Yesterday on my way to work I got the oppurtunity to discuss road cycling with a state police officer after the pack of vehicles that he was driving in had to slow down to change lanes and pass me. He was second in line in the left lane and turned on his lights soon as he got near me and I pulled over. The conversation started off with him telling me that I should be riding "on the bike path" to my right (to my right was a series of six long right hand turn lanes that interupted the shoulder). I pointed this out to him and let him know that I am supposed to be riding in the roadway. He got his traffic code book out and showed me the far right law which he was read as "as far right as practical in the shoulder." I corrected him about the shoulder part at which point he asked for some ID and went back to his car. He came back out and finally admitted that I was right and that I am supposed to ride in the roadway but that I should be riding just to the left of the solid stripe. He then went on to say that I had left him no choice but to ticket me because I was not cooperating. He stated the obvious, "I guess I'll be seeing you in court," to which I replied, "Sure will."
The rest of the details are as follows. I was travelling at about 20mph in the right hand lane of a 4 lane road (Naamans Road) and was pulled over at the intersection with Dartmouth Woods Road (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=naamans+road+and+dartmouth+woods+road,+wilmington,+de&sll=39.826954,-75.516179&sspn=0.007078,0.013068&ie=UTF8&ll=39.827621,-75.518442&spn=0.007078,0.013068&t=h&z=17&iwloc=addr&om=1). The speed limit on this road is 45mph and the lanes are approximately 11 feet wide (I still need to measure). No minimum speed limit and no prohibition on slow moving vehicles or cyclists. Cyclists regularly use this road but ride in the shoulder/right turn lanes.
The DE law that I was cited for disobeying ($25 fine) reads as follows:
§ 4196. Position on roadway.
(a) 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 edge of the roadway except under any of the following circumstances:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction;
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand edge of roadway. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a 1-way highway with 2 or more marked traffic lanes and a posted speed limit of less than 30 miles per hour may ride as near the left-hand edge of such roadway as practicable.
(c) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than 2 abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding 2 abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane. (21 Del. C. 1953, § 4194; 54 Del. Laws, c. 160, § 1; 66 Del. Laws, c. 167, § 2.)
Just thought I'd share for the sake of conversation. It should be pretty easy to convince the judge that this cop has no clue. Comments?
Dchiefransom
08-21-07, 07:40 PM
I hope you win. Maybe in court that officer can state on the record whether, or not, a cyclist would be ticketed for going straight through an intersection from the right turn lane. It sounds like that is what he was telling you to do.
tomg
08-21-07, 08:22 PM
i noticed that at lewis area of de there is a gross amount of urban spraw. could this be included in thhe kind officer's apparant ignorance to set traffic laws?
good luck in court, enjoy observing our best eat crow!
t
redtires
08-21-07, 08:33 PM
You know, being a state cop myself, I don't have a lot of patience for people who try to justify breaking the law. But what I have EVEN LESS patience for is another cop who can't admit that they are either wrong or aren't really sure what the code is. And another thing...you make sure to tell that judge that the patrolman told you that he ticketed you "because you wouldn't cooperate"...that is straight up horsehockey. If you were breaking a law, get a ticket. If not, no ticket and you should not get an attitude for it.
maddyfish
08-21-07, 08:37 PM
I guess to methe problem is the idea that you should "cooperate" according to him means putting up with whatever he says, even if it is ignorant. Good luck in court
cc700
08-21-07, 08:40 PM
the end of three gives you a case, but it will come down to the judge. 11 feet sounds like it's not quite substandard, but i still think you don't deserve a ticket.
Eli_Damon
08-21-07, 08:55 PM
Good for you for not taking ****. I don't see any way the ticket can stand unless your court is really corrupt.
sggoodri
08-21-07, 10:19 PM
Scan the ticket and post it!
Bekologist
08-21-07, 10:23 PM
you'll beat the ticket, but har-de-har-har.
looks like Delaware bike advocacy has a ways to go getting widespread acceptance of bikes as traffic. and yet we bicyclists all know we are traffic.
maybe you'll become the poster boy, a kin to road-sy parks for taking the lane in Delaware, joe!!
Blue Order
08-21-07, 10:27 PM
Good for you for not taking ****. I don't see any way the ticket can stand unless your court is really corrupt.That is not the only scenario for losing. He can lose his case if he doesn't present it properly. If it comes down to the judge having to decide between the officers word and joejack's word, joejack will lose.
Joejack, there's a section in this book (http://www.velopress.com/cycling.php?id=245) that explains how to handle your own traffic ticket.
genec
08-21-07, 10:27 PM
Just thought I'd share for the sake of conversation. It should be pretty easy to convince the judge that this cop has no clue. Comments?
Looks like you get to hold the tenants of vehicular cycling up before lady justice and see who flinches.
You might want to see if there is a cycling attorney that will represent you pro bono... could be an interesting precedent.
Bekologist
08-21-07, 10:29 PM
wouldn't it bite if that lane actually is considered wide enough to be shared safely by a bike and a car, joe?
I personally don't like to share lanes that are less than 14 feet wide, myself. get them closer to 16-18 feet and I begin to feel comfortable sharing the lane with other traffic. I like to keep my lane position nice and buffered from the road edge, lanes that are under 14 feet I usually consider too narrow to share if I'm moving 22-24 MPH plus. I doubt my feelings would stand up in court though.
Blue Order
08-21-07, 10:47 PM
wouldn't it bite if that lane actually is considered wide enough to be shared safely by a bike and a car, joe?
I personally don't like to share lanes that are less than 14 feet wide, myself. get them closer to 16-18 feet and I begin to feel comfortable sharing the lane with other traffic. I like to keep my lane position nice and buffered from the road edge, lanes that are under 14 feet I usually consider too narrow to share if I'm moving 22-24 MPH plus. I doubt my feelings would stand up in court though."Too narrow to safely share" should be a simple matter of doing the maths, and then applying the "reasonable person" standard to the results. Subtract the width of the car from the width of the lane. Subtract the width of your bike as measured at the handlebars from the width of the lane. Allow yourself a "reasonable" distance from the right hand side of the road so that you're not striking the curb, and are not in danger of hitting any other obstacles (for example, the door zone).
The number that's left is the passing distance. If that passing distance is "safe" under Delaware law, then the lane is not too narrow to safely share. If that passing distance is not safe under Delaware law, then the lane is too narrow to safely share. A "reasonable" distance from the curb, and a "safe passing distance" will be determined by the "reasonable person" standard, which asks "What would a reasonable person do under the same circumstances?" Safe passing distance may also be determined by state law-- for example, state law may say that drivers shall pass with at least x number of feet. The question then remains as to whether the minimum passing distance-- x number of feet-- is a safe passing distance, as determined by what the fictitious reasonable person would do under the same circumstances, or if more than x number of feet is required.
Read the section in Bob Mionske's book describing how to fight a traffic ticket, and you'll get an idea of how it's done.
Daily Commute
08-22-07, 03:53 AM
See if there's a local cyclist advocacy group that might back you up. Many of those groups have cyclists-attorneys who really know their bike law.
As to not sharing the lane, give the judge some math. Argue that you just want 3' at each side. That means 3' from shoulder to tire, and another 4.5' from safe passing area to your tire (your elbow sticks out about 1.5'). That means you need 7.5' of lane, leaving only 4.5' for cars to pass you safely in an 11' lane. That means they can't pass you safely. Even if the judge wants to knock a couple of feet off your figures, you'd leave only 6.5', and that's still not enough.
Good luck.
Gromit
08-22-07, 06:08 AM
Take some pics of the area to show the judge.
Mr. Underbridge
08-22-07, 07:36 AM
"Too narrow to safely share" should be a simple matter of doing the maths, and then applying the "reasonable person" standard to the results. Subtract the width of the car from the width of the lane. Subtract the width of your bike as measured at the handlebars from the width of the lane. Allow yourself a "reasonable" distance from the right hand side of the road so that you're not striking the curb, and are not in danger of hitting any other obstacles (for example, the door zone).
I agree with Daily's math - basically, 11 feet is really tight and is about the bare minimum that could be considered 'shareable'.
I'd say 11 feet is good enough *IF*...
1) The driver is fine hugging the lane divider, and
2) All 11 feet of that is driveable (doesn't include door zone, gutter, etc).
If that's the case, and he has 11 good feet, then it might be an uphill fight in court. The best argument, in my mind, would be that 11 feet would be OK if the drivers knew how to use it correctly, which they don't. As a result, the lane could be 15 feet wide and half of them would still pass within a foot or so of your elbow. That's why I often take the lane, and the actual width of the lane has relatively little to do with whether I do or not.
Have you ever ridden to the right in that area? If so, what was the result? (I'll go out on a limb and guess it involved some near-misses). If that's the case, tell the court you tried to share the lane but found it dangerous, so you took the lane. How crowded is it on that road - ie, would a driver have any significant problem passing you? If you can show that you've made an effort to find a less-trafficked route and you're riding on it, that might help your case too.
The Human Car
08-22-07, 07:48 AM
"Too narrow to safely share" should be a simple matter of doing the maths, and then applying the "reasonable person" standard to the results. Subtract the width of the car from the width of the lane. Subtract the width of your bike as measured at the handlebars from the width of the lane. Allow yourself a "reasonable" distance from the right hand side of the road so that you're not striking the curb, and are not in danger of hitting any other obstacles (for example, the door zone).
You’re forgetting a reasonable safety bubble to the left of a car. There is no overlapping or lopping off of safety margins, there is always something to your right and left you don't want to hit. AASHTO has already workout out reasonable safety margin distance; for motorists the minimal width is 10 feet and for cyclists it is 4 feet so therefore 14 feet is the minimal lane width a car and motorists can safely share.
Joe; be sure to be in contact with your local bike club or advocacy group.
Dchiefransom
08-22-07, 07:49 AM
If 11 feet is enough to share safely, then would the police officer feel safe if he was standing in the lane where a cyclist would ride, and a car came by in the lane at the speed limit without moving over?
genec
08-22-07, 08:14 AM
If 11 feet is enough to share safely, then would the police officer feel safe if he was standing in the lane where a cyclist would ride, and a car came by in the lane at the speed limit without moving over?
Good one, considering that it is a 45MPH road.
sggoodri
08-22-07, 08:16 AM
Although your state law clearly allows it, you'll want to present some documentation of precedent for cyclists using the center of the lane, including official government publications that represent this as a normal and reasonable thing to do where the lane is narrow.
Here are some examples:
Streetwise Cycling (NCDOT):
“On a very narrow road […] the best approach is to ride a straight line far enough
from the curb to discourage unsafe passing. [….] In vary narrow lanes, you may
have to ride far enough from the edge to discourage unsafe passing.”
http://www.ncdot.org/transit/bicycle/safety/safety_Streetwise_Cycling.html
Cary (NC) Bicycle Map (See also the Raleigh Bicycle Map):
“On a road with very narrow lanes, ride far enough from the edge to discourage
dangerously close passing.”
http://www.townofcary.org/depts/dsdept/P&Z/bicycleplan/bicycleplanmap.htm
North Carolina Driver Handbook (NCDOT/DMV):
“Bicycles
Bicycle riding is an important means of transportation, particularly for traveling
to and from work and school. Because bicycles are vehicles, bicyclists must obey
the same traffic laws as other drivers. Bicyclists usually ride on the right side of
the lane, but are entitled to the use of a full lane.
“Pass With Care
“A bicyclist staying to the right in their lane is accommodating the following
drivers by making it easier to see when it is safe to pass, and easier to execute the
pass. Drivers wishing to pass a bicyclist may do so only when there is abundant
clearance and no oncoming traffic is in the opposing lane. When passing a
bicyclist, always remember the bicyclist is entitled to the use of the full lane.”
http://www.ncdot.org/dmv/driver_services/drivershandbook/chapter6/bicycles.html
Florida Bicycling Street Smarts (Florida DOT)
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/Safety/ped_bike/brochures/pdf/index.htm
and identical wording in the Pennsylvania Bicycle Driver Manual:
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/pamanual.pdf
“On a multilane road with narrow lane, ride in the middle of the right lane. If you hug the edge, you
are likely to get squeezed out. [….] Understand that the law is on your side. The law gives you the
right to use the road, the same as a motorist, and to make other traffic slow down for you
sometimes. The driver approaching from the rear is always required to slow and follow if it’s not
possible to pass safely. [….] It may seem dangerous to make a motorist slow down for you, but it’s
not. [….] Remember, the drivers behind you don’t have room to pass you safely anyway. If you
ride all the way over at the right, you’re inviting them to pass you where the road is too narrow and,
too often, you will get squeezed off the road. If you show clearly that it’s not safe for drivers to
pass you, they’re unlikely to try. [….] On a road with two or more narrow lanes in your direction -
like many city streets - you should ride in the middle of the right lane at all times. You need to send
the message to drivers to move to the passing lane to pass you. If you ride all the way to the right,
two cars may pass you at the same time, side by side, and squeeze you off the road.”
Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Rules for riding bicycles on the road:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/vehicle/bicycle/rules.htm
“Narrow lanes: Ride in the center of the lane.”
Biking in New Jersey, Touring Tips (New Jersey DOT):
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/bike/tourtips.shtm
“If the outside lane is too narrow for side-by-side sharing with motor vehicles, move toward the
middle of the lane (i.e., ‘take the lane’) to indicate that motor vehicle traffic must change lanes to
pass safely.”
City of Fort Collins, Colorado:
http://www.ci.fort-collins.co.us/bicycling/rules.php
“Be aware that when roads are too narrow for cyclists and motorists to ride side by side, cyclists are
encouraged to take the lane when appropriate. This is especially true for narrow City streets where
cyclists can be ‘pinched’ between vehicles.”
Maine Motorist Handbook and Study Guide:
http://www.dmv-department-of-motor-vehicles.com/ME_driver_manual.html
“An experienced bicyclist will often “command the lane” by moving further into the roadway.
Motorists must yield. Slow down to avoid an accident. When it is safe to pass allow at least three
feet to your right side when passing.
Wisconsin Motorist's Handbook:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/docs/e-handbook.pdf
“Do not share a lane with a pedestrian or bicyclist. Wait until it is safe to pass in the adjoining lane.
Bicycles are vehicles, and are entitled to a full traffic lane. Give a bicycle at least three feet of room
when you pass.
“Bicyclists are legal users of the road. As such, they are entitled to the full use of a travel lane,
although a bicyclist may choose to use the shoulder.”
Oregon Driver Manual:
http://www.odot.state.or.us/forms/dmv/37.pdf
“Do not crowd bicyclists. Wait for a clear stretch of road before passing a bicyclist who is moving
slower than your motor vehicle in a lane too narrow to share. Remember, the bicycle is a slowmoving
vehicle and this may require you to slow down. The greater the speed difference between
you and a bicyclist, the more room you should allow when passing.
A number of states explicitly define 14' as the threshold width, below which is considered too narrow to require same-lane sharing. Others leave that judgement to the cyclist.
-=£em in Pa=-
08-22-07, 08:20 AM
In rare moment I will side with the policeman.
That you were taking a whole lane of Naamans Rd.
in a high traffic period of time (always) is beyond
any scope of reasoning available to me, and I have a
pretty vivid imagination.
And really, I mean this with no disrespect or antagonism,
but this is an example of why there is such a great divide
amoungst cyclists and cyclist Vs. cars. The scenerio you
mention is not one I would do under any circumstance.
But, then again, I wouldnt ride Naamans Rd. Period.
From a policmans point of veiw, a situation is being created
where drivers are getting angry. Angry drivers do stupid
stuff.
..::EDIT::..
I DO NOT agree with a fine for this.
sggoodri
08-22-07, 08:28 AM
Here are some scale pictures from an online article I wrote about wide outside lane design:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/passing/distance1.gif
Figure 3: Distribution of space required to accommodate parallel operation of a bicycle and a typical motor vehicle (e.g. an SUV).
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/passing/distance2.gif
Figure 5: Minimum space required for low-speed overtaking by a city bus with a mirror span of 10.8 feet. Greater passing distance is required if the bus is traveling at high speed.
The scenerio you
mention is not one I would do under any circumstance.
But, then again, I wouldnt ride Naamans Rd. Period.
From a policmans point of veiw, a situation is being created
where drivers are getting angry. Angry drivers do stupid
stuff.
The prudent course of action for the government, then, is to ticket those angry drivers who act in a dangerously unlawful manner, or to improve the roadway to improve convenience for motorists, not to require cyclists to either operate in a more hazardous manner or not travel the road at all.
That you don't feel comfortable using busy roads with narrow lanes is irrelevant to the importance of protecting travel rights of those cyclists who use such roads for their transportation.
-=£em in Pa=-
08-22-07, 08:39 AM
If anything, I applaud JoeJacks tireless (and dangerous) efforts
to promote fairness. I guess what I left out is the 'reality' factor
of that situation.
Ideally we should be equal, cops would watch out for us
vis-a-vis car ticketing and all would be good, the reality is,
that will never happen. I am familiar with the area mentioned
here and from that reality and safety based perspective, would
have chosen not to ride it in that manner.
Bekologist
08-22-07, 08:51 AM
Cyclists regularly use this road but ride in the shoulder/right turn lanes. if other cyclists regularily ride this road further to the right, joe, why is that position not considered practicable by you?
and why not pull to the right to allow faster traffic to pass if the shoulder IS wide? versus making the traffic change lanes? i beleive jhon forestor suggests the shoulder as appropriate for VC riding at times when faster traffic is present.
I'm just playing the devils advocate, I regularily ride the lane of high speed roads, but I'm also able to recognize safe road position without getting all caught up in the 'I drive my bike, i need to be in the travel lane' VC radicalization of bicycling.
genec
08-22-07, 09:01 AM
if other cyclists regularily ride this road further to the right, joe, why is that position not considered practicable by you?
and why not pull to the right to allow faster traffic to pass if the shoulder IS wide? versus making the traffic change lanes? i beleive jhon forestor suggests the shoulder as appropriate for VC riding at times when faster traffic is present.
I'm just playing the devils advocate, I regularily ride the lane of high speed roads, but I'm also able to recognize safe road position without getting all caught up in the 'I drive my bike, i need to be in the travel lane' VC radicalization of bicycling.
Well what he said was that the right turn lanes are used by cyclists... so the cyclists are pulling a last minute lane change from the right turn lane.
Why can't motorists simply go around the cyclists by using the left straight through lane?
genec
08-22-07, 09:01 AM
Hey Joejack... can you give us a google map location?
-=£em in Pa=-
08-22-07, 09:03 AM
It is in the OP.
sggoodri
08-22-07, 09:17 AM
I dislike roads like these, because they require me to choose between multiple undesirable options: violating the traffic law by traveling straight in right-turn-only lanes, riding the lane line and experiencing potential close passes on both sides due to narrow lane width, or taking the narrow lane where traffic speeds and volumes are high. (I'll omit the option of not cycling.)
This is one of those places where I'm tempted to look for an engineering solution that would provide a better option and less potential social friction. So what would such a solution be? Additional space to the left of the RTOLs in the form of a WOL or striped bike lane? And if the total right of way could not be widened, what then? Eliminate the right turn lanes, or as some people have shown in other threads, create a combined right-turn and bike lane with cyclists staying away from the curb to avoid right hooks?
One good thing about actually cycling on unpleasant roads is that it encourages the government to actually think about how road design affects lawfully operating cyclists, rather than assuming that lawfully operating cyclists will simply go away or ought to act contrary to the law. A traffic ticket like this can be used to compel planners and engineers to do a better job of providing adequate overtaking space on important roads as well as compel bicyclist-friendly members of the city council (I'm sure you can find them) to direct the police department to better educate its officers about cyclists' rights on our roadways.
Bekologist
08-22-07, 09:26 AM
...or ticketing lawful cyclists.
despite the politicalization of joe's lane choice, perhaps, if the rest of the cycling population that 'regularily' cycles this road in the shoulder/rto lanes are doing so, and likely doing so safely,
what makes joe's lane position 'correct' versus the rest of the bicyclists? a wide, accomodating shoulder can be ridden in in a vehicular manner by vehicular cyclists....
-=£em in Pa=-
08-22-07, 09:47 AM
One good thing about actually cycling on unpleasant roads is that it encourages the government to actually think about how road design affects lawfully operating cyclists, rather than assuming that lawfully operating cyclists will simply go away or ought to act contrary to the law. A traffic ticket like this can be used to compel planners and engineers to do a better job of providing adequate overtaking space on important roads as well as compel bicyclist-friendly members of the city council (I'm sure you can find them) to direct the police department to better educate its officers about cyclists' rights on our roadways.
I think the difference in peoples opinions has a lot to do with thier geographical
location. Being familier with NC (I was 'sposed to move to Asheville), I think
Cary is a little more receptive and open minded to the things you mention and thier
population a little more tolerant of byclists over all. That area mentioned in the OP
as are the surrounding areas in PA, areas that to me, are not freindly or open minded
in that respect. Cycling in the Philly / Wilmington area one encounters a very
aggresive and intolerant mindset. Would I try to convert these people on my
daily commute ? Never, when I commuted in PA I counted my blessings just making
it home in one piece, not being yelled at or suffering the 15 second honk ....
Bekologist
08-22-07, 09:57 AM
it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. when's your day in court, joe?
Mr. Underbridge
08-22-07, 10:03 AM
...or ticketing lawful cyclists.
what makes joe's lane position 'correct' versus the rest of the bicyclists? a wide, accomodating shoulder can be ridden in in a vehicular manner by vehicular cyclists....
...until you get to an intersection, at which point you get to merge back into the lane, or try your luck with right-hooks. If the density of intersections is high, both are dangerous. If the density of traffic is high, the first is probably impossible.
The only road where I ride on a shoulder like that is a parkway that has a 10 foot shoulder and intersections with a mile or more between them. But if I were to have to dart in and out of traffic in a 45 mph zone? Forget it.
dzinehaus
08-22-07, 10:53 AM
I hope you win, same stupid nonsensical law aplies here in Montreal Canada. I say save your life and rid in the middle of the lane behind a car in plain sight of its rear view mirror. As long as you are following traffic. I say those same people that are behind you and in such a rush are the same people that have no respect for cyclist because they themselves do not cycle. Its clear out here when you know a motorist is also a cyclist when then let you into traffic instead of trying to run you off the road because they feel you are slowing their life down. Man, people should enjoy life more. I really hope you win. Good luck and sggoodri gave a lot of useful info to help!!!
I say better to stay alive and get a ticket you can fight then be dead on the right side of the road because of a motorist made law that does not keep a cyclist in mind.
Also... What's the point of honking at a cyclist? You are more bound to cause an accident by frightening them then having them move over. If you are the person honking at the cyclist, you need to get off the road faster then the cyclist because you are more likely to hurt some one with your road rage.
noisebeam
08-22-07, 11:34 AM
Good luck Joe!
Here is a video of me riding by multiple RTOLs. Four in 1/2mi. Traffic here is generally moderate though (practically none in this video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WZoXNbxXgc
I provide this to perhaps provide a rider perspective visual of what multiple RTOLs look like.
I stay in the thru lane as otherwise would be illegal. Not only that, but in the morning when I ride this stretch I find about a 50/50 split between drivers making a RT vs going straight, so either position would 'delay' a motorist.
Al
Blue Order
08-22-07, 11:59 AM
You’re forgetting a reasonable safety bubble to the left of a car. There is no overlapping or lopping off of safety margins, there is always something to your right and left you don't want to hit. AASHTO has already workout out reasonable safety margin distance; for motorists the minimal width is 10 feet and for cyclists it is 4 feet so therefore 14 feet is the minimal lane width a car and motorists can safely share.Yep, I realized I forgot that safety bubble to the left first thing this morning. Thanks for sharing about AASHTO.
Helmet Head
08-22-07, 01:34 PM
Classic. Great stuff from Stephen. Be sure and have it all with you, including the photos that others have recommended, ideally with a measuring tape showing the actual width of the lane (measured from center-of-stripe to center-of-stripe). That, coupled with the Goodridge diagrams should do it.
Having said that, when traffic volumes and speed differentials are high enough, and the right turn lane is relatively unoccupied, I do use it for through travel, and would if I were driving a relatively slow motor vehicle (like a tractor) too. But, the law does not compel you to do that, and arguably technically forbids you. Speaking of that, you should be ready with copies of the DE laws that prohibit through travel in turn lanes and the one that says all laws apply to cyclists too. In other words, you have to show that riding anywhere else was either not a legal or safe option, and where you were riding was the only legal AND safe option.
Finally, I'm so glad this happened! Frankly, I keep hoping some cop stops me for doing something like this, but they never do. I guess the police around here understand cyclist rights better than over there. Some months ago I conveyed the story of the cop who pulled over a motorist who honked at me, and lectured him about cyclists having the same rights as motorists. The cop that pulled you over would never have those words flow out of his mouth, but maybe he will after this experience. I hope he shows up for your appearance! Good luck!
genec
08-22-07, 01:39 PM
Classic. Great stuff from Stephen. Be sure and have it all with you, including the photos that others have recommended, ideally with a measuring tape showing the actual width of the lane (measured from center-of-stripe to center-of-stripe). That, coupled with the Goodridge diagrams should do it.
Having said that, when traffic volumes and speed differentials are high enough, and the right turn lane is relatively unoccupied, I do use it for through travel,
But this basically violates the tenants of vehicular cycling and destination positioning... ARRRRRRRG!!!!:eek:
-=£em in Pa=-
08-22-07, 01:42 PM
Finally, I'm so glad this happened!
??
joejack951
08-22-07, 02:15 PM
First off, thanks to all of those who have wished me good luck in fighting this. Some great suggestions have been made as to what information will be helpful to have with me in court and I REALLY appreciate the effort in support of me.
Before I take on the task of responding to all of these posts (I've been away from a computer all day), I'll do what any proper cyclist would do after receiving a BS violation such as this and post the scanned ticket :) (personal information editted out):
But this basically violates the tenants of vehicular cycling and destination positioning... ARRRRRRRG!!!!:eek:
He's still alive too.
joejack951
08-22-07, 02:20 PM
maybe you'll become the poster boy, a kin to road-sy parks for taking the lane in Delaware, joe!!
Bek, it's comments like this that keep me from putting you on ignore ;) I've been laughing to myself about this quote since I read it.
Dchiefransom
08-22-07, 02:21 PM
Was the officer saying you should go straight ahead from a right turn only lane? Isn't that advocating you to violate the vehicle code? He'd then be telling you to violate the same vehicle code that he used to write you a ticket.
noisebeam
08-22-07, 02:26 PM
A couple wonderings...
I wonder if you had been riding in the right tire track (i.e. a few feet from lane line edge) but still in a 11' lane (which would have caused same passing delay as if you were centered) if the officer would have still pulled you over. After all you would have caused the officer delay, yet you would have been then as close as practable to the right edge of thru lane.
I wonder what other 'delayed' motorists thought when you were pulled over? Probably wrongly re-enforced to them that cyclists should not be on the road and the 'law was on their side.'
Al
Blue Order
08-22-07, 02:31 PM
Be sure and have it all with you, including the photos that others have recommended, ideally with a measuring tape showing the actual width of the lane (measured from center-of-stripe to center-of-stripe). That, coupled with the Goodridge diagrams should do it.... But, the law does not compel you to do that, and arguably technically forbids you. Speaking of that, you should be ready with copies of the DE laws that prohibit through travel in turn lanes and the one that says all laws apply to cyclists too. In other words, you have to show that riding anywhere else was either not a legal or safe option, and where you were riding was the only legal AND safe option....Good luck!What he said. :eek:
joejack951
08-22-07, 02:56 PM
Have you ever ridden to the right in that area? If so, what was the result? (I'll go out on a limb and guess it involved some near-misses). If that's the case, tell the court you tried to share the lane but found it dangerous, so you took the lane. How crowded is it on that road - ie, would a driver have any significant problem passing you? If you can show that you've made an effort to find a less-trafficked route and you're riding on it, that might help your case too.
I have tried riding everywhere from the middle of the shoulder/right turn lane, just to the right of the stripe, on the lane line, the far right of the lane, the right tire track, and the center of the lane. Using the center of the lane has resulted in an almost complete removal of close passes, second only to riding in the middle of the shoulder/right turn lane due to the width and the fact that I'm' now blocking the whole turn lane. Riding anywhere else has increased the number of close passes I receive, with the worst position being the lane line (where I often experienced close passes on the left and right at the same time.
In terms of smooth traffic flow, again riding in the lane is second only to riding in the shoulder/right turn lane ASSUMING no one is turning right. Throw in a few right turners (at a good number of the intersections, you can count on at least 1 in 5 vehicles in the right hand lane turning) and all hell breaks loose as people try to speed up in the right lane to get around you and other assorted acts of ignorance (I've found starting an actual right turn from the right hand lane greatly reduces the chances of this happening). When riding centered in the lane I am often (once or twice daily) passed on the right by impatient motorists but the majority change lanes and pass me like any other slow moving vehicle (which, if you count large trucks pulling away from red lights, there are many that use this road). In any other lane position, I would often find myself causing either the same delay as I would when riding centered or delaying both the right lane and the turn lane as motorists were unsure whether to pass, change lanes, or wait behind me. This confusion makes me feel much less comfortable than the much more predictable behavior exhibited when I ride centered.
The road is generally busy as LEM has pointed out, but not nearly as bad as route 202 and route 1 in PA that I use to complete my commute. I have encountered PA state cops on those roads doing the same thing I'm doing on Naamans Road and none of them have even flinched. I'd say the longest it has ever taken someone to get around me (who hasn't sat there intentionally) has been about a minute. That only happens between 5-6pm when the road is the busiest it will be all day.
I've been using this road a lot more recently because of construction on my normal commute route. My other options to avoid this road both include 40-45mph 2 lane roads without shoulders that see a lot of traffic that's avoiding the traffic on the route I take. The route I take has a passing lane and a few sections of useable shoulder though which make it much more convenients for me and everyone else in my experience.
joejack951
08-22-07, 03:05 PM
In rare moment I will side with the policeman.
That you were taking a whole lane of Naamans Rd.
in a high traffic period of time (always) is beyond
any scope of reasoning available to me, and I have a
pretty vivid imagination.
And really, I mean this with no disrespect or antagonism,
but this is an example of why there is such a great divide
amoungst cyclists and cyclist Vs. cars. The scenerio you
mention is not one I would do under any circumstance.
But, then again, I wouldnt ride Naamans Rd. Period.
From a policmans point of veiw, a situation is being created
where drivers are getting angry. Angry drivers do stupid
stuff.
..::EDIT::..
I DO NOT agree with a fine for this.
I'm glad you posted this because it is a great representation of attitude of motorists on this road who choose to "talk" to me. It's caused me great frustration as well as given me many a laugh at how people react to a cyclist simply using this road like any other vehicle would. I don't receive the same flak from motorists on any other road in the area, even routes 202 and 1 (both similar but busier roads than Naamans). My current hypothesis for explaining the situation is that neither 202 or 1 receives any significant cyclist traffic whereas Naamans does, and the cyclist traffic that uses Naamans ALL rides in the shoulder/right turn lanes. The precendent set by other cyclists, and now added to by this incident, has entitled motorists to believe that the traffic lanes on Naamans are off limits to cyclists. If this ticket helps me do something about that attitude then I'm really happy I received it.
Helmet Head
08-22-07, 03:10 PM
Throw a few printouts of post #46 into the folder you take to court, Joe.... It might be useful in case you get nervous and forget some of that. Maybe the judge will allow and friend can video tape the proceeding? What an awesome youtube post that would make. Or at least maybe you can leave a request with the court steno to mail you a copy of the transcript?
I-Like-To-Bike
08-22-07, 03:17 PM
Originally Posted by Helmet Head Finally, I'm so glad this happened!
??
No ??? if you have read that poster's ghoulish "told you so" speculation posts while the cyclists' bodies are still warm.
Helmet Head
08-22-07, 03:19 PM
I'm glad you posted this because it is a great representation of attitude of motorists on this road who choose to "talk" to me. It's caused me great frustration as well as given me many a laugh at how people react to a cyclist simply using this road like any other vehicle would. I don't receive the same flak from motorists on any other road in the area, even routes 202 and 1 (both similar but busier roads than Naamans). My current hypothesis for explaining the situation is that neither 202 or 1 receives any significant cyclist traffic whereas Naamans does, and the cyclist traffic that uses Naamans ALL rides in the shoulder/right turn lanes. The precendent set by other cyclists, and now added to by this incident, has entitled motorists to believe that the traffic lanes on Naamans are off limits to cyclists. If this ticket helps me do something about that attitude then I'm really happy I received it.
Note the words at the top of the citation:
DE 21 $ 4196 000A M - PERSON OPERATING BICYCLE IS TO RIDE TO RIGHT OF ROADWAY
Whose words are those? Those of the officer? Or official "citation" words?
I mean, "is to ride to right of roadway" implies not on roadway, doesn't it? I mean, what if it is said, "ride to right of tree". Anyway, that' seems to be a blatant misinterpretation of 4196.