Advocacy & Safety - Town of Jupiter Island vs. The Bicycle

This town and a few others nearby are trying to set their own limits as to how many bicycles can ride in a group. The motorists from this town are specifically targeting weekend training groups that take up the entire lane.

The Jupiter Island Public Safety Department has scheduled a meeting that they call a "bicycle safety workshop" on April 11, 2008 @ 7 pm at the Jupiter Island Town Hall, located at 2 S.E. Bridge Road, Hobe Sound Florida.

To attend, you must RSVP with Melissa Cianton with the JIPSD @ 772-545-0112

The purpose of the meeting is to:

. Converse on ways to improve the bicycle safety on the roads of Jupiter Island.

. Come up with some positive solutions to the ongoing issues relating to large groups and packs who ride on the roadways of Jupiter Island.

. Discuss the Florida Statute 316 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=bicycle&URL=CH0316/Sec2065.HTM) and how it relates to bicycles (Hello? It is specifically about bicycles).

. The potential changes by the Jupiter Island Town Commissioners relating to bicycle riders.

They want to "hear your comments and suggestions on the matter at hand".

_______________

I hope to make it, but I can't promise because of my school and work obligations however, I would like to encourage anyone who lives in the area to RSVP and attend. Who knows what these crazy people are going to do with the ordinances in their town... Next thing you know, bicycles will be outlawed and everyone must drive an SUV.

Sounds like they are confusing "safety" and "convenience."

I hope that the people of Jupiter Island have the sense to check with competent legal counsel before wasting a lot of the taxpayers' money. Florida law prohibits municipalities from enacting traffic laws that contravene state law. And Florida state law is pretty generous in the rights it gives to cyclists.

Go and fight. Several cycling advocates from Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties did a superb job shooting down the City of Dana Point's proposed ban on bicycles on Coast Highway 101.

is riding more than "two abreast" #(6) an enforceable offence? are the bicyclists "taking the lane" for safety reasons? are the bicyclists "sharing the road" or is it like a "critical mass" ride down there?

thanks for the clarity!

Go and fight. Several cycling advocates from Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties did a superb job shooting down the City of Dana Point's proposed ban on bicycles on Coast Highway 101.

I would love to read a transcript of the proposed changes, and the arguments against them by the bicycle advocacy people...

It can bring to light some good tips for the cyclists in our area to fight these communists, oops.. I mean, commissioners.

Here's what they wanted to enact in Dana Point: http://danapointdocs.org/agendas/08-23-06/19.pdf
Here's a summary of what happened: http://www.cabobike.org/pchban.htm
Powerpoint shown to the area clubs, which includes the presentation given to the city traffic commission: http://www.cyclistview.com/danapoint/index.htm

Here's what they wanted to enact in Dana Point: http://danapointdocs.org/agendas/08-23-06/19.pdf
Here's a summary of what happened: http://www.cabobike.org/pchban.htm
Powerpoint shown to the area clubs, which includes the presentation given to the city traffic commission: http://www.cyclistview.com/danapoint/index.htm

Brian was one of the key cycling advocates who won the day for all of us.

Here's what they wanted to enact in Dana Point: http://danapointdocs.org/agendas/08-23-06/19.pdf
Here's a summary of what happened: http://www.cabobike.org/pchban.htm
Powerpoint shown to the area clubs, which includes the presentation given to the city traffic commission: http://www.cyclistview.com/danapoint/index.htm

I tip my hat to you LCI_Brian for a job well done. :beer:

I take particular offense at this particular line of reasoning: "No person shall ride, use or propel a bicycle, scooter, skateboard, roller skates or other wheeled toy..."

Their thinking was too obvious... I wonder however what they might consider a classic car bought only for "cruising." Certainly seems like a "wheeled toy" to me. :rolleyes:

is riding more than "two abreast" #(6) an enforceable offence?

Why would it not be "an enforceable offence?"

I'd urge anyone living there to attend the meeting even if you're not going to speak. You won't get a sense of what goes down otherwise--official reports will leave out most of what you'd want to hear about. Plus, sheer numnbers of bodies make a difference. Be carrying your helmet to indicate where you stand...

At the meeting, be reasonable and calm--refute what others might have misrepresented, but don't rant. This is not the venue to spew forth all your built up anger at motorists, this is the time to show how reasonable you are.

I would think that the presence of commuters, with helmets and bags of stuff, might carry special weight: not (to stereotype from the motorists' perspective) those wacky aggressive unpredictable roadies, but people just trying to get from one place to another.

Tiger Woods lives in Jupiter Island. Get his buddy Lance to give his opinion on the topic...

So cyclists are objecting to the fact that they might not be allowed to ride two or three abreast and block the lane, thus creating danger for themselves as well as motorists who are force to change lanes to pass them? Where I live, cyclists are required by law to ride single file.

So cyclists are objecting to the fact that they might not be allowed to ride two or three abreast and block the lane, thus creating danger for themselves as well as motorists who are force to change lanes to pass them? Where I live, cyclists are required by law to ride single file.

Wait a minute... if motorists are changing lanes anyway... what does it matter if you are one or many abreast. And just how dangerous is it for motorists to change lanes... they do it all the time... some even weave in and out of traffic as if it is standing still.

There is hardly any danger to motorists changing lanes.

The town could solve this problem by painting bike lanes. My take on the Florida keep-right law is that it would require cyclists to use bike lanes.

Wait a minute... if motorists are changing lanes anyway... what does it matter if you are one or many abreast. And just how dangerous is it for motorists to change lanes... they do it all the time... some even weave in and out of traffic as if it is standing still.

There is hardly any danger to motorists changing lanes.

Well, I was thinking more about two lane highways where the car has to wait at 20 to 30 mph on a 50 mph highway while a pack meanders down the road. Even if the driver follows all the rules and only passes when it is safe, there is still inherently increased risk from going into the oncoming traffic lane. Public highways are not really intended for organized sporting events.

Well, I was thinking more about two lane highways where the car has to wait at 20 to 30 mph on a 50 mph highway while a pack meanders down the road. Even if the driver follows all the rules and only passes when it is safe, there is still inherently increased risk from going into the oncoming traffic lane. Public highways are not really intended for organized sporting events.

So should we ban farm tractors from such roads too... as they also move at slower speeds and tend to block traffic...

Perhaps we should just consider that said motorist is "well convenienced" and should have no problem waiting just a bit in their comfortable multi-passenger vehicle. :) It's all a matter of perspective.

If groups are prohibited, then the alternative is to have each cyclist ride as an individual with 20ft spacing between them. I'd guess that motorists would find that even more problematic.

Al

If groups are prohibited, then the alternative is to have each cyclist ride as an individual with 20ft spacing between them. I'd guess that motorists would find that even more problematic.

Al

Alternately, if they limit the size of groups, as they are proposing, what they would get is more, smaller groups, which I don't think would make anyone happy either.

I do have to admire their restraint. A lot of places would have just told the cops to go out and ticket the cyclists.

Im going to try to be there.
The speed limit is 25 mph on the parts of the island that I might
believe the most vocal complaints would come from, well under
what fast roadies can do, so Its really is just a case of the bourgeous
yup trash that plagues the island not liking cyclists. Also, the cyclists
will 'lose'. These proceedings are just going through the motions.
Money rules all here. Unless we can outmoney them by tithing the proper
officials, there will be no more club rides.

Well, I was thinking more about two lane highways where the car has to wait at 20 to 30 mph on a 50 mph highway while a pack meanders down the road. Even if the driver follows all the rules and only passes when it is safe, there is still inherently increased risk from going into the oncoming traffic lane. Public highways are not really intended for organized sporting events.

I believe the key word is public, and I would object to the characterization of cycling as 'sport' in much the same way genec objects to the characterization of bicycles as toys.

Public roads are for people, and not just people in motor vehicles.


:rolleyes:

Alternately, if they limit the size of groups, as they are proposing, what they would get is more, smaller groups, which I don't think would make anyone happy either.

I do have to admire their restraint. A lot of places would have just told the cops to go out and ticket the cyclists.

Oh what grounds.... if they are riding legally?

As far as I know, there's no limitations on what anyone can use a road for. Anyone that claims anyone else should only use the road for 'legitimate' purposes is an idiot. As far as I'm concerned, if a motorist has to wait the entire length of the road before they can overtake safely, whether they believe they should be there or not, stiff ***** - that's the law.

As far as I know, there's no limitations on what anyone can use a road for. Anyone that claims anyone else should only use the road for 'legitimate' purposes is an idiot. As far as I'm concerned, if a motorist has to wait the entire length of the road before they can overtake safely, whether they believe they should be there or not, stiff ***** - that's the law.

Actually there are limitations... the first I can think of is a parade... it may be that the local public officials are going to try limiting cyclists actions based on an organized group being a parade... I believe that was one tactic that was tried in New York city against critical mass.

And of course who knows what laws can be quickly passed to make life difficult...

The daily traffic jam on any road could just as logically be called a 'parade'. A group of like vehicles travelling in the same direction at the same time is not automatically a 'parade' just because some impatient drivers want to stop it. Whether it's 'organised' or not is irrelevant.

Personally, I'm hoping reasonableness prevails, and this issue is rejected for the selfishness it is.

Oh what grounds.... if they are riding legally?

Riding more than two abreast. Failure to keep right. Disorderly conduct. Unlawful assembly. Reckless driving.

Those charges may not stick, but it would still have a chilling effect if the police were to start ticketing cyclists en masse. Thus my point that I admire the town's restraint; they appear to be trying to solve the problem within the law.

I thought the existing regulations pretty good - so no fourther local regulation is need. It may increase safety if bikes with wheels of 20 knches dia or less were banned from the sidewalks.

So should we ban farm tractors from such roads too... as they also move at slower speeds and tend to block traffic...

The tractors around here at least make an effort to pull off the roads to allow faster vehicles to pass. Even though they have a legal right to plod along and block traffic, they try to be neighborly and accommodate the needs (and conveniences) of others.

We need to remember that we cyclists are a tiny minority in this country. If we annoy the majority enough, they can change the laws and ban cycling on the roads completely. It seems to me that we should try to work out some kind of mutually acceptable compromise, if possible--or at least approach these situations in that spirit.

The tractors around here at least make an effort to pull off the roads to allow faster vehicles to pass. Even though they have a legal right to plod along and block traffic, they try to be neighborly and accommodate the needs (and conveniences) of others.

We need to remember that we cyclists are a tiny minority in this country. If we annoy the majority enough, they can change the laws and ban cycling on the roads completely. It seems to me that we should try to work out some kind of mutually acceptable compromise, if possible--or at least approach these situations in that spirit.

+1 The law seems pretty generous, actually, and easy to understand. If you're impeding traffic either space out single file or pull over for traffic to pass.

+1 The law seems pretty generous, actually, and easy to understand. If you're impeding traffic either space out single file or pull over for traffic to pass.

The law says that cyclists are traffic.

Drivers of motor vehicles can just wait. They can relax in their climate controlled space, turn the radio up and settle their fat asses into those expensive cushy seats. Or pass the cyclists with due care and in a safe manner. If they were so damn important, we would give them red lights and a siren!

Why should we separate out single file? The lack of space on the street is the fault of the sheer size of automobiles! If consumers would stop insisting on side-by-side seating, there would be far fewer conflicts between cyclists and motorists. -I know! Let's eliminate curbside parking and use that public space for another travel lane so as to accommodate the precious schedule of our poor beleaguered motorist.

Equal rights to the public road should also mean equal accommodation.

The law may say you are traffic. But your rights and responsibilities are different then that of a car. Most notably the 'ride single file if being overtaken' part of the law.

People are getting annoyed that the club riders are breaking the law (not in single file, impeding the flow of traffic, unlicensed parade, running red lights etc). It sounds like the cops have been pretty generous not coming down on the cyclists. Do you want the cops to treat the cyclists like cars? That means getting ticketed for speeding, running red lights, failure to signal and all those other laws that the vast majority of bike riders break while out on the road.

+1 The law seems pretty generous, actually, and easy to understand. If you're impeding traffic either space out single file or pull over for traffic to pass.

Where does the law say that?

The law may say you are traffic. But your rights and responsibilities are different then that of a car. Most notably the 'ride single file if being overtaken' part of the law.
Where does the law say that?

Where does the law say that?

Follow the link in the original post. Item 6.

Properly behaving groups of riders receive little comment. I have only very rarely seen a properly behaving group. Normally some members behave like arrogant pricks, bringing down the wrath of the motorized arrogant pricks. Very crisp, very professional, fast, efficient groups obeying traffic laws and aiding motorists in passing receive little comment, mainly just waves. I've been in a few such groups, very few. While the accusations generally seem like BS to us, motorists have their clear and accurate points. Even individual riders behave like pricks fairly often. At least I do when I think it's the safest thing to do and I'm legally allowed, but I do pop into drives and wave cars around.

Politeness and common sense seem rare commodities these days.

One way to analyze things is to assume everything the other side says is true. Do you still win? If not, then there's a potential problem coming down to the facts.

Here you go. Try section 1234 for the applicable parts on single file, overtaking and lane use.

NYS Vehicle and Traffic
Article 34
Section 1230 Effect of Regulations
Section 1231 Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles or skating or gliding on in-line skates.
Section 1232 Riding on bicycles
Section 1233 Clinging to vehicles
Section 1234 Riding on roadways, shoulders, bicycle or in-line skate lanes and bicycle or in-line skate paths.
Section 1235 Carrying articles
Section 1236 Lamps and other equipment on bicycles
Section 1237 Method of giving hand and arm signals by bicyclists
Section 1238 Passengers on bicycles indr on year of age prohibited; passengers and operator under fourteen years of age to wear protective headgear.


S 1230. Effect of regulations. (a) The parent of any child and the
guardian of any ward shall not authorize or knowingly permit any such
child or ward to violate any of the provisions of this article.
(b) These regulations applicable to bicycles or to in-line skates
shall apply whenever a bicycle is, or in-line skates are, operated upon
any highway, upon private roads open to public motor vehicle traffic and
upon any path set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles, or in-line
skates, or both.

S 1231. Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles or skating or
gliding on in-line skates. Every person riding a bicycle or skating or
gliding on in-line skates upon a roadway shall be granted all of the
rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driv-
er of a vehicle by this title, except as to special regulations in this
article and except as to those provisions of this title which by their
nature can have no application.

S 1232. Riding on bicycles. (a) A person propelling a bicycle shall
not ride other than upon or astride a permanent and regular seat
attached thereto, nor shall he ride with his feet removed from the
pedals.
(b) No bicycle shall be used to carry more persons at one time than
the number for which it is designed and equipped.

S 1233. Clinging to vehicles. 1. No person riding upon any bicycle,
coaster, in-line skates, roller skates, sled or toy vehicle shall attach
the same or himself to any vehicle being operated upon a roadway.
2. No person shall ride on or attach himself to the outside of any
vehicle being operated upon a roadway.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to:
(i) vehicles in an emergency operation as defined in section one
hundred fourteen-b of this chapter; and
(ii) farm type tractors used exclusively for agricultural purposes or
other farm equipment; and
(iii) riding on the open, uncovered cargo area of a truck with the
permission of the operator of such truck; and
(iv) vehicles employed by a municipality for local garbage collection;
and
(v) vehicles participating in a parade pursuant to a municipal permit.
3. No vehicle operator shall knowingly permit any person to attach any
device or himself to such operator`s vehicle in violation of subdivision
one or subdivision two of this section.

S 1234. Riding on roadways, shoulders, bicycle or in-line skate lanes
and bicycle or in-line skate paths. (a) Upon all roadways, any bicycle
or in-line skate shall be driven either on a usable bicycle or in-line
skate lane or, if a usable bicycle or in-line skate lane has not been
provided, near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a
usable right-hand shoulder in such a manner as to prevent undue inter-
ference with the flow of traffic except when preparing for a left turn
or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that would make it
unsafe to continue along near the right-hand curb or edge. Conditions to
be taken into consideration include, but are not limited to, fixed or
moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, in-line skates, pedestrians,
animals, surface hazards or traffic lanes too narrow for a bicycle or
person on in-line skates and a vehicle to travel safely side-by-side
within the lane. (b) Persons riding bicycles or skating or gliding on
in-line skates upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast.
Persons riding bicycles or skating or gliding on in-line skates upon a
shoulder, bicycle or in-line skate lane, or bicycle or in-line skates
path, intended for the use of bicycles or in-line skates may ride two or
more abreast if sufficient space is available, except that when passing
a vehicle, bicycle or person on in-line skates, or pedestrian, standing
or proceeding along such shoulder, lane or path, persons riding bicycles
or skating or gliding on in-line skates shall ride, skate, or glide
single file. Persons riding bicycles or skating or gliding on in-line
skates upon a roadway shall ride, skate, or glide single file when being
overtaken by a vehicle. (c) Any person operating a bicycle or skating
or gliding on in-line skates who is entering the roadway from a private
road, driveway, alley or over a curb shall come to a full stop before
entering the roadway.

S 1235. Carrying articles. No person operating a bicycle shall carry
any package, bundle, or article which prevents the driver from keeping
at least one hand upon the handle bars. No person skating or gliding on
in-line skates shall carry any package, bundle, or article which
obstructs his or her vision in any direction.

S 1236. Lamps and other equipment on bicycles. (a) Every bicycle when
in use during the period from one-half hour after sunset to one-half
hour before sunrise shall be equipped with a lamp on the front which
shall emit a white light visible during hours of darkness from a
distance of at least five hundred feet to the front and with a red light
visible to the rear for three hundred feet. Effective July first, nine-
teen hundred seventy-six, at least one of these lights shall be visible
for two hundred feet from each side.
(b) No person shall operate a bicycle unless it is equipped with a
bell or other device capable of giving a signal audible for a distance
of at least one hundred feet, except that a bicycle shall not be
equipped with nor shall any person use upon a bicycle any siren or whis-
tle.
(c) Every bicycle shall be equipped with a brake which will enable the
operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean pavement.
(d) Every new bicycle shall be equipped with reflective tires or,
alternately, a reflex reflector mounted on the spokes of each wheel,
said tires and reflectors to be of types approved by the commissioner.
The reflex reflector mounted on the front wheel shall be colorless or
amber, and the reflex reflector mounted on the rear wheel shall be
colorless or red.
(e) Every bicycle when in use during the period from one-half hour
after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise shall be equipped with
reflective devices or material meeting the standards established by
rules and regulations promulgated by the commissioner; provided, howev-
er, that such standards shall not be inconsistent with or otherwise
conflict with the requirements of subdivisions (a) and (d) of this
section.

S 1237. Method of giving hand and arm signals by bicyclists. All
signals herein required to be given by bicyclists by hand and arm shall
be given in the following manner and such signals shall indicate as
follows:
1. Left turn. Left hand and arm extended horizontally.
2. Right turn. Left hand and arm extended upward or right hand and arm
extended horizontally.
3. Stop or decrease speed. Left hand and arm extended downward.

S 1238. Passengers on bicycles under one year of age prohibited;
passengers and operators under fourteen years of age to wear protective
headgear. 1. No person operating a bicycle shall allow a person who is
under one year of age to ride as a passenger on a bicycle nor shall such
person be carried in a pack fastened to the operator. A first violation
of the provisions of this subdivision shall result in no fine. A second
violation shall result in a civil fine not to exceed fifty dollars.
2. No person operating a bicycle shall allow a person one or more
years of age and less than five years of age to ride as a passenger on a
bicycle unless:
(a) such passenger is wearing a helmet meeting the standards of the
American National Standards Institute (Ansi Z 90.4 bicycle helmet stand-
ards) or the Snell Memorial Foundation`s Standards for Protective Head-
gear for use in Bicycling. For the purposes of this subdivision wearing
a helmet means having a helmet of good fit fastened securely upon the
head with the helmet straps; and
(b) such passenger is placed in a separate seat attached to the bicy-
cle and such seat shall have adequate provision for retaining the
passenger in place and for protecting the passenger from the moving
parts of the bicycle.
3. Any person who violates the provisions of subdivision two of this
section shall pay a civil fine not to exceed fifty dollars.
4. The court shall waive any fine for which a person who violates the
provisions of paragraph (a) of subdivision two of this section would be
liable if such person supplies the court with proof that between the
date of violation and the appearance date for such violation such person
purchased or rented a helmet, which meets the requirements of paragraph
(a) of subdivision two of this section. Further, the court shall waive
any fine for which a person who violates the provisions of paragraph (b)
of subdivision two of this section would be liable if such person
supplies the court with proof that between the date of violation and the
appearance date for such violation such person purchased or rented a
seat which meets the requirements of paragraph (b) of subdivision two of
this section. The court may waive any fine for which a person who
violates the provisions of subdivision two of this section would be
liable if the court finds that due to reasons of economic hardship such
person was unable to purchase a helmet or seat. Such waiver of fine
shall not apply to a second or subsequent conviction under paragraph (a)
or (b) of subdivision two of this section.
5. (a) No person operating a bicycle shall allow a person five or more
years of age and less than fourteen years of age to ride as a passenger
on a bicycle unless such passenger is wearing a helmet meeting the stan-
dards of the American National Standards Institute (Ansi Z 90.4 bicycle
helmet standards) or the Snell Memorial Foundation`s Standards for
Protective Headgear for use in Bicycling.
(b) No person, one or more years of age and less than fourteen years
of age, shall operate a bicycle unless such person is wearing a helmet
meeting the standards of the American National Standards Institute (Ansi
Z 90.4 bicycle helmet standards) or the Snell Memorial Foundation`s
Standards for Protective Headgear for use in Bicycling.
(c) For the purposes of this subdivision wearing a helmet means having
a helmet of good fit fastened securely upon the head with the helmet
straps.
5-a. No person, one or more years of age and less than fourteen years
of age, shall skate or glide on in-line skates unless such person is
wearing a helmet meeting the standards of the American National Stand-
ards Institute (Ansi Z 90.4 bicycle helmet standards), the Snell Memori-
al Foundation`s Standards for Protective Headgear for use in Bicycling,
or the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) bike helmet
standards. For the purposes of this subdivision, wearing a helmet means
having a helmet of good fit fastened securely on the head of such wearer
with the helmet straps securely fastened.
6. (a) Any person who violates the provisions of subdivision five or
five-a of this section shall pay a civil fine not to exceed fifty
dollars.
(b) The court shall waive any fine for which a person who violates the
provisions of subdivision five of this section would be liable if such
person supplies the court with proof that between the date of violation
and the appearance date for such violation such person purchased or
rented a helmet.
(c) The court may waive any fine for which a person who violates the
provisions of subdivision five or five-a of this section would be liable
if the court finds that due to reasons of economic hardship such person
was unable to purchase a helmet or due to such economic hardship such
person was unable to obtain a helmet from the statewide in-line skate
and bicycle helmet distribution program, as established in section two
hundred six of the public health law, or a local distribution program.
7. The failure of any person to comply with the provisions of this
section shall not constitute contributory negligence or assumption of
risk, and shall not in any way bar, preclude or foreclose an action for
personal injury or wrongful death by or on behalf of such person, nor in
any way diminish or reduce the damages recoverable in any such action.
8. A police officer shall only issue a summons for a violation of
subdivision two, five, or five-a of this section by a person less than
fourteen years of age to the parent or guardian of such person if the
violation by such person occurs in the presence of such person`s parent
or guardian and where such parent or guardian is eighteen years of age
or more. Such summons shall only be issued to such parent or guardian,
and shall not be issued to the person less than fourteen years of age.
9. Subdivisions five, five-a and six of this section shall not be
applicable to any county, city, town or village that has enacted a local
law or ordinance prior to the effective date of this act that prohibits
a person who is one or more years of age and less than fourteen years of
age from operating a bicycle or skating or gliding on in-line skates
without wearing a bicycle helmet meeting the standards of the American
National Standards Institute (Ansi Z 90.4 bicycle helmet standards), the
Snell Memorial Foundation`s Standards for Protective Headgear for use in
Bicycling, or the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) bike
helmet standards, or that prohibits a person operating a bicycle from
allowing a person five or more years of age and less than fourteen years
of age to ride as a passenger on a bicycle unless such passenger is
wearing a bicycle helmet that meets such standards. The failure of any
person to comply with any such local law or ordinance shall not consti-
tute contributory negligence or assumption of risk, and shall not in any
way bar, preclude or foreclose an action for personal injury or wrongful
death by or on behalf of such person, nor in any way diminish or reduce
the damages recoverable in any such action. The legislative body of a
county, city, town or village may enact a local law or ordinance that
prohibits a person who is fourteen or more years of age from skating or
gliding on in-line skates or from operating or riding as a passenger on
a bicycle without wearing a bicycle helmet.
10. No person shall skate or glide on in-line skates outside during
the period of time between one-half hour after sunset and one-half hour
before sunrise unless such person is wearing readily visible reflective
clothing or material which is of a light or bright color.

Here is your Florida state law as well. Refer to section 6 for traffic impedance. You can only ride two abreast if you are not impeding the flow of traffic.



316.2065 Bicycle regulations.-- (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.
(2) A person operating a bicycle may not ride other than upon or astride a permanent and regular seat attached thereto.
(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.
(16)(a) A person may not knowingly rent or lease any bicycle to be ridden by a child who is under the age of 16 years unless:
1. The child possesses a bicycle helmet; or
2. The lessor provides a bicycle helmet for the child to wear.
(b) A violation of this subsection is a nonmoving violation, punishable as provided in s. 318.18.
(17) The court may waive, reduce, or suspend payment of any fine imposed under subsection (3) or subsection (16) and may impose any other conditions on the waiver, reduction, or suspension. If the court finds that a person does not have sufficient funds to pay the fine, the court may require the performance of a specified number of hours of community service or attendance at a safety seminar.
(18) Notwithstanding s. 318.21, all proceeds collected pursuant to s. 318.18 for violations under paragraphs (3)(e) and (16)(b) shall be deposited into the State Transportation Trust Fund.
(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.

Here is your Florida state law as well. Refer to section 6 for traffic impedance. You can only ride two abreast if you are not impeding the flow of traffic.

Your original claim was that the law required you to ride single file while being overtaken. But if you're being overtaken, you're not impeding the flow of traffic.

Follow the link in the original post. Item 6.

Where does item 6 say "If you're impeding traffic either space out single file or pull over for traffic to pass."? It says you can't ride two abreast if doing so impedes traffic. There's no obligation to space out, or to pull over.

Properly behaving groups of riders receive little comment. I have only very rarely seen a properly behaving group. Normally some members behave like arrogant pricks, bringing down the wrath of the motorized arrogant pricks. Very crisp, very professional, fast, efficient groups obeying traffic laws and aiding motorists in passing receive little comment, mainly just waves. I've been in a few such groups, very few. While the accusations generally seem like BS to us, motorists have their clear and accurate points. Even individual riders behave like pricks fairly often. At least I do when I think it's the safest thing to do and I'm legally allowed, but I do pop into drives and wave cars around.

Politeness and common sense seem rare commodities these days.

One way to analyze things is to assume everything the other side says is true. Do you still win? If not, then there's a potential problem coming down to the facts.

Extremely well put.

Your original claim was that the law required you to ride single file while being overtaken. But if you're being overtaken, you're not impeding the flow of traffic.

That is some pretty twisted logic. Let me rephrase:

If a car is trying to overtake a group of bikes, the bikes are not allowed impede the car. That means the car desires to drive faster than the bikes.

Or this way:
1. Car approaches group of riders from the rear. The car is going faster than the bikes.
2. Car comes up to the tail end of the group.
3. Bike group is legally obligated to not ride two abreast while there is a car attempting to pass them because otherwise they would be impeding the flow of traffic.

That is some pretty twisted logic. Let me rephrase:

If a car is trying to overtake a group of bikes, the bikes are not allowed impede the car. That means the car desires to drive faster than the bikes.


I don't know if that's really what you meant to say, but of course bikes are allowed to impede cars (or, more precisely, cyclists may impede motorists), as part of using the roadway, just as any user of the roadway is allowed to impede other users as necessary. And unlike some states, Florida doesn't even prohibit cyclists from unnecessarily impeding motorists -- as long as you obey the lane position law, it matters not that there might be another technique which might inconvenience motorists less. The only place in Florida law where impeding traffic is even mentioned is the two-abreast law.



Or this way:
1. Car approaches group of riders from the rear. The car is going faster than the bikes.
2. Car comes up to the tail end of the group.
3. Bike group is legally obligated to not ride two abreast while there is a car attempting to pass them because otherwise they would be impeding the flow of traffic.

But that's not what the law says. The law prohibits two-abreast riding only when it creates more of an impediment than riding single file. Riding two abreast does not necessarily impede traffic -- if it's possible to pass anyway, then traffic is not impeded. If it would be impossible to pass single-file cyclists, then riding two abreast doesn't impede traffic any more than riding single-file. The only situation where the law applies is when riding two-abreast creates an additional impediment -- where it would be possible to pass single-file cyclists, but not two-abreast cyclists.

To throw in another legal angle, Florida law has a strict prohibition on crossing the centerline in a no-passing zone, and a minimum three-foot passing distance for passing bicycles. So unless the lanes are exceptionally wide, it's not legal to pass a bicycle in a no-passing zone in Florida. In that situation it matters not how the bicycles are arrayed in the lane.

Now, I'm not advocating impeding traffic, nor am I saying this is the way the law ought to be, but it is what the law says. I'm actually continually astonished at how liberal the law is in most places toward cyclists.

I'm actually continually astonished at how liberal the law is in most places toward cyclists.

Yeah but who knows this... cyclists? motorists? cops?

The problem with all these bike laws is that only a few lawmakers and some cyclists seem to know of them.

BTW good analysis... I especially like the part where the 3 foot law and the no passing laws combine to seem to "encourage" side by side cycling... :D

I'm actually continually astonished at how liberal the law is in most places toward cyclists.

The only law needed for cyclists is this one or similar:
" 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. "

Outside of equipment laws (brakes, lights), No other bicycle specific laws are needed - any additions only restrict rights relative to motor vehicles.

All the other current bicycle specific laws - passing clearance, impeding traffic, etc. are already covered by laws applicable for all types of vehicles.

Al

The problem with all these bike laws is that only a few lawmakers and some cyclists seem to know of them.

And they tend to be written in a way that even on a close reading, it's easy to read in things that aren't really there.

I'm of the belief that the lawmakers don't realize what they're voting on. Cycling advocates draft laws using convoluted wording and words like "practicable" and "roadway" that on a quick reading sound like they mean the exact opposite of what they actually mean, and lawmakers vote on them thinking they're voting to restrict cyclists. That's the only explanation that makes sense to me.

There's no way the current laws would stand up to an informed plebicite. It's easy to imagine that on-road cycling would be made illegal if it was put to a referendum.

Outside of equipment laws (brakes, lights), No other bicycle specific laws are needed - any additions only restrict rights relative to motor vehicles.



I don't know, DC law gives cyclists quite a few rights not given to motorists -- lane splitting, passing on the right, shoulder use, sidewalk use. Plus all violations on a bike are $25 and don't count against your license.

The only law needed for cyclists is this one or similar:
" 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. "

Outside of equipment laws (brakes, lights), No other bicycle specific laws are needed - any additions only restrict rights relative to motor vehicles.

All the other current bicycle specific laws - passing clearance, impeding traffic, etc. are already covered by laws applicable for all types of vehicles.

Al

Really? Even passing clearance? I don't recall any "3 foot law" for motorists? And while 3 feet may not be enough in all cases, it is far better then just leaving it up to a motorists' discretion.

Really? Even passing clearance? I don't recall any "3 foot law" for motorists? And while 3 feet may not be enough in all cases, it is far better then just leaving it up to a motorists' discretion.

"The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of the vehicle at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle."

Why would anyone expect 3' passing laws to be enforced if this one isn't?

Al

This is a thread about Jupiter Island so a lot of these previous posts dont apply.
As posted earlier.....the speed limit is 25 mph on all but the entrance and exit areas.
Cars need to be breaking the speed limit to pass most cyclists who frequent that road.
So, by FL logic its OK to break a few different laws if you are in a car and feel you must.
Seems reasonable to me :rolleyes:

"The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of the vehicle at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle."

Why would anyone expect 3' passing laws to be enforced if this one isn't?

Al

The caveat of course is the clause above... who defines "a safe distance?" If a large tractor trailer were to pass me within inches while going 50MPH, the driver of that rig is plenty safe... I might be blown off the road.

And yeah, if enforcement is as lax as the speed laws... :rolleyes: