Google sponsored links
I need reality check here. MD has a Bill in with the following text:
(D) THE DRIVER OF A MOTOR VEHICLE SHALL YIELD THE RIGHT–OF–WAY TO A PERSON WHO IS RIDING A BICYCLE, A PLAY VEHICLE, AN EPAMD, OR A MOTOR SCOOTER IN A DESIGNATED BICYCLE LANE.
SHA does not like the wording and is purposing the following amendment [deletions] Additions:
(D) THE DRIVER OF A [MOTOR] VEHICLE WHO INTENDS TO MOVE THE VEHICLE LEFT OR RIGHT INTO OR ACROSS A DESIGNATED BIKE LANE;TO TURN LEFT OR RIGHT INTO OR ACROSS A DESIGNATED BIKE LANE AT AN ALLEY, DRIVEWAY, OR PRIVATE ROAD; OR TO EXIT AN ALLEY, DRIVEWAY, OR PRIVATE ROAD INTO OR ACROSS A DESIGNATED BIKE LANE SHALL YIELD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO A PERSON WHO IS LAWFULLY RIDING A BICYCLE, [A PLAY VEHICLE,] AN EPAMD, OR A MOTOR SCOOTER IN A DESIGNATED BIKE LANE.
Does everyone here think this is ok wording and cyclists should support this?
Also if anyone has a better Right-of-way in a bike lane please post.
Thanks
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
I suppose the original wording could be interpreted to suggest that a car would have to yield to a bike at an intersection no matter what, even when the bike is approaching a two-way stop.
The second wording is more confusing but potentially more accurately reflects the intent of the law.
I agree with rwp, but both versions don't address the main problem: cyclists passing motorists on the right when the motorist slows to prepare for a right turn. In fact, they encourage that behavior in cyclists.
Cyclists should be discouraged from passing on the right, and encouraged to slow down when a motorist in the adjacent lane slows, stay behind them, and probably merge left and pass on the left.
The wording of the ammendment may allow motorists to decide for themselves whom is LAWFULLY riding in the lane. If the motorists decides the cyclist is not riding lawfully, he may feel he has the right of way. However, if the motorist understands that simply being on a bicycle in the bike lane is lawful then he may respect the law (provided any motorist actually reads the law).
Why are motor scooters being allowed in the bike lane? Here in Toronto, bicycles and bicycles only are allowed in the bike lane. Nothing else. Are the scooters they refer to the medical kind or the Vespa kind? And what is designated a 'play vehicle?'
I agree with rwp, but both versions don't address the main problem: cyclists passing motorists on the right when the motorist slows to prepare for a right turn. In fact, they encourage that behavior in cyclists.
Cyclists should be discouraged from passing on the right, and encouraged to slow down when a motorist in the adjacent lane slows, stay behind them, and probably merge left and pass on the left.
You know, while I understand what you are trying to do, and to say, perhaps the bigger issue is not that cyclists are passing on the right, but that motorists are passing on the left, and then chose to turn without any indication (except for the slowing, which we are supposed to "read" and interpret).
This occurs due to the vast difference in speed between the vehicles of interest.
If everyone indicated what they were going to do (use signals) and really merged, then there would not be a problem.
Cyclists "pass on the right" as they simply do not know that the other vehicle is turning... (except for the "mind reading" bit you propose: "encouraged to slow down when a motorist in the adjacent lane slows")
Motor scooters are supposed to be 20mph max kind and they are allowed in bike lanes but not MUPs in MD.
A play vehicle is essentially a kids tricycle or big wheel. (Edit: the key difference is small wheels. 14" max if I remember right.)
Sounds like a given, the bike lane should be treated as a real lane, and when crossing the lane, you need to yield to traffic.
You know, while I understand what you are trying to do, and to say, perhaps the bigger issue is not that cyclists are passing on the right, but that motorists are passing on the left, and then chose to turn without any indication (except for the slowing, which we are supposed to "read" and interpret).
This occurs due to the vast difference in speed between the vehicles of interest.
If everyone indicated what they were going to do (use signals) and really merged, then there would not be a problem.
Cyclists "pass on the right" as they simply do not know that the other vehicle is turning... (except for the "mind reading" bit you propose: "encouraged to slow down when a motorist in the adjacent lane slows")
If a motorist is slowing down you better know why before you get on either side of his vehicle.
StrangeWill is right. It is a given-- traffic crossing a lane must first yield to traffic in that lane. Duh!
So we can eliminate paragraph (D) entirely-- problem solved.
That's the short answer. The long answer, which should be as unnecessary as paragraph (D), follows:
The principles of right-of-way are well established by other laws (as well as widely accepted traffic principles). Paragraph (D) is therefore unnecessary at best (as are the vast majority of bicycle specific laws, BTW).
Paragraph (D) cannot help anything. The only question that remains is how much damage it will do.
The original wording of paragraph (D) is problematic. While some of the changes the SHA suggests are good (eliminating 'motor' and play vehicle), taken as a whole the suggested changes are a nightmare. The SHA threw everything in there but the kitchen sink. What a hoot! The revised paragraph (D) is absurd and should be opposed by everyone with a brain (although fairly typical of a government agency).
My strong preference would be to eliminate paragraph (D) entirely although I realise that a lot of people will have problems with such a simple solution.
Note: I had to do a Yahoo! search to find out what a SHA is- the first word is 'state', the second word is 'highway' and it doesn't matter what the third word is.
I voted "does nothing for" because nobody will ever read it, and when you are in the bike lane they will come over, cut you off, or right hook you regardless of what some law says. If you aren't square in the front of them at an intersection, you're road kill.
If a motorist is slowing down you better know why before you get on either side of his vehicle.
HH, it is not a matter of my "get[ting] on either side of his vehicle," but rather a matter of his getting on my left side and immediately, or much too shortly thereafter, deciding to turn right across my path.
If a motorist is slowing down you better know why before you get on either side of his vehicle.
First read what John E wrote, then consider that the motorist may have gotten on the side of my vehicle, not the other way around.
It is far more likely for a motorist to overtake a cyclist, then the other way around.
Paragraph 'D' is irrelvant. You left out paragraph 'E' which states that "A driver of a motor vehicle may maim, dismember or kill a cyclist providing said motorist did not see the cyclist. If the cyclist was not seen the motorist shall face no fines, persecution or legal action"
I suppose the original wording could be interpreted to suggest that a car would have to yield to a bike at an intersection no matter what, even when the bike is approaching a two-way stop.
The second wording is more confusing but potentially more accurately reflects the intent of the law.
We got some comments last year from MDOT that a right-of-way in a bike lane would be in conflict in some intersections, a point that none of the cycling advocates got since we don't have bike lanes going through intersections. If one has a right-of-way in a facility then when that facility ends so does the right-of-way, no? If someone can articulate why the right-of-way would continue it might be helpful for us to address MDOT/SHA's concerns.
StrangeWill is right. It is a given-- traffic crossing a lane must first yield to traffic in that lane. Duh!
So we can eliminate paragraph (D) entirely-- problem solved.
That's the short answer. The long answer, which should be as unnecessary as paragraph (D), follows:
The principles of right-of-way are well established by other laws (as well as widely accepted traffic principles). Paragraph (D) is therefore unnecessary at best (as are the vast majority of bicycle specific laws, BTW).
Paragraph (D) cannot help anything. The only question that remains is how much damage it will do.
The original wording of paragraph (D) is problematic. While some of the changes the SHA suggests are good (eliminating 'motor' and play vehicle), taken as a whole the suggested changes are a nightmare. The SHA threw everything in there but the kitchen sink. What a hoot! The revised paragraph (D) is absurd and should be opposed by everyone with a brain (although fairly typical of a government agency).
My strong preference would be to eliminate paragraph (D) entirely although I realise that a lot of people will have problems with such a simple solution.
You are very close to my point of view, the problem is I am in a minority position here and I'm not sure on the best way to handle that.
FWIW I have mixed feelings about eliminating play vehicle as many parts of the state do not have sidewalks so a bike lane could be the only pace a kid could ride his bike (I saw a father jogging behind a kid in a play vehicle in a local bike lane (no sidewalk) a while back.)
Note: I had to do a Yahoo! search to find out what a SHA is- the first word is 'state', the second word is 'highway' and it doesn't matter what the third word is.
When I first moved here I noticed that there were signs for SHA Garage near the airport and I thought it was where some middle-eastern oil baron kept his fleet of limos for when he came to town. :o
Paragraph 'D' is irrelvant. You left out paragraph 'E' which states that "A driver of a motor vehicle may maim, dismember or kill a cyclist providing said motorist did not see the cyclist. If the cyclist was not seen the motorist shall face no fines, persecution or legal action"
+1 I might use that in some form. It appeals to my sarcastic sense of humor.
if that becomes a 'rule of the road', will that make bike lanes vehicular?
I agree with rwp, but both versions don't address the main problem: cyclists passing motorists on the right when the motorist slows to prepare for a right turn. In fact, they encourage that behavior in cyclists.
That's only a problem in your imagination. I pass cars all the time in the bikelane, and expect them to respect the space by not entering it unannounced, just like any other vehicle lane.
If a car driver wishes to cross the bikelane, then the onus is entirely on them to make sure they have enough room to pass the cyclist, slow and turn without infringing on the cyclist's line of travel eg. by requiring them to either brake or turn to accomodate the move. If they don't have room to do this, they must slow down and turn behind the cyclist.
It's the same rules that apply to any turn across a traffic lane. I have no idea why you think it contradicts the 'vehicular rules of the road'. It is you that is putting cyclists at risk by not requiring traffic to give way to them when the 'vehicular rules of the road' dictate that they should.
Cyclists should be discouraged from passing on the right, and encouraged to slow down when a motorist in the adjacent lane slows, stay behind them, and probably merge left and pass on the left.
Which directly contradicts the 'vehicular rules of the road' by requiring cyclists that are continuing in the bike lane to give way to those that are crossing it.
It doesn't matter who is passing whom, the same rule applies - crossing traffic gives way to through traffic. Or is that too simple for you?
The wording of the ammendment may allow motorists to decide for themselves whom is LAWFULLY riding in the lane. If the motorists decides the cyclist is not riding lawfully, he may feel he has the right of way. However, if the motorist understands that simply being on a bicycle in the bike lane is lawful then he may respect the law (provided any motorist actually reads the law).
I daresay it's to distinguish them from wrong way riders, which is a pretty unambiguous distinction.
I think the first version is better. Clear, concise, and unambiguous. "yield right-of-way" is weird language though. Why not "give way"?
I do question the need for it at all though. Aren't the normal rules for overtaking and turning sufficient?
First read what John E wrote, then consider that the motorist may have gotten on the side of my vehicle, not the other way around.
It is far more likely for a motorist to overtake a cyclist, then the other way around.
Not when you ride as fast as Helmut over here, he does at LEAST 55mph.
After reading the rest of the bicycle (http://www.sha.state.md.us/exploremd/bicyclists/OPPE/laws/acom_bike_laws1.pdf)laws in that state, I can understand why the SHA has asked for an amendment - It's to make the clause as incoherent as the rest of them.
After reading the rest of the bicycle (http://www.sha.state.md.us/exploremd/bicyclists/OPPE/laws/acom_bike_laws1.pdf)laws in that state, I can understand why the SHA has asked for an amendment - It's to make the clause as incoherent as the rest of them.
Simplicity through complexity.
After reading the rest of the bicycle (http://www.sha.state.md.us/exploremd/bicyclists/OPPE/laws/acom_bike_laws1.pdf)laws in that state, I can understand why the SHA has asked for an amendment - It's to make the clause as incoherent as the rest of them.
LOL I love it! If you have a problem with me posting this on my site PM me.
The original statute is cleaner because it is broad and says that a drive must yield the right of way to anyone in a bike lane. It will cover any situation.
The amended statute enumerates specifically the ONLY situations in which a driver has to yield the right of way. A good attorney will be able to argue that a drivers actions do not fall into one of the enumerated situations described in the statute, and that therefore there was no violation.
I guess they could make the statute braod enough and at the same time informative to drivers who (if) read the statute by re-writing it ti state "drivers shall yield the right of way to anyone in a bike lane INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO situations in which the driver intends to exit a driveway etc." and then enumerate each specific situation.
I think the first version would be easier to enforce.
One of my concerns is that cyclists in MD are 1.75 times more likely to be found at fault then a motorist (in Baltimore it is 4.65 times) So I really do not like the idea of confusing wording.
Just to clarify, under either rule, a car would still pull into the bike lane when making a right turn. The driver would simply have to make sure that the lane was clear ... correct?
Paragraph 'D' is irrelvant. You left out paragraph 'E' which states that "A driver of a motor vehicle may maim, dismember or kill a cyclist providing said motorist did not see the cyclist. If the cyclist was not seen the motorist shall face no fines, persecution or legal action"
this omits a basic concept .. should be revised to read
". . . . providing said motorist claims to not have seen the cyclist. Motorists who claim to not have seen the cyclist shall face no fines ... "
I suppose the original wording could be interpreted to suggest that a car would have to yield to a bike at an intersection no matter what, even when the bike is approaching a two-way stop.
The second wording is more confusing but potentially more accurately reflects the intent of the law.
Not any bike lane I've ever seen. There is no bike lane in the intersection.
Original wording is far better for cyclists and also consistent with other wording in the Vehicle code.
Just to clarify, under either rule, a car would still pull into the bike lane when making a right turn. The driver would simply have to make sure that the lane was clear ... correct?
Ether way the driver making a right (or left) hand turn has to yield to a cyclists in a bike lane. Both versions do cover the most problematic/hazardous situations.
Ether way the driver making a right (or left) hand turn has to yield to a cyclists in a bike lane. Both versions do cover the most problematic/hazardous situations.
But it doesn't fall into the trap of Portland's bike lane law? I am trying to find how to distinguish the two ... of course, I don't have the Portland law in front of me.
I believe Portland's issue is a combination of engineering and law. I believe MD will mostly avoid the engineering issue of bike lanes at intersections but MD's trap will most likely fall into a similar trap as Portland in regards to curb lanes that in the vernacular are referred to as bike lanes and do not fully have cyclists safety in mind when designed (at intersections) (example: Greenbelt Rd.)
Not any bike lane I've ever seen. There is no bike lane in the intersection.
Original wording is far better for cyclists and also consistent with other wording in the Vehicle code.
The original wording could be interpreted to suggest that a car would have to yield to a bike at an intersection no matter what, even when the bike is approaching a two-way stop. If a bike was in a bike lane, approaching a two way stop, but not yet in the intersection, the car would have to yield according to the original wording, even if the car did not have a stop sign. That's clearly not the intent of the law.
The original wording could be interpreted to suggest that a car would have to yield to a bike at an intersection no matter what, even when the bike is approaching a two-way stop. If a bike was in a bike lane, approaching a two way stop, but not yet in the intersection, the car would have to yield according to the original wording, even if the car did not have a stop sign. That's clearly not the intent of the law.
Why wouldn't the normal give way rules apply at an intersection? Just because there's a new rule, it donesn't mean the other ones no longer apply.
I can't understand why people have such difficulty thinking of a bikelane as any other lane, and that the same rules apply to turning, overtaking and crossing as any other lane. It mass stupidity to the point where they have to spell it out in law.
There's only one road rule that bike lanes need extra to the ones that apply to any lane: stating which vehicles are allowed to use them.
Why wouldn't the normal give way rules apply at an intersection? Just because there's a new rule, it donesn't mean the other ones no longer apply.
I can't understand why people have such difficulty thinking of a bikelane as any other lane, and that the same rules apply to turning, overtaking and crossing as any other lane. It mass stupidity to the point where they have to spell it out in law.
There's only one road rule that bike lanes need extra to the ones that apply to any lane: stating which vehicles are allowed to use them.
I guess the issue is whether a car can slide right into a bike lane to make a right turn or parallel park a car. Or is it the case that the car should wait outside the lane and then cross the bike lane to make a right turn or parallel park a car. I think that the latter is more dangerous.
This article shows both styles of a motorist dealing with a bike lane making a right turn: http://blog.oregonlive.com/multimedia/2007/10/right_of_way_animation.html
The amendment doesn't add anything to the original. (Except perhaps the "lawfully" part, though wouldn't that be implied?) It just makes it more confusing and opens more grey area for when the law might actually apply.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.