Advocacy & Safety - Legal Aspects of taking the lane.

I recently read though the Highway Safety Code for Quebec (where I live) and could not find a clause that entitles cyclists to take the lane. Perhaps I did not interpret it right. I would appreciate it if some people could point out where in their own highway code gives them that right and possibly even for Quebec's (here is the link : http://www.saaq.gouv.qc.ca/lois/index.html I have an english version on one of my computers but I can't seem to locate it on the website)

Originally posted by Spire
I would appreciate it if some people could point out where in their own highway code gives them that right and possibly even for Quebec's

malheureusement, je parle seulement français.

So, I will interpret the code from where I live. Here is the law:

307.190. Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, except when making a left turn, when avoiding hazardous conditions, when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle, or when on a one-way street. Bicyclists may ride abreast when not impeding other vehicles.

Basically what it says is a bicyclist should ride as far right as is safe.

It is more or less up to you to decide how far right is safe, so you have discretion in taking the rightmost lane. Try to take the fast lane when not turning left, and you probably will get some guff.

take care,

Jester

P.S. i am not a lawyer, and do not give legal advice

IANAL. However, here's what the law in my state says.

http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=section&section=46.61.770

RCW 46.61.770
Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.
(1) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place shall ride as near to the right side of the right through lane as is safe except as may be appropriate while preparing to make or while making turning movements, or while overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction. A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway or highway other than a limited-access highway, which roadway or highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near to the left side of the left through lane as is safe. A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway may use the shoulder of the roadway or any specially designated bicycle lane if such exists.

(2) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

[1982 c 55 § 7; 1974 ex.s. c 141 § 14; 1965 ex.s. c 155 § 83.]

NOTES:

Rules of court: Monetary penalty schedule -- IRLJ 6.2.

Use of bicycles on limited-access highways: RCW 46.61.160.

This implies (by my interpretation at least) that a cyclist reserves the right to claim the lane when necessary in order to perform specific actions and for purposes of safety.

There is a principle of driving which deals with control of the lane. Control of the lane is what determines right-of-way. When driving a car, if I am controlling the lane, any other vehicle must yield right-of-way to me before entering that lane, crossing that lane, or passing me.

As a cyclist, I think it's important to be clear to other vehicle operators whether you control the lane or not. This does not mean riding in the middle of the lane, but there are times you must control the lane in a fashion that is obvious.

I try to ride far enough inside the lane that it's clear I'm controlling it, or far enough outside the lane that it's clear I'm not using the lane.

If I don't feel safe controlling the lane, I won't ride there.

There are times when the lane is wide enough to allow other vehicles to pass me without crossing the center line. In this case,
I still use enough of the lane to let motorists know I am supposed to be there.

In the Quebec regulations there is a general provision that bikes follow the same rules as motorists. Bikes must keep to the right, except where there is an obstruction, or they are preparing for a left turn (It is a matter of judgement what constitutes an obstruction). Motorists are not allowed to pass a cyclist who is to their right when it is not safe to do so, however motorists are allowed to cross the solid line, when passing cyclists, farm tractors etc. provided it can be done safely (I understand that this last provision does not exist in the English version of the regulations). When there is a cycle path next to the road, the cyclist must take it. Groups of cyclists must ride in file, and 15 is the max group size.

I consider possible door openings and drain gratings to be obstructions.

California law has long used the terminology, "as far to the right as practicable." California law also specifies a 3-foot safety margin for motorists overtaking bicyclists. If a lane is more than 4 m / 13 feet wide and there are no parked cars, I assume a position about 70 cm / 2 ft from the edge, giving motorists the unambiguous signal that we can safely share the lane side-by-side. If the lane is significantly narrower, I assume a position in the right-side vehicular tyre track. I am with Pete Clark on this one; if I need to take the lane on a 70kph / 45mph street, I look for an alternate route with a wider outside lane and/or a lower speed limit.

I think most places have a "as far to the right/left (depending on where you live) as is practical" clause. That's pretty subjective. I would argue that riding in gutters or in car dooring range is impractical, so I'm entitled to ride away from those things.

Some bozo in traffic engineering just had a curb built over the shoulder of one of my regular bike routes, a narrow 35mph 2-lane street. I am trying to get this remedied, but tearing out the curb, repouring it 2-3 feet farther west, and restoring the shoulder will be expensive.

Floridas laws are similar. We must yield to faster moving traffic and we must ride as far right as possible as long as its safe to do so. Cyclists are not permitted ti ride two abreats nor are they permitted ride in the center of a lane unless turning left. In Florida a cyclist has no 'lane'. Thats OK, I'd rather stay alive than challenge a car for a lane.

I think it's cool that we can share the road when necessary, but like a couple of the posts here, I'd rather take an alternate route than fight with machines that can run you over without a second thought.

I think I might be able to help you guys. As far as I know most all states within the US you have to stay as far to the right except to turn left. You can then utilize the left hand turn lane. As for interperting the As far to the right. Utilize discression. If you are in an area that has bike lanes specifically made for bikes obviously utilize it. If it is a 4 lane road with a left hand turn in the middle with no bike lane (4 lane meaning 2 for each direction) stay as close to the curb as possible not to impede traffic that is traveling in any direction. Here in Arizona there is a 3 foot law. All vehicles traveling on any road with or without a bike must give a bicyclist 3 feet on either side of the rider to ensure safety of the bicyclist. For the most part try and avoid smaller roads, busier roads and areas that just don't look that safe. I'm with most people here, I'm going to find another route to get somewhere that is much more safe.

Oh and by the way. Most all states, if you pull out into traffic and cause an accident, even if you are the injured, will cite you for the cause of the accident. If you are impeding traffic they will get you for it so ride safely and pretty much give the right of way to the motor vehicles because they are bigger and faster.

Originally posted by lamajo25
If you are in an area that has bike lanes specifically made for bikes obviously utilize it.

I will utilise it if it's practical and safe for me do to so, and under no other circumstances. Unfortunately, most of the facilities made "for" cyclists aren't actually designed by cyclists. Hence they are both useless and dangerous in the real world.


Originally posted by lamajo25
If it is a 4 lane road with a left hand turn in the middle with no bike lane (4 lane meaning 2 for each direction) stay as close to the curb as possible not to impede traffic that is traveling in any direction.

Again, I will do so only where it is safe and practical do so as this is what the law requires me to do. In truth, I'm far safer in the centre of the lane where I can at least be seen by cars, than in a position where I'm going to get knocked over by opening car doors or potholes. Hence I will make that decision on the basis of the circumstances presented to me at the time.


Originally posted by lamajo25
Here in Arizona there is a 3 foot law. All vehicles traveling on any road with or without a bike must give a bicyclist 3 feet on either side of the rider to ensure safety of the bicyclist.

Again, this is the case in most parts of the world. However, around here at least, it's rarely (if ever) enforced, like so many other traffic laws. Generally drivers will only give you as much room as you give yourself. Another advantage of claiming the lane - doing so gives me space to back off if necessary. Riding in the gutter doesn't allow me this space.


Originally posted by lamajo25
Oh and by the way. Most all states, if you pull out into traffic and cause an accident, even if you are the injured, will cite you for the cause of the accident.

Which is why I will stay in the lane, rather than swerve in and out of it for various obstacles.


Originally posted by lamajo25
If you are impeding traffic they will get you for it

They will try. The law will tell them something different.


Originally posted by lamajo25
pretty much give the right of way to the motor vehicles because they are bigger and faster.

When I was a kid growing up in Werris Creek, bullies neither frightened nor impressed me. Now that I'm a man living on the Gold Coast, they still neither frighten nor impress me.

I posted the Florida statute on another thread, I'll repost it here. It's very similar to the Oregon statute, also posted below. In both cases, exceptions are made to the 'ride as far to the rigt as practicable standard', which allow bicycles to take the lane in a variety of circumstances, including: (1) debris or other hazards present (e.g. parked cars, drain grates, etc., etc); (2) lane too narrow to safely share with a motor vehicle (e.g. lane width less than approx. 11'-12'); (3) one way street, allowed to ride on left side of left lane; (4) travelling at same speed as traffic (e.g. somewhere like downtown Portland where signals are timed for 12-15 MPH); (5) executing left turn maneuver.

The relevant sections are, Florida--FS 316.2065(5); with particular attention to 2065(5)(a)(3); and Oregon--ORS 814.430, with particular attention to 430(2)(c). Also note that riding two abreast is not, per se, illegal in either state, but depends on traffic and speed conditions. The Oregon statute appears slightly more lenient than the Florida statute on riding two-abreast, but they appear about equal on taking the lane.

Florida:

316.2065 Bicycle regulations (excerpts).--

(1) Every person propelling a vehicle by human power has all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under this chapter, except as to special regulations in this chapter, and except as to provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application.

(3)(a) A bicycle may not be used to carry more persons at one time than the number for which it is designed or equipped, except that an adult rider may carry a child securely attached to his or her person in a backpack or sling.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (a), a bicycle rider must carry any passenger who is a child under 4 years of age, or who weighs 40 pounds or less, in a seat or carrier that is designed to carry a child of that age or size and that secures and protects the child from the moving parts of the bicycle.

(c) A bicycle rider may not allow a passenger to remain in a child seat or carrier on a bicycle when the rider is not in immediate control of the bicycle.

(d) A bicycle rider or passenger who is under 16 years of age must wear a bicycle helmet that is properly fitted and is fastened securely upon the passenger's head by a strap, and that meets the standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI Z 90.4 Bicycle Helmet Standards), the standards of the Snell Memorial Foundation (1984 Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling), or any other nationally recognized standards for bicycle helmets adopted by the department. As used in this subsection, the term "passenger" includes a child who is riding in a trailer or semitrailer attached to a bicycle.

(e) Law enforcement officers and school crossing guards may issue a bicycle safety brochure and a verbal warning to a bicycle rider or passenger who violates this subsection. A bicycle rider or passenger who violates this subsection may be issued a citation by a law enforcement officer and assessed a fine for a pedestrian violation, as provided in s. 318.18. The court shall dismiss the charge against a bicycle rider or passenger for a first violation of paragraph (d) upon proof of purchase of a bicycle helmet that complies with this subsection.

(4) No person riding upon any bicycle, coaster, roller skates, sled, or toy vehicle may attach the same or himself or herself to any vehicle upon a roadway. This subsection does not prohibit attaching a bicycle trailer or bicycle semitrailer to a bicycle if that trailer or semitrailer is commercially available and has been designed for such attachment.

(5)(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 curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

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.

3. When reasonably necessary to avoid any condition, including, but not limited to, a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, animal, surface hazard, or substandard-width lane, that makes it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For the purposes of this subsection, a "substandard-width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a one-way highway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as practicable.

(6) Persons riding bicycles upon 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 two abreast may not impede traffic when traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing and shall ride within a single lane.

(7) Any person operating a bicycle shall keep at least one hand upon the handlebars.

(8) Every bicycle in use between sunset and sunrise shall be equipped with a lamp on the front exhibiting a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front and a lamp and reflector on the rear each exhibiting a red light visible from a distance of 600 feet to the rear. A bicycle or its rider may be equipped with lights or reflectors in addition to those required by this section.

(9) No parent of any minor child and no guardian of any minor ward may authorize or knowingly permit any such minor child or ward to violate any of the provisions of this section.

(10) A person propelling a vehicle by human power upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

(11) A person propelling a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian.

(12) No person upon roller skates, or riding in or by means of any coaster, toy vehicle, or similar device, may go upon any roadway except while crossing a street on a crosswalk; and, when so crossing, such person shall be granted all rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to pedestrians.

(13) This section shall not apply upon any street while set aside as a play street authorized herein or as designated by state, county, or municipal authority.

(14) Every bicycle shall be equipped with a brake or brakes which will enable its rider to stop the bicycle within 25 feet from a speed of 10 miles per hour on dry, level, clean pavement.

(15) A person engaged in the business of selling bicycles at retail shall not sell any bicycle unless the bicycle has an identifying number permanently stamped or cast on its frame.

(19) The failure of a person to wear a bicycle helmet or the failure of a parent or guardian to prevent a child from riding a bicycle without a bicycle helmet may not be considered evidence of negligence or contributory negligence.

(20) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a pedestrian violation as provided in chapter 318. A law enforcement officer may issue traffic citations for a violation of subsection (3) or subsection (16) only if the violation occurs on a bicycle path or road, as defined in s. 334.03. However, they may not issue citations to persons on private property, except any part thereof which is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular traffic.

Oregon:

BICYCLES

814.400 Application of vehicle laws to bicycles. (1) Every person riding a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the provisions applicable to and has the same rights and duties as the driver of any other vehicle concerning operating on highways, vehicle equipment and abandoned vehicles, except:

(a) Those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.

(b) When otherwise specifically provided under the vehicle code.

(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section:

(a) A bicycle is a vehicle for purposes of the vehicle code; and

(b) When the term "vehicle" is used the term shall be deemed to be applicable to bicycles.

(3) The provisions of the vehicle code relating to the operation of bicycles do not relieve a bicyclist or motorist from the duty to exercise due care. [1983 c.338 §697; 1985 c.16 §335]

814.405 Status of electric assisted bicycle. An electric assisted bicycle shall be considered a bicycle, rather than a motor vehicle, for purposes of the Oregon Vehicle Code, except when otherwise specifically provided by statute. [1997 c.400 §4]

814.410 Unsafe operation of bicycle on sidewalk; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of unsafe operation of a bicycle on a sidewalk if the person does any of the following:

(a) Operates the bicycle so as to suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and move into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.

(b) Operates a bicycle upon a sidewalk and does not give an audible warning before overtaking and passing a pedestrian and does not yield the right of way to all pedestrians on the sidewalk.

(c) Operates a bicycle on a sidewalk in a careless manner that endangers or would be likely to endanger any person or property.

(d) Operates the bicycle at a speed greater than an ordinary walk when approaching or entering a crosswalk, approaching or crossing a driveway or crossing a curb cut or pedestrian ramp and a motor vehicle is approaching the crosswalk, driveway, curb cut or pedestrian ramp. This paragraph does not require reduced speeds for bicycles either:

(A) At places on sidewalks or other pedestrian ways other than places where the path for pedestrians or bicycle traffic approaches or crosses that for motor vehicle traffic; or

(B) When motor vehicles are not present.

(e) Operates an electric assisted bicycle on a sidewalk.

(2) Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, a bicyclist on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk has the same rights and duties as a pedestrian on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk.

814.420 Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is adjacent to or near the roadway.

(2) A person is not required to comply with this section unless the state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds, after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed.

814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway.

(2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following circumstances:

(a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle that is proceeding in the same direction.

(b) When preparing to execute a left turn.

(c) When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or other conditions that make continued operation along the right curb or edge unsafe or to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side. Nothing in this paragraph excuses the operator of a bicycle from the requirements under ORS 811.425 or from the penalties for failure to comply with those requirements.

(d) When operating within a city as near as practicable to the left curb or edge of a roadway that is designated to allow traffic to move in only one direction along the roadway. A bicycle that is operated under this paragraph is subject to the same requirements and exceptions when operating along the left curb or edge as are applicable when a bicycle is operating along the right curb or edge of the roadway.

(e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

(f) When operating on a bicycle lane or bicycle path.

814.440 Failure to signal turn; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure to signal for a bicycle turn if the person does any of the following:

(a) Stops a bicycle the person is operating without giving the appropriate hand and arm signal continuously for at least 100 feet before executing the stop.

(b) Executes a turn on a bicycle the person is operating without giving the appropriate hand and arm signal for the turn for at least 100 feet before executing the turn.

(c) Executes a turn on a bicycle the person is operating after having been stopped without giving, while stopped, the appropriate hand and arm signal for the turn.

(2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is operating a bicycle and does not give the appropriate signal continuously for a stop or turn because circumstances require that both hands be used to safely control or operate the bicycle.

(3) The appropriate hand and arm signals for indicating turns and stops under this section are those provided for other vehicles under ORS 811.395 and 811.400.

814.450 Unlawful load on bicycle; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of having an unlawful load on a bicycle if the person is operating a bicycle and the person carries a package, bundle or article which prevents the person from keeping at least one hand upon the handlebar and having full control at all times.

(2) The offense described in this section, unlawful load on a bicycle, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §704]

814.460 Unlawful passengers on bicycle; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of unlawful passengers on a bicycle if the person operates a bicycle and carries more persons on the bicycle than the number for which it is designed or safely equipped.

814.470 Failure to use bicycle seat; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle seat if the person is operating a bicycle and the person rides other than upon or astride a permanent and regular seat attached to the bicycle.

(2) The offense described in this section, failure to use bicycle seat, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §706]

814.480 Nonmotorized vehicle clinging to another vehicle; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of nonmotorized vehicle clinging to another vehicle if the person is riding upon or operating a bicycle, coaster, roller skates, sled or toy vehicle and the person clings to another vehicle upon a roadway or attaches that which the person is riding or operating to any other vehicle upon a roadway.

814.484 Meaning of "bicycle" and "operating or riding on a highway." (1) For purposes of ORS 814.485, 814.486, 815.052 and 815.281, "bicycle" has the meaning given in ORS 801.150 except that:

(a) It also includes vehicles that meet the criteria specified in ORS 801.150 (1) to (4) but that have wheels less than 14 inches in diameter.

(b) It does not include tricycles designed to be ridden by children.

(2) For purposes of the offenses defined in ORS 814.485, 814.486 and 815.281 (2), a person shall not be considered to be operating or riding on a bicycle on a highway or on premises open to the public if the person is operating or riding on a three-wheeled nonmotorized vehicle on a beach while it is closed to motor vehicle traffic. [1993 c.408 §§3a,3b]

814.485 Failure to wear protective headgear; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure of a bicycle operator or rider to wear protective headgear if the person is under 16 years of age, operates or rides on a bicycle on a highway or on premises open to the public and is not wearing protective headgear of a type approved under ORS 815.052.

(2) Exemptions from this section are as provided in ORS 814.487.

814.486 Endangering bicycle operator or passenger; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of endangering a bicycle operator or passenger if:

(a) The person is operating a bicycle on a highway or on premises open to the public and the person carries another person on the bicycle who is under 16 years of age and is not wearing protective headgear of a type approved under ORS 815.052; or

(b) The person is the parent, legal guardian or person with legal responsibility for the safety and welfare of a child under 16 years of age and the child operates or rides on a bicycle on a highway or on premises open to the public without wearing protective headgear of a type approved under ORS 815.052.

(2) Exemptions from this section are as provided in ORS 814.487.

814.487 Exemptions from protective headgear requirements. A person is exempt from the requirements under ORS 814.485 and 814.486 to wear protective headgear, if wearing the headgear would violate a religious belief or practice of the person. [1995 c.581 §4]

814.488 Citations; exemption from requirement to pay fine. (1) If a child in violation of ORS 814.485 is 11 years of age or younger, any citation issued shall be issued to the parent, legal guardian or person with legal responsibility for the safety and welfare of the child for violation of ORS 814.486, rather than to the child for violation of ORS 814.485.

(2) If a child in violation of ORS 814.485 is at least 12 years of age and is under 16 years of age, a citation may be issued to the child for violation of ORS 814.485 or to the parent, legal guardian or person with legal responsibility for the safety and welfare of the child for violation of ORS 814.486, but not to both.

(3) The first time a person is convicted of an offense described in ORS 814.485 or 814.486, the person shall not be required to pay a fine if the person proves to the satisfaction of the court that the person has protective headgear of a type approved under ORS 815.052. [1993 c.408 §§3c,7]

814.489 Use of evidence of lack of protective headgear on bicyclist. Evidence of violation of ORS 814.485 or 814.486 and evidence of lack of protective headgear shall not be admissible, applicable or effective to reduce the amount of damages or to constitute a defense to an action for damages brought by or on behalf of an injured bicyclist or bicycle passenger or the survivors of a deceased bicyclist or passenger if the bicyclist or passenger was injured or killed as a result in whole or in part of the fault of another. [1993 c.408 §8]

They will try. The law will tell them something different.

I actually work for law. I'm a dispatcher in Arizona. They will get you for it. It's called impeding traffic and blocking a public thuroughfare.

I don't know about Australia but around here a bike lane is made for bikes. It's wide enough in most places for bikes next to each other.

I do understand your concerns about riding strictly in a lane but if it's safe to stay out of traffic, it's most wise. I'm not trying to say ride in unsafe conditions. But around here the roads are paved and kept up.

As for Randya's posting, most of what was posted and are pretty much standards for here in the US. The unfortunate thing is neither the motorists recognize them, nor the bicyclists obey most of them. This is where confusion begins and certain groups blame the other. The bicyclists blame the motorists and vise versus.

Originally posted by lamajo25
I actually work for law. I'm a dispatcher in Arizona. They will get you for it. It's called impeding traffic and blocking a public thuroughfare.

I don't know about Australia but around here a bike lane is made for bikes. It's wide enough in most places for bikes next to each other.

I do understand your concerns about riding strictly in a lane but if it's safe to stay out of traffic, it's most wise. I'm not trying to say ride in unsafe conditions. But around here the roads are paved and kept up.

As for Randya's posting, most of what was posted and are pretty much standards for here in the US. The unfortunate thing is neither the motorists recognize them, nor the bicyclists obey most of them. This is where confusion begins and certain groups blame the other. The bicyclists blame the motorists and vise versus.

If you take the right lane on a four-lane road, the motorists have a passing lane to use to get around you. Therefore, IMO, you are not impeding or obstructing traffic. Officer Friendly might have a different opinion, however.

Arizona may have enough ROW for 8' wide bike lanes, but most older inner city areas have limited ROW space and are lucky to be able to stripe 4' wide bike lanes, if at all. Usually those bike lanes are dangerously close to opening car doors, have hazardous drainage grates every block or so, and there are multiple closeley spaced intersecting cross streets and driveways. In these situations the bike lanes are, IMO, the least safe places to ride. Also, the shoulder and bike lane are usually the place where all the road debris accumulates, so you risk multiple flats by using the bike lane.

Originally posted by lamajo25
I actually work for law. I'm a dispatcher in Arizona. They will get you for it. It's called impeding traffic and blocking a public thuroughfare.

You might be surprised to hear this, but I actually find my bike is as fast or faster than the cars during the so-called "rush hour". Something to do with being more efficient in traffic. Not to mention the point Randya made below about using the other lane. I've just got home from my commute, at one point during which I had to change lanes to pass a car. Now why can't one expect drivers to do the same thing?


Originally posted by lamajo25
I don't know about Australia but around here a bike lane is made for bikes. It's wide enough in most places for bikes next to each other.

We have similar bike lanes in some places around here. I use them. However, there are some that I won't use for the simple fact that they either go nowhere or have obstacles that frankly make them dangerous. I am not about to start using those sort of "facilities" to keep somebody else happy.

Again, it's a matter of using one's own discretion. When staying out of traffic is a better option, I'll do it. However, when forced to claim the lane by circumstances, I won't hesitate. I'm yet to have any issues with the police when I've been doing this - despite doing it right in front of them on numerous occasions.

I do understand your concerns about riding strictly in a lane but if it's safe to stay out of traffic, it's most wise. I'm not trying to say ride in unsafe conditions. But around here the roads are paved and kept up.


Originally posted by lamajo25
The unfortunate thing is neither the motorists recognize them, nor the bicyclists obey most of them. This is where confusion begins and certain groups blame the other. The bicyclists blame the motorists and vise versus.

This is where we then need law enforcement and proper education. One of the things that amazes me is the extent to which people neglect these in the assumption that simply building "facilities" will make all of the world's problems disappear. Sure, it might be more politically visible, but what does it achieve?

If you take the right lane on a four-lane road, the motorists have a passing lane to use to get around you. Therefore, IMO, you are not impeding or obstructing traffic. Officer Friendly might have a different opinion, however.

You are absolutely right about Officer Friendly having a different opinion. If there is room to the right to which there are not problems ahead within visible sight, then there is no reason to be actually in the lane. Here is where the right lane on a four lane road becomes a problem. Four cars pull up to the stop light at red. At that same light a bicyclist has just turned right from the opposite direction of traffic to the right. Light goes green, both front cars start out at the same rate and accelerate the same. All four vehicles catch up to the bicyclist and the one car on the right wants to pass. He now has to back off to wait for the car to the left to move. The bicyclist has now impeded traffic.

Now say that car has had a chance to go around. He has now aggrevated the person behind him possibly not knowing there is a bicyclist ahead. He now guns it and the bicyclist is not close enough to the side and either creams him or has to slam on the brakes. Thus again impeding traffic or having caused a traffic accident. Yes the guy driving the car is at fault but the cyclist would still more than likely get cited for impeding the flow of traffic.


Now why can't one expect drivers to do the same thing?

Above is why. I understand a bicycle is more agile in traffic, for the same reason a motorcycle is also more agile. Two wheels, and people that figure that space is large enough, and I think I can get through there.


Usually those bike lanes are dangerously close to opening car doors, have hazardous drainage grates every block or so, and there are multiple closeley spaced intersecting cross streets and driveways. In these situations the bike lanes are, IMO, the least safe places to ride.

I was taught to ride in an actual safety course at one of the police departments I used to work at. It is actually a University Police Department that has their own bike patrol squad. When I took the class I was taught to look ahead to avoid any obstacles and to decifer if the bike can overtake the obstacle (We utilized mountain bikes so obviously if it's a road bike you wouldn't be climbing over it). I do remember the days of riding with my head down looking just in front of my tire to make sure I was going straight. Also by looking ahead I can compensate for hazards in the road. I'm not trying to say stay to the right if there is a car in say a bike lane unloading stuff, or a drainage grate that could be slippery, or a large amount of rocks in the roadway ahead to stay there. My opinion would be that in more circumstances than not a keeping to the right is more safe than trying to keep yourself in traffic with the large vehicles.

I live in a town where there aren't too many bike lanes on the main streets in town (which are actually highways, one going North and South the other going East) are mainly used for large traffic to include Semi-Trucks and other equipment. Our bike lanes are mostly on the side roads. They made the in town portions of the highway to give cyclist enough room to utilize part of the roadway but not to take over it. I still don't like utilizing that part, I much prefer to go to a side street that has hardly any traffic and utilize those areas. The worst part is I actually work right off that highway and the only other way in is a dirt road. Yes in some aspects utilizing the lanes of traffic are probably going to be better but in most aspects once around an obstacle the right is the best way to go.

It's not a lack in confidence in my riding abilities, and deffinately not a lack of knowledge of my rights as a cyclist. It's a lack of trust for the surrounding motorists.

Originally posted by lamajo25
Now say that car has had a chance to go around. He has now aggrevated the person behind him possibly not knowing there is a bicyclist ahead. He now guns it and the bicyclist is not close enough to the side and either creams him or has to slam on the brakes. Thus again impeding traffic or having caused a traffic accident. Yes the guy driving the car is at fault but the cyclist would still more than likely get cited for impeding the flow of traffic.

If it comes down to a choice between risking my life by riding too close to an opening car door, or risking a citation or fine by claiming the lane, I know which option I'll be taking.

Let's try this from a different approach. Actual accident statistics show that a rear-end accident by the car behind you has a low probability, whereas being hit by someone either turning left in front of you, or pulling out from a side street in front of you has a very high probability. Being visible by being to the left in the lane, is the most obvious way to avoid these accidents.

I don't think too much about slowing down a driver behind me for a few seconds if I know it's keeping me safer on my bike.

The whole concept of riding to the right to prevent 'impeding traffic' relegates bicyclists to second-class road user status, reinforces the 'bicycles as toys, not serious transportation arena', places me in more danger than if I take the lane, and reeks massively of discrimination and segregation. I don't buy any of it; knock yourself out trying to convince me otherwise, I'll still be riding in the lane, where I know I'm visible and safer than riding in the gutter, invisible and subject to all manner of road hazards.

Originally posted by lamajo25
It's not a lack in confidence in my riding abilities, and deffinately not a lack of knowledge of my rights as a cyclist. It's a lack of trust for the surrounding motorists.

Just one further comment here. How does riding in the gutter prevent you from being at risk from other motorists. As related in a post I made above, in the real world, drivers only give you as much room as you give yourself.

That's not a problem on roads with big wide spanky shoulders, but not every road has these. If I'm riding in the gutter, I'm leaving myself with no room to back off should a driver decide to get too close. Personally I'd rather utilise the space.

A couple of questions to both of you. First, by placing yourself behind a car, do you think that makes you actually more visible? Second, if you have just left a light and found that by taking the lane you feel safer, obvioulsy you are able to keep pace with the traffic since they are not yet up to speed. How much following distance do you leave. Enough for stopping or enough to be seen?

As with Motorcycles you are harder to see and easily placed into a blind spot. I'm nots saying ride the curb. The reason that Ride to the Right was designed was to place the cyclist directly into the side traffic's window. Not to place you in the danger of riding in traffic's way.

I do understand the theories that you guys are presenting, but I don't think just flat out pulling out into traffic and taking the lane is the safest route. As I said before I finally learned to ride with my head up. Look ahead. Be prepared. If you are in the curb, and someone is that close to you, you have gotten yourself into that position and you are going to get hurt. You should utilize the fact that people aren't watching out for you, only you are. Don't trust the fact that the drivers are seeing you. Trust yourself to back off or move over. You are less likely to get hurt. If you see a car pulled over ahead, look behind before you pull out and find a clear spot. Slow down and wait for the bulk of traffic to pass. The way you guys are talking you are just riding and making yourselves into moving targets that aren't going to stop or slow down to make room for yourself. Motorcyclists have the same problem. Much smaller vehicle and the reason for so many accidents is the fact that they don't know when to back themselves off.

Originally posted by lamajo25
A couple of questions to both of you. First, by placing yourself behind a car, do you think that makes you actually more visible?


It depends where the car is. If the car is in the actual lane, I would argue that yes it does, simply because this is where the drivers tend to be looking.


Originally posted by lamajo25
Second, if you have just left a light and found that by taking the lane you feel safer, obvioulsy you are able to keep pace with the traffic since they are not yet up to speed. How much following distance do you leave. Enough for stopping or enough to be seen?

Actually, I tend to be able to keep with traffic pretty well during my entire ride home from work, traffic lights or not, but I digress. As I said with the entire lane-claiming point from the start, I use discretion. I claim the lane for as long as I feel necessary.


Originally posted by lamajo25

The reason that Ride to the Right was designed was to place the cyclist directly into the side traffic's window. Not to place you in the danger of riding in traffic's way.

So what happens if I consider myself to be traffic? When I ride home from work, I'm effectively doing the same thing all the car drivers are doing (i.e. commuting), I'll do it the same way they do - regardless of the fact I'm on a bike. Maybe you can tell the "get out of the way of traffic" to all those car drivers that held me up this evening.


Originally posted by lamajo25

I do understand the theories that you guys are presenting, but I don't think just flat out pulling out into traffic and taking the lane is the safest route.

OK, this is the source of the misunderstanding. This is not a theory, this is something I have learned to do with the experience of over 100,000km of riding. It's not a situation of "just flat out pulling out into traffic and taking the lane" at all. It's a case of judging the situation, and knowing that the roundabout/traffic circle in front is too narrow to allow for safe overtaking, and making that point to all around me. It's about anticipating the hazard ahead of me and giving myself space to avoid it.

Again, over 100,000km of riding has taught me this. I'm wondering where Ride to the Right gets it's "knowledge" from.


Originally posted by lamajo25
If you are in the curb, and someone is that close to you, you have gotten yourself into that position and you are going to get hurt. You should utilize the fact that people aren't watching out for you, only you are.

The way I ride is designed specifically to accommodate this.


Originally posted by lamajo25
Don't trust the fact that the drivers are seeing you. Trust yourself to back off or move over. You are less likely to get hurt.

Backing off is only an option if you've given yourself sufficient room to do it.


Originally posted by lamajo25
If you see a car pulled over ahead, look behind before you pull out and find a clear spot.

If I'm in a position where parked cars are going to be a problem, I'm not riding correctly. I feel much safer giving a hand signal well in advance and gradually merging into the lane. If it's a line of parked cars, I feel safer holding a consistent line in the lane rather than trying to weave in and out of them. Being hit from behind by cars accounts for a surprisingly small percentage of cycling injuries, and happens surprisingly rarely when you're riding consistently.


Originally posted by lamajo25
The way you guys are talking you are just riding and making yourselves into moving targets that aren't going to stop or slow down to make room for yourself.

Nobody has given me one good reason why I should yet. I asked this question in another thread and got no answer, so I'll pose it again here. How do you know lane-claiming is dangerous? I'm not asking why you think it's dangerous, or why it "surely must be" dangerous, I'm asking for some basic proof that it is.

I consider myself to be living proof that it isn't. Now let's see some contrary evidence.


Originally posted by lamajo25
Motorcyclists have the same problem. Much smaller vehicle and the reason for so many accidents is the fact that they don't know when to back themselves off.

Again, how do you know? Do you have some statistics that can prove that motorcyclists have "so many accidents", or that they are caused by lane claiming? And can these statistics (assuming they exist) be accurately translated to cyclists? To be honest, the more "lane claiming is dangerous" propoganda I read, the more it sounds like blatant scare-mongering.

Originally posted by lamajo25
The reason that Ride to the Right was designed was to place the cyclist directly into the side traffic's window. Not to place you in the danger of riding in traffic's way.

Ride to the right (or left for our UK and aussie friends), as far as I am aware was designed to make it easier for people to pass cyclists, not to make the cyclist invisible or deny them the right to the road.

You may hug the curb all day, that is your right. I may not feel safe there and take the lane, that is my right.

We are kind of arguing angels on the heads of a pin here, sure an officer could give you a ticket for exercising your right, but I think it could easily be beaten in court.

As for the scenario where the cyclist has taken the right lane when there are two lanes going that direction and the motorist must (gasp) change lanes to go around: boo hoo, small tear waaah. If that is the worst thing that happens to that motorist that day, they should express gratitude to the deity of their choice. The cyclist is definitely not "impeding" there, as there is an entire clear lane for passing.

take care,

Jester

As always, this subject will come down to courteousy and logical thinking. Some here may have neither .. some may have both.

Originally posted by Stor Mand
As always, this subject will come down to courteousy and logical thinking. Some here may have neither .. some may have both.

... and of course, we should not forget that courteousy is a two-way street (pun intended). :D

Go Chris Go!

Just this last Saturday I was riding on a 5 lane, 2 in either direction and a turn lane in the middle, road that runs through the town where I live. There are grates that run in the same diredtion as the highway just out side the line, so I'm out of that area. This leaves me the area inside the right lane where I usually ride just to the right of where the right hand tire of the autos normally run and this usually caused no problems. How ever after the first (.) who tried to take my head off with a mirror, while I was holding the line and there was a full open lane to his left, I moved to the center of the right lane to avoid a repeat! Mind you this was in a 45 mph zone and I was doing about 25 when I was almost hit. Many times I think people try to get as close to you as they can, for what purpose I have no idea. I try to avoid this road most of the time, but there are some streches that I have no choice because there are no other roads running in the same direction.

In the state where I live the law reads that I should ride as far to the right as possible, unless there are conditions that prevent this. Motorist passing too close is one of these conditions!:mad:

Originally posted by uciflylow
Many times I think people try to get as close to you as they can, for what purpose I have no idea.

Didn't you know that changing lanes is extremely dangerous in a car? You must turn your head to check all 'round you, then use the gas pedal and steering wheel to move your car. Sometimes you need to answer the cell phone or fix the radio/cd playre. And all the while you must look out for those pesky other cars and sometimes EVEN bicyclists! Oh, My, GAWD! ;)

I hear you on this. I keep wondering when a truck with big mirrors is gonna take me off the road. . .

... and of course, we should not forget that courteousy is a two-way street (pun intended).

This is where the safety thing comes in. Most motorists don't care that you are trying to be safe, to them it's not courteous. You are in their way and now have aggravated them.


Just this last Saturday I was riding on a 5 lane, 2 in either direction and a turn lane in the middle, road that runs through the town where I live. There are grates that run in the same diredtion as the highway just out side the line, so I'm out of that area. This leaves me the area inside the right lane where I usually ride just to the right of where the right hand tire of the autos normally run and this usually caused no problems. How ever after the first (.) who tried to take my head off with a mirror, while I was holding the line and there was a full open lane to his left, I moved to the center of the right lane to avoid a repeat! Mind you this was in a 45 mph zone and I was doing about 25 when I was almost hit. Many times I think people try to get as close to you as they can, for what purpose I have no idea. I try to avoid this road most of the time, but there are some streches that I have no choice because there are no other roads running in the same direction.

Exactly what I've been trying to push. There are more dangers of taking the lane than not. I'm not saying don't do it, but more take the time and courtesy to wait for the right time. After all you are on a bicycle with no doors or side walls to protect yourself. All you have is your senses.

As for the legal aspect, unless stated otherwise in your own local laws stay to the right, it is for your and everyone elses safety, not for the right of being a bicyclist. As stated in my earlier posts the fact that the laws are written they way they are, are for a reason to keep the flow of traffic moving at a regular pace. If you are in the lane and cause an accident to occur because you have moved out to take the lane when it wasn't safe for you or the motorists you will be at fault. Even if you have a good story as to why you moved into the lane. Arizona Supreme Court just convicted a person for racing with another person that was "involved" in an accident. The person convicted wasn't directly involved in the collision it self but by racing, by definition he was "involved" (and please feel free to look up the definition of involved). So as a person on a bike, taking a lane and causing an accident you may be involved.

The safety and legal aspects both run together and should be heeded by all.

Originally posted by foehn
I keep wondering when a truck with big mirrors is gonna take me off the road. . .

Once I was riding on a two-lane road on Orcas Island, Washington. My partner and I took a break and were sitting in the grass on the side of the road having a drink of H2O when a guy in a pickup truck went by with some 8 or 10 foot 2 X 4s laid diagonally in the bed of his truck. If we had been cycling on the shoulder adjacent to the lane, those 2 x 4s would have smacked both of us in the back of the head! This was back in the days before helmets, too...

Originally posted by lamajo25
Most motorists don't care that you are trying to be safe, to them it's not courteous. You are in their way and now have aggravated them.

Exactly what I've been trying to push. There are more dangers of taking the lane than not. I'm not saying don't do it, but more take the time and courtesy to wait for the right time. After all you are on a bicycle with no doors or side walls to protect yourself. All you have is your senses.

As for the legal aspect, unless stated otherwise in your own local laws stay to the right, it is for your and everyone elses safety, not for the right of being a bicyclist. As stated in my earlier posts the fact that the laws are written they way they are, are for a reason to keep the flow of traffic moving at a regular pace. If you are in the lane and cause an accident to occur because you have moved out to take the lane when it wasn't safe for you or the motorists you will be at fault. Even if you have a good story as to why you moved into the lane. Arizona Supreme Court just convicted a person for racing with another person that was "involved" in an accident. The person convicted wasn't directly involved in the collision it self but by racing, by definition he was "involved" (and please feel free to look up the definition of involved). So as a person on a bike, taking a lane and causing an accident you may be involved.

The safety and legal aspects both run together and should be heeded by all.

I'm all for courtesy, but all of your arguments support discrimination against cyclists, simply because they are slower than motor vehicles. If you are cycling in front of a motor vehicle, it is the motorist's responsibility to yield ROW to you and pass only when it is safe to do so. As the leading vehicle, it is your decision to make as to when it is safe to ride out of the flow of traffic, or to take the lane. The motorist behind you is not likely to be concerned with the drainage grate, the parked car with the opening door, the broken glass, or the loose gravel on the shoulder where he 'wants' you to be cycling instead of in the lane. As best I can figure, a motorists' 'right' to speed and drive unsafely around cyclists isn't in the constitution. Simply put, it is the motorist that is in control of a weapon of mass destruction, they are using PUBLIC streets, and they need to be more circumspect and more careful when driving in the vicinity of other road users, particularly cyclists and pedestrians. That the cops and the courts are biased against cyclists is no real surprise; a 'jury of your peers' is usually anything but, if you are a cyclist. As I recall, you said earlier that you were a cop. Why am I not surprised...

Originally posted by lamajo25
If you are in the lane and cause an accident to occur because you have moved out to take the lane when it wasn't safe for you or the motorists you will be at fault. Even if you have a good story as to why you moved into the lane.
*snip*
So as a person on a bike, taking a lane and causing an accident you may be involved.


I don't care who you work for, that is the worst legal interpretation I have ever read. I am not a lawyer, but even I can see you are speaking from an orfice other than your mouth here. What on earth do you mean by moving into the lane when it wasn't safe? It is a judgement call based on circumstances, so having a "good story" is EXACTLY what the laws says is required to be able to take the lane legally.

A bicycle in ALL STATES OF THE UNION has all the rights and duties of any other vehicle except that which is explicitly described as different from other vehicles. Since you are from Arizona here is this clause from the AZ code:


28-812. Applicability of traffic laws to bicycle riders

A person riding a bicycle on a roadway or on a shoulder adjoining a roadway is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title...

If you are obeying the law and take a lane, if someone else hits you it is their fault. Now, wether its their fault or yours, you are still squished, so maybe don't push it ;) For our logic impaired friend, here is the Arizona code that specifies that it is legal to take the lane.


28-815. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths; prohibition of motor vehicle traffic on bike paths

A. A person riding a bicycle on 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, except under any of the following situations:
1. If overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
2. If preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
3. If reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals or surface hazards.
4. If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is too narrow for. a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.


So, in summary, if you are a legal road user, such as a bicyclist taking the lane in accordance with statute e.g. LEGALLY, and someone out of the blue runs you over, it is that persons fault 100%. The fact that you were traveling slower or taking the lane is immaterial, the person that hit you has a duty to drive safely enough to avoid any and all obstacles in their path INCLUDING bicyclists. If they don't do this, they are breaking the law, and are negligent.

take care,

Jester

P.S. I will reiterate that I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Originally posted by lamajo25
This is where the safety thing comes in. Most motorists don't care that you are trying to be safe, to them it's not courteous. You are in their way and now have aggravated them.

Read the comments I made earlier in the thread about "bullies". Also, how does one actually know why a motorist is aggravated? Have you ever asked one of them at the time they were aggravated? Even if you had, there's no guarantee that they will be giving you the real reason. For all I know, they might just be in a bad mood to begin with. Tough. My personal safety is more important to me than whether or not someone else can control their temper.

Originally posted by lamajo25
Exactly what I've been trying to push. There are more dangers of taking the lane than not.

Again, have you any proof of this? Frankly I'm a little tired of reading this "cycling is dangerous/lane claiming is dangerous/walking outside unless you're in a tank is dangerous" scaremongering. I have enough experience in the real world to reject it. Yes, one should use discretion in lane-claiming, but we established that 20 posts ago.

I was already in the "lane" and had been for about 1 mile when the ahole tried to brush me! There was enough room for me and an auto to pass in the same direction! I have nearly been swiped two times and both was becuse I was trying to hug the curb on the right! I have NEVER had an auto screach up behind me, yet, and threten to run me over flat out!
I beleave that you are much safer riding closter to the middle of the lane than hugging the curb!

Okay we'll talk legalities. everything that is in quotes is from http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/title28.htm

Feel free to check. I will interpret them for all.


28-101. Definitions 6. "Bicycle" means a device, including a racing wheelchair, that is propelled by human power and on which a person may ride and that has either:

Just for clarification on a bicycle.


28-812. Applicability of traffic laws to bicycle riders A person riding a bicycle on a roadway or on a shoulder adjoining a roadway is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title, except special rules in this article and except provisions of this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title that by their nature can have no application.

You as a cyclist have the same rights as a driver and also are subject to all of the laws that govern the roads.


28-815. Riding on roadway and bicycle path; bicycle path usage A. A person riding a bicycle on 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, except under any of the following situations:

28-815A That one is pretty much self explanitory. It states if you are going slower than the flow of traffic you must stay to the right as close to the curb as practical or the edge of the roadway.

Now the exceptions:


1. If overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction. 2. If preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. 3. If reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals or surface hazards. 4. If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

These are the only reasons to be taking the lane. Then as 28-815A states you must go back to the right side of the road. I do not dispute the fact that if you see a hazard in front of you, you can't take the lane but here is where I will show you the legal ramifications if you do it.


28-701. Reasonable and prudent speed; prima facie evidence; exceptions: E. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at a speed that is less than the speed that is reasonable and prudent under existing conditions.

28-701E is in reference to the driving to slowly. I do understand that the law actually states motor vehicle, and by definition a bicycle is not a motor vehicle but as in 28-812 a cyclist is bound by the same laws.

Here is the accident law (about the racer) that I was talking about.


28-661. Accidents involving death or personal injuries; failure to stop; classification; driver license revocation: B. A driver who is involved in an accident resulting in death or serious physical injury as defined in section 13-105 and who fails to stop or to comply with the requirements of section 28-663 is guilty of a class 4 felony, except that if a driver caused the accident the driver is guilty of a class 3 felony

If you take a lane and cause that accident you are liable. Even under 28-661A you must stop.

As a cyclist you are governed by all the laws in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 up to Article 3. Yes you can get nailed for DUI on a bicycle.

Legalities. I have been interpreting laws for 4 years on top of a 2 year degree in Criminal Justice. So 6 years in the field. Interpret these as you wish. But as you can see you actually need to break apart each sentence and put it into terms everyone can understand.

As for the safety, several people have already stated that they have come across several very dangerous situations.

And as for discussion submitted from another forum user http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36383
Maybe this will help. Yes this is research done by a small group, but all research is done with small groups and they come up with the numbers accordingly.

One more thing, as for the motorists not respecting the fact that you are allowed to be on the roadway. I guess it's because I live in a state where you can expect 10-15 miles per hour faster no matter what. If the sign says 35 you can expect 50. If it says 50 you can expect 65. And so on and so forth. The drivers here are probably worse than California driver. The reason CA gets a bad rap is because their officer's are willing to get out of the car. At 110 degrees most highway patrolmen won't actually stop a car until 10-15 over. And everyone knows what heat does to a person, aggravation, frustration. And you can't argue that I've lived in Arizona for 20 years.

Originally posted by lamajo25
And as for discussion submitted from another forum user http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36383
Maybe this will help. Yes this is research done by a small group, but all research is done with small groups and they come up with the numbers accordingly.


It doesn't really. Not just the small sample, but the small sample selected from a very select group to begin with. It doesn't really tell us anything unless you're a racer, and then not very much. Either way, I'm pretty much finished with this thread unless someone has something new to offer the debate.

As I said right at the start, the as far to the right/left as practical is very subjective, and there are many, many situations I encounter every day where it could be argued that the centre of the lane is practical. I'll use a shoulder if there is a suitable one provided, but if there are obstacles in the way I'll be in the lane, and where I ride in the lane will be judged by the specific circumstances I encounter in that situation.

That is all I have to say for now.

Ride safe.

10-4. Over and Out.

So Cris is what you are saying that even though the law states you must keep to the right as much as practical (which there isn't a single road in the U.S. I don't know about Australia that is bad enough to take the lane for more than a hazard) you would completely disregard the laws because you feel that it's safer in the middle. It's a perception thing. An officer is probably going to have a different perception. An officer is going to take it into a safety perspective and you look at it as It's your lane also.

And to change your mind on the safety issue. This is research from the U.S. Federal government. It's states that 14% of all fatalities are accounted for in the U.S. are from pedestrian and cyclists. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safety/saferjourney/Library/pdf/pbcat.pdf

This is a very reliable source, because they get their information from every law enforcement agency in the United States in reference to every accident that has occurred in each jurisdiction.

This one is really good. It actually breaks it down to what type of crashes they are.

Statistics that don't exist? http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safety/fourthlevel/pdf/ctanbike.pdf

For some reason I'm absolutely astonished at how many cyclists between the ages of 22-44 were more or less rear ended out of the 61,830 cyclists either injured or killed in 1995. Just amazing.
I calculated an astonishing 13.9% of all of the crashes were a vehicle overtaking a cyclist or a cyclist trying to avoid a hazard ahead (Taking The Lane).

Originally posted by lamajo25
So Cris is what you are saying that even though the law states you must keep to the right as much as practical (which there isn't a single road in the U.S. I don't know about Australia that is bad enough to take the lane for more than a hazard) you would completely disregard the laws because you feel that it's safer in the middle. It's a perception thing. An officer is probably going to have a different perception. An officer is going to take it into a safety perspective and you look at it as It's your lane also.

If I may jump in here - I follow the same principle as Chris on this -
The reason for taking the lane in certain situations is BECAUSE IT IS SAFER. Motorists are notoriously bad at judging when it is and isn't safe to pass a cyclist - you have to do it for them. They follow the idea that if they think they can pass they will. On a narrow lane they will take this decision even if there ISN'T enough room to allow a metre or so clearance from a cyclist. If you ride in the gutter on a narrow lane they WILL pass you, often leaving mere centimetres of space. This isn't very safe by any sane persons reckoning.

If you ride a bit further into the lane it will be obvious to even the most tunnel visioned motorist that there isn't enough room to pass in that lane and they must move at least partially into the next one. To do this they must make sure that lane is clear and indicate when they do it, just like a proper overtaking move. Doing this they will pass with a safe clearance virtually every time.

Occasionally some dipwad will still try to pass unsafely. Generally when this happens, and if I have time to do it, I'll move even further into the lane until they get the message. They always back down. Always. I do the same thing to people trying to left hook me - I keep my current speed and start moving towards them accross the lane. I will not be cowed into submission by these people despite my supposedly more vulnerable position. The sooner you learn this assertiveness, the safer you'll be. Guaranteed.

The bridge I ride over to get to work has ten foot lanes (three in each direction), no shoulder and very heavy traffic. There simply isn't room for a motorist to pass without crossing the lane markings. When the lanes are chokka I'll take the centre of the lane without hesitation. I've been using the above approach for several years without incident. It is perfectly legal, whether the police think so or not.

Every time I move too close to the kerb some motorist passes me too closely WITHOUT FAIL, so I ride at least two feet from the kerb. If course it helps if you can maintain a respectable velocity. In morning rush hour I regularly ride at the same speed of faster than the traffic over this bridge.

This leads me to the rule of thumb I use in lane claiming - the faster I go relative to prevailing traffic, the further into the lane I ride. This only applies to narrow lanes where there isn't room to share. If the lane is wide enough I alway keep to the kerbside (but not too close - I usually strike a line a metre or so from the traffic.)

You also seem to be confusing the terms 'practical' and 'possible'. As far right as practicle leaves it open to the cyclist to decide how far right this is, and this may well be the centre of the lane. In the situation I describe above it is not practical to ride as close to the kerb as possible. It is possible to ride right in the gutter, but there's no way in hell that's where I'm gonna ride. If a cop pulls you up over where you're riding in the lane, bear in mind that most, if not all, cops have no experience of riding a bicycle in traffic and are not in a position to decide what is and isn't practicable for cyclists. All they can do is enforce the law as it is written.

Originally posted by lamajo25

I calculated an astonishing 13.9% of all of the crashes were a vehicle overtaking a cyclist or a cyclist trying to avoid a hazard ahead (Taking The Lane).

So what caused the other 86.1%?

Originally posted by lamajo25
So Cris is what you are saying that even though the law states you must keep to the right as much as practical (which there isn't a single road in the U.S. I don't know about Australia that is bad enough to take the lane for more than a hazard)

Umm, did you actually read my post above?


I'll use a shoulder if there is a suitable one provided, but if there are obstacles in the way I'll be in the lane,

It might be a good idea to actually read someone's post before commenting on it in future.


Originally posted by lamajo25
you would completely disregard the laws because you feel that it's safer in the middle. It's a perception thing.

Yep. I'm sorry, but the law says I only have to ride as far to the outside as is practical. I don't regard it as practical to ride in an unsafe position on the road.


Originally posted by lamajo25
An officer is probably going to have a different perception. An officer is going to take it into a safety perspective and you look at it as It's your lane also.

It is my lane also - I pay my taxes, and unlike motorists, I don't scrounge of the government for subsidised fuel either. As far as the officer "probably" being likely to have a different perspective, I'm yet to meet this mystery "officer" in over 100,000km of riding, despite having claimed the lane in front of more officers than I can be bothered to count over the years. In anycase, I'm more concerned with what the judge will say after I go beyond the officer.


Originally posted by lamajo25

This one is really good. It actually breaks it down to what type of crashes they are.

Statistics that don't exist? http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safety/fourthlevel/pdf/ctanbike.pdf

Read on - from the document you cited above:

*Motorist overtaking failed to detect - 1.3% (less likely when claiming the lane it puts one in a position that is easier to detect)

* Motorist lost control - 0.6% (doesn't really matter where you ride here, as the diagram in the document shows)

* Motorist overtaking misjudged passing space - 1.2% (also less likely claiming the lane - read Allister's post above)

* Motorist overtaking counteractive evasive actions - 2%. (possibly a problem claiming the lane, although lane claiming still gives me time to back off if necessary. In anycase, I think riding in a consistent line is more important here than one's position in or out of the lane)

Just a few examples - I can't be bothered going through the whole document because PDF files are so slow.

But:



Yet because bicycling is so forgiving, the number of persons who die while bicycling in the US is very small: fewer than 900 per year. That's compared to 5,000 pedestrians, almost 40,000 in cars, 60,000 from air pollution, and hundreds of thousands from lack of exercise. Overall, bicycling is safer than motorcycling, horse-riding, water-skiing, or swimming. Even the overall risk involved in a bicycle crash is much less than in a car crash. Cars on highways crash at high speeds, with tremendous damaging forces, and tangle with tractor-trailers 30-40 times larger (a much greater difference than between cars and bikes).

There’s more:

-- About 85% of all bicycle crashes requiring medical treatment didn't involve a moving car at all; the bicyclist simply slid, fell, or ran into something. That’s why helmets and gloves are important.

-- In the 15% that were car/bike crashes, over 9 out of 10 were avoidable; they happened with crossing and turning traffic at driveways, intersections, and in bikelanes.

-- Over 50% of adult cycling deaths were avoidable; they involved bicycling at night without lights.

EDIT: I forgot to site my sources.

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/PracticalCycling/VCIntro.htm

You ride by your statistics, I'll ride by mine - and we'll see who's still riding in 10 years time (I should be up to around 300,000km by then if I keep up at my current rate).

Taking the lane forces the car to pass you like a larger vehicle rather than passing close to you and hitting you with there mirrors, dualy wheels, trailer, or whatever else they have. Thet are legally obligated to pass you in a safe manner at a safe distance. I do not see the drivers being held to those standards by Lamajo25.

Originally posted by lamajo25
So Cris is what you are saying that even though the law states you must keep to the right as much as practical (which there isn't a single road in the U.S. I don't know about Australia that is bad enough to take the lane for more than a hazard) you would completely disregard the laws because you feel that it's safer in the middle. It's a perception thing. An officer is probably going to have a different perception. An officer is going to take it into a safety perspective and you look at it as It's your lane also.


Okay - first off the Law you're quoting only applies to one country. Yes UK, Australian (and probably Canadian etc.) law is probably pretty similar but it may differ slightly in words or interpretation.

I'm also concerned with your interpretation of the law. I admit my law degree is a UK degree rather than a US one but your interpretations seem a little odd.

As Allister points out the terms 'Practical' and 'Possible' are quite different, the former implying judgement that would be subject to a test of reasonableness.

You clearly quote the exception "If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane." The important word being safely. If the person operating the bicycle believes that the lane is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane than they have a legal right to take the lane. Not just for hazzard avoidance as you imply.

The question of reasonable and prudent speed is a bit of a red-herring. It would be unreasonable to expect a cyclist to pedal at 50mph - providing they are not deliberately riding slower than an average cyclist this is irrelevant.

You state that if you take the lane and cause an accident you are liable, is again irrelevant. If you are taking the lane for a valid reason such as the lane being too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side then you won't be guilty of anything more than common sense.

If a car passes you and gets into an accident you are not at fault the driver of the passing vehicle is. I have noticed a lot of people passing me with oncoming traffic when I am riding on the edge of the road. This is not a safe condition. For the oncoming driver or myself. If this person gets in an accident because they made an ilegal pass I am only stoping as a good samaritan.

I dunno about you guys but whenever possible I take the sidewalk. heh
I do pay extra close attention to pedistrians as the last thing I want is to bump into one and either go flying in the street or send them into the street.

As I said right at the start, the as far to the right/left as practical is very subjective, and there are many, many situations I encounter every day where it could be argued that the centre of the lane is practical. I'll use a shoulder if there is a suitable one provided, but if there are obstacles in the way I'll be in the lane, and where I ride in the lane will be judged by the specific circumstances I encounter in that situation.

That is all I have to say for now.

Ride safe.


I don't play games with cars, my feelings are i want that car around me and way from me as soon as possible.
I only see about 20-40 cars in 2 hours, and they aren't even looking for bikes around here. I ride on the right side of the stripe.
If I'm a hill and I'm slowing someone down I just ride on the shoulder and allow them to pass. I don't want to slow anyone down. I haven't had a flat for years, not that would be worth getting killed over. Usually drivers appreciate it and wave.

FXjohn

Originally posted by Cyclone
I dunno about you guys but whenever possible I take the sidewalk. heh
That's even worse as most drivers don't even check the sidewalks. They go on the belief that pedestrians (who "belong" on sidewalks) will yeild to them. Why else do you think so many people pull through the crosswalk at intersections?

Well to be honest, there are hardly any sidewalks where I ride that has intersections that i'd be afraid of. Most of the intersections I go through are 4 way stops with stop signs and usually don't have much traffic. If I was living in the middle of the city however things would be different.

I do know what you're talking about though and it pisses me off when I see drivers doing that especially when there are people actually trying to cross and have to go around peoples cars.

The only time I ever ride on the sidewalk is to goto the store which is about 2 miles away and I'm usually on the sidewalk on the way there because it's an uphill battle. The ride back is nice though :)

On a side note, do speeding laws apply to cyclist too?