right here. You got better evidence? Prove it!

Until anyone provides better evidence that I agree with, get offa the stinkin' bike lane stripe, all you incompetent lowlifes.

So if some yahoo from Williams is driving fully within his lane in his Ford F-250 with oversized-for-towing rear-view mirrors, fully within his lane, mirror edge to mirror edge, and he clips with his right side mirror a cyclist's left shoulder that is encroaching into the vehicular traffic lane because the cyclist's tire is only a couple of inches to the right of the stripe, the driver is not in violation of 28-735.

That's how I read it. The 3 foot rule makes the driver automatically liable for fines (and facilitates civil litigation), under set circumstances. When those circumstances are not present, it is null, but other laws still apply.
The driver would not be in violation of 28-735

However, the driver would likely be in violation of 28-723


The following rules govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction:
1. The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of the vehicle at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle.
2. Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal or blinking of head lamps at nighttime and shall not increase the speed of the overtaken vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.

EDIT: Sorry for the confusion, I mean this post in re: to the OP, and California law, not Arizona law.

Also, two of the times when you are not required to use the bike lane are:



(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

If you are riding on the line because of a door zone, any place where a car could turn right, debris, a substandard width BL that requires you to keep farther left to give yourself "bail out" space, in short, if you have a reasonable VC reason for exiting the bike lane, then you can surely ride on the stripe.

The only thing that this does not allow for is exiting the bike lane "just because" (like on a long stretch of intersectionless road, with a wide clean BL, no parked cars, and no traffic), but it's really moot because it is nowhere required in the general guidelines of vehicular cycling, to the best of my knowledge.

How is it interpreted by the justice system in Arizona?
This is all I know:
http://azbikelaw.org/articles/ThreeFoot.html

Al

So where does the bike lane officially begin- the right edge or left edge of the paint stripe?

Wouldn't that answer the question?

Also, two of the times when you are not required to use the bike lane are:



If you are riding on the line because of a door zone, any place where a car could turn right, debris, a substandard width BL that requires you to keep farther left to give yourself "bail out" space, in short, if you have a reasonable VC reason for exiting the bike lane, then you can surely ride on the stripe.

The only thing that this does not allow for is exiting the bike lane "just because" (like on a long stretch of intersectionless road, with a wide clean BL, no parked cars, and no traffic), but it's really moot because it is nowhere required in the general guidelines of vehicular cycling, to the best of my knowledge.
In AZ and other states there is no explict exception for leaving the BL if traveling straight. CA does have this exception.

While you were not addressing the 'Sec C' part of AZ law, it should be noted that no exceptions apply to it. All it says is present and passable. If a cyclist is merging left and has left the BL with proper signalling and yielding ROW and is traveling in the 'vehicular lane' (not my term) in preparation to merge again into left turn lane Sec C applies - no civil penalties.

Sec. C really gets me. While it isn't written as mandatory BL use, it sure give the implication that that is where cyclists should be. Its not the basis of my arguement for WOL over BLs, but in AZ it sure is a good one.

Al

Al,

Sorry for the confusion. My second post (that you quoted) I meant in reference to the OP. That was confusing on my part, since I didn't specify when I stopped talking about AZ, and when I started talking about CA. My bad.


Sec. C really gets me. While it isn't written as mandatory BL use, it sure give the implication that that is where cyclists should be.

C. A path or lane that is designated as a bicycle path or lane by state or local authorities is for the exclusive use of bicycles even though other uses are permitted pursuant to subsection D or are otherwise permitted by state or local authorities.
How is law enforcement interpreting section C? I can see your reading of it, but I read it as exlusionary towards motor vehicles...

Stop feeding the troll!!!

So where does the bike lane officially begin- the right edge or left edge of the paint stripe?

Wouldn't that answer the question?
For what it's worth, I know that when traffic engineers measure lane widths, they measure from center-of-stripe to center-of-stripe. I think the only reasonable official answer is that the bike lane starts at the center of the stripe.

Stop feeding the troll!!!
That's code for, "stop thinking about the logical implications of your beliefs".

Al,

Sorry for the confusion. My second post (that you quoted) I meant in reference to the OP. That was confusing on my part, since I didn't specify when I stopped talking about AZ, and when I started talking about CA. My bad.

How is law enforcement interpreting section C? I can see your reading of it, but I read it as exlusionary towards motor vehicles...
We are now double confused. I was talking about Sec. C of 28-735 which I quoted above, not Sec. C of 28-815 which you quoted.
Lets get back to the OP.

I think the only reasonable official answer is that the bike lane starts at the center of the stripe
You'd better stick to riding on the right half of the stripe then, m'bucko.

That's code for, "stop thinking about the logical implications of your beliefs".
Beliefs are code for, "stop think about the logical implications of your actions".

In many states, including CA, the "shall ride as far right as practicable" law only applies on roads without bike lanes.

On roads with bike lanes, what kicks in is "shall ride within the bike lane".

According to F Lee Wackiness, based on the legal degree he found in a box of crackerjack and experience based on one state in the union...the one that has a record of electing actors as Governor...to to mention tricky dicks.

Another thread about horsepucky that only a true fruit loop would obsess over.

That's code for, "stop thinking about the logical implications of your beliefs".
No it's code for 'another moronic HH thread on its way to 100+ responses'

For what it's worth, I know that when traffic engineers measure lane widths, they measure from center-of-stripe to center-of-stripe. I think the only reasonable official answer is that the bike lane starts at the center of the stripe.Now all we have to do is prove, through logic and reason, that the bicycle begins at the center of the bicycle.

The entire ball must cross the entire line. Referees don't have to be mindreaders and aren't required to judge intent (whoops, wrong forum).

We're talking about a narrow 4.00" painted stripe on the asphalt, right? How long would a cyclist realistically stick to that precise sliver of roadway, anyway?

We're talking about a narrow 4.00" painted stripe on the asphalt, right? How long would a cyclist realistically stick to that precise sliver of roadway, anyway?
I heard that in Area 51 all the bike lanes are 50 feet wide and the stripes are made with razor wire to accommodate/corral the very special vehicles known to frequent that installation. Is that right HH? I figure you might have the inside info on this pressing issue.

The difference between practical and practicable is that practical refers to be able to do something once, while practicable means it's practical to do it that way repeatedly.

Example: While it may be practical to ride in a door zone in some instance, it's arguably not practicable to ride in door zones because sooner or later someone is likely to open a door right in front of you and cause you to crash.
ok so It is practical to ride right next to the curb, but it is not practicable because of road grit, debris, cars attempting to share lanes with you, ect. Does it sound like I've got it?

We're talking about a narrow 4.00" painted stripe on the asphalt, right? How long would a cyclist realistically stick to that precise sliver of roadway, anyway? No, we're talking about 24 inches - 12 inches to either side of the center of the 4" stripe (or 10" to either side of the 4" wide stripe if you prefer; 10 + 4 + 10 = 24).

If the cyclist's tires are tracking anywhere in that space, and he is 2' wide, then part of him is encroaching on the adjacent lane.

ok so It is practical to ride right next to the curb, but it is not practicable because of road grit, debris, cars attempting to share lanes with you, ect. Does it sound like I've got it?
That's consistent with my understanding, and that's supposed to be good enough, because we're supposed to be able to understand the laws that we're expected to follow.

Is it legal to ride on, or near, a bike lane stripe?

Here are some relevant CA laws, but I suspect other states have similar laws:

Laned Roadways

21658. Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, the following rules apply:

(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.
...

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21658.htm

Also:

Permitted Movements from Bicycle Lanes

21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane, ...

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21208.htm

So, it seems to me that if you're riding close enough to the stripe to be encroaching on the adjacent lane, and you're not in the process of changing lanes, that you're technically in violation of 21658(a) and/or 21208.

RELEVANCE
Okay, I'm not trying to suggest that bicyclists need to worry about getting ticketed for riding on or near a bike lane stripe. But it does seem to me that there could be a legal liability issue if a cyclist is sideswiped and the motorist could show that the cyclist was encroaching on the traffic lane. No?

I see this as a fairly important issue because it makes the two feet wide section of roadway - one foot to each side of the center of the bike lane stripe - technically illegal for a 2' wide cyclist to ride on with his tires, unless he's in the process of changing lanes for some legitimate reason. And that's a problem because typically the bike lane debris gets much worse the further you ride to the right of the stripe.


I think that one needs to consider the intent of the law. Its intent is clearly to prevent a driver from blocking two lanes at one time, thus reducing the usefulness of the road for other users. We should also consider how the law has been used with respect to motor vehicles, because that would provide a clue for its application to bicycles. If anyone wants to do the legal research on that, they are welcome to do so.

However, I think that it is unlikely that doing so would be considered to be the primary cause of a collision, because other laws would apply. Suppose that the driver occupying the line drove up and hit a vehicle ahead that is properly in its own lane. That driver would have clearly violated clear lookout and other laws. Suppose, as has been discussed herein, a faster driver, operating properly in his own lane, comes up behind another driver who is occupying the stripe. The faster driver would clearly be at fault for dangerous overtaking, clear lookout, and other laws. I find it difficult to imagine any single movement that would cause a collision as a result of occupying the stripe, though some complicated series of events could well bring that in as a contributing factor. In short, I think the question is ephemeral.

Note that I have frequently cycled along a lane stripe, and I recommend doing so under particular circumstances.

Mossy John rebuts Head!!! :roflmao:

Legal or not it is certainly an ambiguous position to ride. Drivers expect cyclist to be in a lane. If the intent is to have drivers pass cyclists safely, then what is the purpose of the stripe? The need to watch for the cyclist, not the stripe. Drivers tend to give more passing room when passing cyclist in a WOL vs. a BL (no one has argued/proven otherwise), likely because they are watching the cyclist not the stripe.

I know from some motoring friends their number one comment to me is: 'Why do so many cyclists ride on the stripe? They should to stay in their lane."

Every cycling advocate and cycling advocate organization in AZ that I am aware of is currently pushing to change the civil penalties for hitting a cyclist to felony, but without removing the exception in sub-section C. If this were to pass, with that greater incentive to avoid more severe punishment, that will certainly lead to laywers hired by motorist who kill/maim cyclists to develop arguments that cyclists were not in the present and passable bike lane. It will also make it harder in the future to remove sub-section C.

see this: http://cazbike.com/webapps/Portals/0/HBxxxx%20ARS28-672memo.pdf

Al

I think that one needs to consider the intent of the law. Its intent is clearly to prevent a driver from blocking two lanes at one time, thus reducing the usefulness of the road for other users. We should also consider how the law has been used with respect to motor vehicles, because that would provide a clue for its application to bicycles. If anyone wants to do the legal research on that, they are welcome to do so.

However, I think that it is unlikely that doing so would be considered to be the primary cause of a collision, because other laws would apply. Suppose that the driver occupying the line drove up and hit a vehicle ahead that is properly in its own lane. That driver would have clearly violated clear lookout and other laws. Suppose, as has been discussed herein, a faster driver, operating properly in his own lane, comes up behind another driver who is occupying the stripe. The faster driver would clearly be at fault for dangerous overtaking, clear lookout, and other laws. I find it difficult to imagine any single movement that would cause a collision as a result of occupying the stripe, though some complicated series of events could well bring that in as a contributing factor. In short, I think the question is ephemeral.

Note that I have frequently cycled along a lane stripe, and I recommend doing so under particular circumstances. To be sure, i frequently cycle on and near the stripe too.

But there are practical consequences to the presence of the stripe, as well as potential, albeit unlikely, legal ones.

In particular, drivers track left, centered and right within their lanes. So far as I can tell, the distribution is pretty random, with perhaps a tendency towards the left, particularly in wide outside lanes. But a significant percentage tracks to the right from time to time.

When drivers are tracking a certain number of feet from the edge of the road, they are less likely to move left for a potential hazard up ahead if they are tracking just left of stripe, and that potential hazard is on the other side of the stripe.

A few weeks ago a road was repaved on my route. We had one blissful day of no bike lanes. For the first and last time, I could actually hear the pitch of car tires lower as they approached from behind and slowed down upon seeing me up ahead, and I could see them in my mirror adjust left to pass me with more clearance, and then hear and see them speed up and move right again after they passed me.

The next day the bike lane stripes were back, and so were the motorists speeding by me faster than ever thanks to the new smooth pavement, as if I was not even there, often passing me very close when I'm riding on or near the stripe. Call me crazy, but I've read enough about "inadvertent drift" into unnoticed cyclists in bike lanes to prefer that they notice me, and act accordingly, as they approach and pass.

Note how this legal analysis focuses in on cyclists in lane or not:

http://cazbike.com/webapps/Portals/0/HBxxxx%20ARS28-672memo.pdf

Note the comment about Sec C: "This is apparently a deterent for cyclist who ignore ARS 28-815 [far right as practible, use of bike lane law]"

Al

Is it legal to drive on the lines between the lanes?

Call me crazy, but I've read enough about "inadvertent drift" into unnoticed cyclists in bike lanes to prefer that they notice me, and act accordingly, as they approach and pass.

Allright, I'll call ya' CRAZY!

You're CRAZY and you've scared yourself silly with all this 'inadverdant drift' worrying! I think the only person I've ever seen posting about the worry of inadverdant drift IS mr. Head.

Haven't you heard, Helmie? Wearing high vis clothing, or running a Superflash in the daytime, oh great one :roflmao: helps minimize to virtually nil the 'inadverdant drift' phenomenon?

All this semantic hand-wringing over riding the stripe really is an armchair nail biter and not one I'm too concerned about, at all. You can leave the bike lane for all sorts of reasons, EXCEPT as Z. points out.....


The only thing that this does not allow for is exiting the bike lane "just because" (like on a long stretch of intersectionless road, with a wide clean BL, no parked cars, and no traffic), but it's really moot because it is nowhere required in the general guidelines of vehicular cycling, to the best of my knowledge.

......helemt heads' insistence of riding outside of one just to minimize inadverdant drift.

OP
Is it legal to ride on a bike lane stripe?


Originally Posted by Blue Jays
We're talking about a narrow 4.00" painted stripe on the asphalt, right? How long would a cyclist realistically stick to that precise sliver of roadway, anyway?



OP
No, we're talking about 24 inches

Whoda thunk?

I avoid riding on the stripe, unless it's simply while crossing it.

Why?

It's fuggin' slippery. Debris there is more hazardous there than anywhere else (save for in your face).

Also, if it's wet, guess which part of the road is the slipperiest!

Plus, as has been stated earlier, it's too ambiguous a position.

Whether legal or not, who the F cares? Whether practicable or practical, it is neither.