Advocacy & Safety - Orlando: There are BIKES on our roads!

Here's a stupid story (http://www.wesh.com/community/15904994/detail.html?rss=orl&psp=news) that was on the news tonight. The tenor of the story is that, golly, there are bikes on our roads and we need to look out, fellas! And they're not keeping up with traffic!

WINTER PARK, Fla. -- Bicycles are popping up on Central Florida Roadways like never before.
But when bikes, cars and trucks mix, safety becomes a major issue.
Video: Deputies: Cyclists, Drivers Have Right To Road
Seminole County sheriffs said in some cases, large groups of cyclists are clogging roads, not keeping up with traffic.
They wanted the illegal behavior stopped.
Avid bikers said they often struggle blending safely with traffic, and a video from deputies encouraging cyclist and drivers safety seemed to make the rude treatment they already get on the road worse the past few days.
"They see a cyclist and they target them in many cases," cyclist Keri Caffrey said.
Bicyclists sat down with law enforcement in an effort to find a middle ground.
"It's not their right to assault a cyclist or to run a cyclist off the road because they get impatient," Lt. Pete Kelting said.
Each side left feeling they had a better understanding, and deputies want everyone in cars and trucks to be very aware that cyclists have rights.
"When conditions call for it, cyclists have the right to command the entire lane and motorists need to understand that," Kelting said.
"They can't overtake when it's not safe, and if there's oncoming traffic they can't just squeeze through," Caffrey said.
Both cyclists and motorists have legal right to the road, and if people break the laws, officers will be handing out tickets if necessary to make sure everyone is safe.

Goodness no! Let's pass them illegally!

you have to admit those guys were riding like total doooshbags... the one guy was all the way across the yellow line? c'mon... makin' us all look bad.

motorists have legal right to the road,.

Nice to know if I ever loose my driver's license, that I have a right to drive a car in Florida.

WHy do cops take the videos, instead of writing tickets? Why not stop that group of j2ck2sses in the video and write them a couple dozen tickets? And any of them resist? Toss them in the cop car and the bike into the weeds. After that maybe next time they'll stop at stop signs.

you have to admit those guys were riding like total doooshbags... the one guy was all the way across the yellow line? c'mon... makin' us all look bad.

If you look at the video, he's in a left-turn only lane and he signalled a left turn before breaking away from the group. I suspect he's turning left there and leaving the group. Of course, the cops had to edit out that part.

I can't condone the group that ran the stop sign, but beyond that I didn't see much that would make for tickets that would stand up. Florida has a 3-foot passing distance for cyclists, and a strict prohibition on crossing the double yellow, so on the roads they show it wouldn't be legal to pass even a lone cyclist riding right.

My beef is that the cops and the reporter have chosen to flame emotion and spread misinformation by insinuating that this behavior is illegal, rather than telling the true story, which is that there is no law against large bike rides.

If you look at the video, he's in a left-turn only lane and he signalled a left turn before breaking away from the group. I suspect he's turning left there and leaving the group. Of course, the cops had to edit out that part.

I can't condone the group that ran the stop sign, but beyond that I didn't see much that would make for tickets that would stand up. Florida has a 3-foot passing distance for cyclists, and a strict prohibition on crossing the double yellow, so on the roads they show it wouldn't be legal to pass even a lone cyclist riding right.

My beef is that the cops and the reporter have chosen to flame emotion and spread misinformation by insinuating that this behavior is illegal, rather than telling the true story, which is that there is no law against large bike rides.

You took the words right out of my mouth. In the initial report about the video the police say that the cyclists should have yielded to the motorists behind them. How in the world are 20 or 30 cyclists supposed to safely pull off the road on a 45 mph road and let traffic go by. The cops say the cyclists have a right to the road but at the same time say they must yield to other traffic on the road. Which is it? It is they have a right to the road so unless they run another stop sign, leave them alone and let them excerise thier rights.

WHy do cops take the videos, instead of writing tickets? Why not stop that group of j2ck2sses in the video and write them a couple dozen tickets? And any of them resist? Toss them in the cop car and the bike into the weeds. After that maybe next time they'll stop at stop signs.

I have a modest proposal, just cut off a cyclists head and mount it on the patrol car's antena as a warning to cyclists. I think that reasonable, don't you?

It did look like he was turning left to me as well.

SAn Rensho- I just think the answer to these problems is to write tickets. Instead of cops whining to the press and too city councils and such. A few expensive tickets would take care of this garbage.

I have asked my local police to write tickets to the local race ride that ignores all traffic law.

SAn Rensho- I just think the answer to these problems is to write tickets. Instead of cops whining to the press and too city councils and such. A few expensive tickets would take care of this garbage.

I have asked my local police to write tickets to the local race ride that ignores all traffic law.

My problems with that are law enforcement officers who do not know our rights to use the full lane or to leave the bike lane to make a left turn, as well as zero tolerance Nazis who figure a cyclist has not stopped unless he/she has put a foot (or two) down. I am all for reasonable law enforcement, but I have seen too much extremism.

I can't disagree with tickets for illegal conduct on the road -- in fact, there should be more! When did the 'don't sweat the small stuff' attitude take over as far as traffic laws go? I'm sure almost everyone has said or thought, "Why are you stopping ME, when you could be out busting drug dealers?"

I was also under the impression (FL cyclists, correct me if I'm wrong) that riding two abreast was legal, three+ isn't, and isn't there something about going single file under certain conditions? Pulling off, though...nah. Not happ'nin.

It's bothered me a little over the last couple of New Year's Day events here at home (Chilly Challenge, Jan 1 open ride, watch the Polar Bears dunk themselves), when on the ride, seeing the large group I'm in just roll stop signs like it Critical Mass or something; I had to go with it or get dropped, btw....

I
I was also under the impression (FL cyclists, correct me if I'm wrong) that riding two abreast was legal, three+ isn't, and isn't there something about going single file under certain conditions? Pulling off, though...nah. Not happ'nin.


Two abreast legal until being approached from behind by faster vehicle, then its
single up. Pulling off is the law when being approached from behind by an
emergency vehicle or police car that is lit up.
If a cop wants to, they can cite you for improper following distance, too.....

... motorists have legal right to the road ...

Nice to know if I ever loose my driver's license, that I have a right to drive a car in Florida.
We all have a right to use public facilities (roadways). We do NOT have a right to operate motor vehicles on those roadways. That requires the priviledge/license to do so. Your driver's license is granted by a state to you for the "priviledge" of operating a motor vehicle on the public roadways you have a right to use.

So, unfortunately, you do not have the "right" to drive a car in Florida ...

BTW, Kerlenbach, I used to live in Brevard Co. I get Winter Park, Winter Garden, and Winter Haven mixed up. Which one is Winter Park again??

Try riding a Catrike in Orlando, or anywhere else in Florida. I have something like 10K on DF and recumbents here and find Florida to be a pretty unfriendly place, although a lot less hassle on my recumbent.

NNY

Winter Park is north of Orlando

Two abreast legal until being approached from behind by faster vehicle, then its
single up. Pulling off is the law when being approached from behind by an
emergency vehicle or police car that is lit up.
If a cop wants to, they can cite you for improper following distance, too.....

Do you have the laws in front of you? Two abreast is generally legal unless impeding traffic, i.e. if the lane is narrow and a motorist would need to change lanes to pass anyway, two abreast is fine. Pulling off the roadway is generally a requirement if the slow moving vehicle driver is impeding the normal flow of traffic, usually quantified as 3-5 vehicles backed up behind the slow driver. Pulling off the roadway is only required when there exists a safe place to do so though (in my understanding, that means a paved shoulder or cross street/driveway to turn onto).

Do you have the laws in front of you? Two abreast is generally legal unless impeding traffic, i.e. if the lane is narrow and a motorist would need to change lanes to pass anyway, two abreast is fine. Pulling off the roadway is generally a requirement if the slow moving vehicle driver is impeding the normal flow of traffic, usually quantified as 3-5 vehicles backed up behind the slow driver. Pulling off the roadway is only required when there exists a safe place to do so though (in my understanding, that means a paved shoulder or cross street/driveway to turn onto).

This is correct. The SO was initially trying to make the cyclists ride single on the far right to let cars pass, but the lanes are 10 - 11 feet wide. They've been set straight.

Do you have the laws in front of you? Two abreast is generally legal unless impeding traffic, i.e. if the lane is narrow and a motorist would need to change lanes to pass anyway, two abreast is fine.


We had a thread about this just a couple of days ago. Florida law says, "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."

Florida law requires that motorists allow at least three feet clearance when passing a bicycle, and does not allow operators to cross a double yellow line. I do not believe it would be legal to pass a bicycle on any of the roads shown in the video. Since it is not legal to pass, riding two abreast doesn't impede traffic.

Looking at the size of some of those packs, I don't see any way that they could array themselves where they could be easily passed.



Pulling off the roadway is generally a requirement if the slow moving vehicle driver is impeding the normal flow of traffic, usually quantified as 3-5 vehicles backed up behind the slow driver. Pulling off the roadway is only required when there exists a safe place to do so though (in my understanding, that means a paved shoulder or cross street/driveway to turn onto).

I wouldn't say "generally." Laws like this seem to be common in the West, less common in the East. I believe that California is the only state where this type of law applies to non-motorized vehicles.

I wouldn't say "generally." Laws like this seem to be common in the West, less common in the East. I believe that California is the only state where this type of law applies to non-motorized vehicles.

From PA vehicle code:

§ 3364. Minimum speed regulation.
(a) Impeding movement of traffic prohibited.--Except when reduced speed is necessary for safe
operation or in compliance with law, no person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to
impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
(b) Slow moving vehicle to drive off roadway.--Except when reduced speed is necessary for safe
operation or in compliance with law, whenever any person drives a vehicle upon a roadway having
width for not more than one lane of traffic in each direction at less than the maximum posted speed
and at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the driver shall,
at the first opportunity when and where it is reasonable and safe to do so and after giving appropriate
signal, drive completely off the roadway and onto the berm or shoulder of the highway. The driver
may return to the roadway after giving appropriate signal only when the movement can be made in
safety and so as not to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

From DE vehicle code:

§ 4125. Turning off roadway by slow-moving vehicle.

On a 2-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, behind which 5 or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. As used in this section, a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place. (60 Del. Laws, c. 701, § 24.)

In both vehicle codes, the reference is made to "slow moving vehicles" turning off the roadway which would include cyclists moving at less than the speed of traffic. I believe New Jersey has a similar law as well but PA and DE are the only vehicle codes I have handy at the moment. The only "impeding traffic law" that I've seen that applies solely to motor vehicles is (a) from the PA code (similar laws exist in many other states).

OK, you got me.

Bob Mionske argues in his book, rather convincingly, that cyclists, being traffic, can never impede traffic, but that is theory and does not echo the practicalities of everyday riding.

I second Bek, if there are fifty cyclists together going 15 mph, that is the speed of traffic at that time and place and the motorists need to slow down..

Do you have the laws in front of you? Two abreast is generally legal unless impeding traffic, i.e. if the lane is narrow and a motorist would need to change lanes to pass anyway, two abreast is fine. Pulling off the roadway is generally a requirement if the slow moving vehicle driver is impeding the normal flow of traffic, usually quantified as 3-5 vehicles backed up behind the slow driver. Pulling off the roadway is only required when there exists a safe place to do so though (in my understanding, that means a paved shoulder or cross street/driveway to turn onto).

This was explained very concisely in a Town Meeting I attended in another thread
dealing with trying to get control over the Rogue-ies in Jupiter Island. The number
of the statute is in that thread and as I mentioned, a policeman who claimed to be
a roadie himself explained this stuff.
All Florida laws were explained and the way the police interprited them(?).
Sort of weird was that some huge bicycling org. in FL has a handbook published
and their interpritation of the laws are different than what the police are. I forgot what
the org's name was but they say that slowing to a crawl to go through a stop sign is
OK in Fl. in one instance of stuff the cop said was wrong.

I second Bek, if there are fifty cyclists together going 15 mph, that is the speed of traffic at that time and place and the motorists need to slow down..

I'd, too, agree that 50 cyclists on the road together would constitute the speed of traffic at that time and place. I, however, do not agree that a single cyclist cannot impede traffic as Bob Mionske has argued. Any vehicle can impede traffic provided they meet the requirements of the minimum speed law. A single vehicle can impede traffic. The law, in some states, is very clear about this.

The Selz case where this argument was upheld (that traffic cannot impede traffic) happened on a multilane roadway. In that specific situation, traffic, per the law, cannot be impeded as there is always an available same direction passing lane.

From PA vehicle code:

§ 3364. Minimum speed regulation.
(a) Impeding movement of traffic prohibited.--Except when reduced speed is necessary for safe
operation or in compliance with law, no person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to
impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
(b) Slow moving vehicle to drive off roadway.--Except when reduced speed is necessary for safe
operation or in compliance with law, whenever any person drives a vehicle upon a roadway having
width for not more than one lane of traffic in each direction at less than the maximum posted speed
and at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the driver shall,
at the first opportunity when and where it is reasonable and safe to do so and after giving appropriate
signal, drive completely off the roadway and onto the berm or shoulder of the highway. The driver
may return to the roadway after giving appropriate signal only when the movement can be made in
safety and so as not to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

From DE vehicle code:

§ 4125. Turning off roadway by slow-moving vehicle.

On a 2-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, behind which 5 or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. As used in this section, a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place. (60 Del. Laws, c. 701, § 24.)

In both vehicle codes, the reference is made to "slow moving vehicles" turning off the roadway which would include cyclists moving at less than the speed of traffic. I believe New Jersey has a similar law as well but PA and DE are the only vehicle codes I have handy at the moment. The only "impeding traffic law" that I've seen that applies solely to motor vehicles is (a) from the PA code (similar laws exist in many other states).

The key phrases in the statutes you cite are "Except when reduced speed is necessary for safe
operation" and "such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic"
and "wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists"

I certainly wouldn't consider it safe to ride my road bike on a gravel shoulder unless it was an extreme emergency. I wouldn't consider 5 cars waiting to pass an extreme emergency.

Just because some cars have to wait does not mean the normal and reasonable flow of traffic is impeded. The normal and reasonable flow of traffic is slowed or stopped by any manner of things which don't require one to leave the roadway. Ever make a left hand turn on a 2 lane road? I've done it and been there quite a while and had way more than 5 cars stacked up behind me. Should I have to pull off onto the gravel and wait for half an hour for traffic to clear to try and make my turn? How about when school busses stop to drop off or pick up kids, are they such an impedement to trafffic that they should have to pull off onto the gravel shoulder?

If a cyclist is going as fast as they reasonably can, they have a right to be on the roadway. Read Trotwood v Selz it talks about this very issue.

This was explained very concisely in a Town Meeting I attended in another thread
dealing with trying to get control over the Rogue-ies in Jupiter Island. The number
of the statute is in that thread and as I mentioned, a policeman who claimed to be
a roadie himself explained this stuff.
All Florida laws were explained and the way the police interprited them(?).
Sort of weird was that some huge bicycling org. in FL has a handbook published
and their interpritation of the laws are different than what the police are. I forgot what
the org's name was but they say that slowing to a crawl to go through a stop sign is
OK in Fl. in one instance of stuff the cop said was wrong.

You're referring to the Florida Bicycle Association's Law Enforcement Guide (PDF) (http://www.floridabicycle.org/images/FBLEG072007.pdf)

I think the rolling stop-signs bit was in an older version and was removed. However the interpretation of riding 2 abreast in a narrow lane stands. If the cyclists are entitled to the whole lane to protect their safety from squeeze-thru passing, 2 abreast doesn't create a additional impediment. If the group is huge it makes no difference. If the group is of moderate size, it reduces the distance needed to pass vs a single line twice as long.

The LEG was developed with FDOT and Law Enforcement and it's accepted by most agencies.

On the stop-sign thing... While there is no legitimate legal interpretation that exempts cyclists from stopping, the majority of officers I've spoken to are more concerned with cyclists yielding than completely stopping. They also don't want each individual in a group to stop independently, that would be a traffic nightmare. The groups I ride with do a wheel stop, yield if necessary, and then proceed as a group. It's not a major hardship, especially if you don't pick a route with a zillion stop-signs.

The problem with the group on video is they are perfectly willing to violate the right-of-way of motorists to get out onto that road which is too narrow for safe passing of a huge group. You can't legitimately claim the right of "first come, first served" if you violated someone else's to get there.

Well, I live in Seminole County. I have put in something over 100,000 miles on a bike in Central Florida.

The officers of the Seminole County police force tend to be fairly reasonable.

The story covered Winter Park. There is a popular large bike ride in Winter Park. The group rides very, very fast, and on crowded roads and they often ignore the niceties of the traffic laws. They have a certain local fame in that direction. The story was about both motorists and cyclists showing a certain level of elementary courtesy to each other. Things would be nicer if it happened but I am not holding my breath.

[QUOTE=commuterBOBbie;6540841]On the stop-sign thing... While there is no legitimate legal interpretation that exempts cyclists from stopping, the majority of officers I've spoken to are more concerned with cyclists yielding than completely stopping. They also don't want each individual in a group to stop independently, that would be a traffic nightmare. The groups I ride with do a wheel stop, yield if necessary, and then proceed as a group. It's not a major hardship, especially if you don't pick a route with a zillion stop-signs.QUOTE]

I've never heard of that before. It makes sense that bikes in a group should be mostly concerned about yielding to oncoming traffic, but I've not heard that most police do not want each individual in a group to stop. Is that true?

^^^^ Relating to the Jupiter Island / Martin Co. issues, the police
most definitely are going to start to crack down on anyone who doesnt
stop. They said they were content to let slide people who crept through
stop signs when no other vehicle is also at the intersection but its gone
from that to one person riding ahead of a large group, stopping and
signaling thats its OK/safe for the group to blow the sign completely.
Residents are getting angry that they need to wait for 50 -100 cyclists
before they can go. The groups on Jupiter are sometimes over 100 bikes
so they want them ride in groups of 15, break for 200 ft. then another 15,
so on and so on.......The cops said if they do not leave room for people
to gt around they will start to enforce the legal following distance rule,
ie; one vehicle length for every 10 mph.

The cops said if they do not leave room for people to gt around they will start to enforce the legal following distance rule,
ie; one vehicle length for every 10 mph.

That would make for a very long stream of cyclists ...

^^^^ Relating to the Jupiter Island / Martin Co. issues, the police
most definitely are going to start to crack down on anyone who doesnt
stop. They said they were content to let slide people who crept through
stop signs when no other vehicle is also at the intersection but its gone
from that to one person riding ahead of a large group, stopping and
signaling thats its OK/safe for the group to blow the sign completely.
Residents are getting angry that they need to wait for 50 -100 cyclists
before they can go. The groups on Jupiter are sometimes over 100 bikes
so they want them ride in groups of 15, break for 200 ft. then another 15,
so on and so on.......The cops said if they do not leave room for people
to gt around they will start to enforce the legal following distance rule,
ie; one vehicle length for every 10 mph.

Why not have a couple of people ride along as "roadmarshals" and simply block the intersections as cyclists go by. This is what the military does when marching along with companys of troops. They simply post road guards at the intersections.

The flip side is how long does it take for 100 cyclists to fly by an intersection? Sheesh.

^^^ The PD volunteered to do this if given advance notice in thier defense.
But, to diverge and present a different viewpoint for conversational purposes
only, why should cyclists be given special treatment ? We want to be treated
as equal, so why we we ask for a special treatment we know is going to antagonize 99%
of the motoring public ?? As a transportational cyclist I think roadies are our
worst enemy as far as this stuff goes, but I digress.........

"The flip side is how long does it take for 100 cyclists to fly by an intersection? Sheesh."

How long does it take to stop for 1 car or other cyclist ?
Why is their time less valuable then the clubbies ?

^^^ The PD volunteered to do this if given advance notice in thier defense.
But, to diverge and present a different viewpoint for conversational purposes
only, why should cyclists be given special treatment ? We want to be treated
as equal, so why we we ask for a special treatment we know is going to antagonize 99%
of the motoring public ?? As a transportational cyclist I think roadies are our
worst enemy as far as this stuff goes, but I digress.........

"The flip side is how long does it take for 100 cyclists to fly by an intersection? Sheesh."

How long does it take to stop for 1 car or other cyclist ?
Why is their time less valuable then the clubbies ?

The issue is "clubbies," period. HH once stated that a peloton has special privileges so to speak and should all be able to collectively run a stop sign... so special treatment is being demanded.

Any other large group using the roadway also has to have permission. Consider a parade for instance, or a large congregation of motorists such as a hot rod club. They too have to have police permission.

^^ A reason why I never could take HH seriously and thought
on any given subject his positions taken were just for the sake of
arguing. A peloton has special privileges based on what ?
Why dont I 'demand' special privileges because I worked all day long
and am tired and want to get home ? Again I stress this is not to
be combative, for discussion only :)

The issue is "clubbies," period. HH once stated that a peloton has special privileges so to speak and should all be able to collectively run a stop sign... so special treatment is being demanded.

Where was that said? I think you are mis-remembering the specifics.

If I recall right it was it was for a very specific intersection type (4-way stop), did not involve the lead rider not giving legal ROW and was not because of any special cyclist privileges, but for convenience of all road users.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6154750&postcount=25

edit: yes in that thread he did say that at a light controlled intersection if it just turns with too short notice for quickly for safe stopping of the unit that it makes sense for the group to go thru as a unit. I don't see him suggesting the lead rider run lights though:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6146313&postcount=2

Al

A peleton blasting through a stop sign strikes me as exceptionally dangerous. It might be clear when the leaders go through, but for everyone to follow regardless of oncoming traffic is dangerous and justifiably upsets drivers.

From PA vehicle code:

§ 3364. Minimum speed regulation.
(a) Impeding movement of traffic prohibited.--Except when reduced speed is necessary for safe
operation or in compliance with law, no person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to
impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
(b) Slow moving vehicle to drive off roadway.--Except when reduced speed is necessary for safe
operation or in compliance with law, whenever any person drives a vehicle upon a roadway having
width for not more than one lane of traffic in each direction at less than the maximum posted speed
and at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the driver shall,
at the first opportunity when and where it is reasonable and safe to do so and after giving appropriate
signal, drive completely off the roadway and onto the berm or shoulder of the highway. The driver
may return to the roadway after giving appropriate signal only when the movement can be made in
safety and so as not to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

From DE vehicle code:

§ 4125. Turning off roadway by slow-moving vehicle.

On a 2-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, behind which 5 or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. As used in this section, a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place. (60 Del. Laws, c. 701, § 24.)

In both vehicle codes, the reference is made to "slow moving vehicles" turning off the roadway which would include cyclists moving at less than the speed of traffic. I believe New Jersey has a similar law as well but PA and DE are the only vehicle codes I have handy at the moment. The only "impeding traffic law" that I've seen that applies solely to motor vehicles is (a) from the PA code (similar laws exist in many other states).

Since regulation 3364 refers specifically to drivers and motor vehicles, does it cover bikes? or is there some other reference elsewhere?

The cops said if they do not leave room for people
to gt around they will start to enforce the legal following distance rule,
ie; one vehicle length for every 10 mph.

Sounds like the law enforcement officers involved do not know the law or what they said was mis-interpreted. In FL code (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0316/ch0316.htm) there is no legally defined safe following distance and following closely law is only applicable to motor vehicles.

"316.0895 Following too closely.--

(1) The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the highway.

(2) It is unlawful for the driver of any motor truck, motor truck drawing another vehicle, or vehicle towing another vehicle or trailer, when traveling upon a roadway outside of a business or residence district, to follow within 300 feet of another motor truck, motor truck drawing another vehicle, or vehicle towing another vehicle or trailer. The provisions of this subsection shall not be construed to prevent overtaking and passing nor shall the same apply upon any lane specially designated for use by motor trucks or other slow-moving vehicles.

(3) Motor vehicles being driven upon any roadway outside of a business or residence district in a caravan or motorcade, whether or not towing other vehicles, shall be so operated as to allow sufficient space between each such vehicle or combination of vehicles as to enable any other vehicle to enter and occupy such space without danger. This provision shall not apply to funeral processions.

(4) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a moving violation as provided in chapter 318."

Where was that said? I think you are mis-remembering the specifics.

If I recall right it was it was for a very specific intersection type (4-way stop), did not involve the lead rider not giving legal ROW and was not because of any special cyclist privileges, but for convenience of all road users.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6154750&postcount=25

edit: yes in that thread he did say that at a light controlled intersection if it just turns with too short notice for quickly for safe stopping of the unit that it makes sense for the group to go thru as a unit. I don't see him suggesting the lead rider run lights though:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6146313&postcount=2

Al

All other road users have to stop one at a time at any stop sign... unless escorted by police (IE parade or funeral). Demanding the same for cyclists without a permit (IE parade or funeral) is asking for special privileges for cyclists.

Sure, it is far more convenient for motorists if the group goes through traffic control as a single entity... but apparently motorists don't always use the old "kidneys." (jeeze, I hope that joke is universal... )

Bear in mind that motorists are not using group think either... they may feel that it is best for the individual motorist if the cyclists would individually stop for them... but it is lousy for any mass of other traffic if that happens.

All other road users have to stop one at a time at any stop sign... unless escorted by police (IE parade or funeral). Demanding the same for cyclists without a permit (IE parade or funeral) is asking for special privileges for cyclists.

For 4-way stops say with line of x-traffic and 10 cyclists coming the other way everyone is more convenienced if 10 riders stop then go as a unit when it is the lead riders turn. By the time the last rider is thru the next x-vehicle has often not even pulled up to the stop line for their turn.

Call it what you want, but it is better for everyone involved.

Advocates for a local cycling club even asked neighbors on a popular route with five back to back 4-way stops who confirmed they preferred this.

edit: Look I am not globally defending club cyclists behavior. There are many actions I've seen from club riders (including ones I am part of) that are unnecessarily rude and/or illegal, but going thru a 4-way stop as a unit has never been anywhere near the top of the list of causing motorist/cyclist friction and neither has it been having the back of a pack clearing an intersection after the light has turned red (but always before the x-light turns green)

Al

The key phrases in the statutes you cite are "Except when reduced speed is necessary for safe
operation" and "such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic"
and "wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists"

Well, the "safe operation" part only applies to motor vehicles, with the assumption that anyone in a motor vehicle can travel at the normal speed of traffic. If they are driving slower than the normal speed of traffic, there must be a reason such as safety.

Notice that part (b) and the Delaware law specifically reference "slow moving vehicles." These laws differentiate between a "normal" motor vehicle (one capable of travelling at the normal speed of traffic) and a vehicle (motor or not) that is not capable of travelling at the speed of traffic.

I think the most important points in these laws are that they only apply (in the case of the slow moving vehicle laws) when there is no same direction passing lane, mainly because I've been pulled over multiple times by the local police now for impeding traffic (or according to the most recent cop, simply for using the right hand lane).


I certainly wouldn't consider it safe to ride my road bike on a gravel shoulder unless it was an extreme emergency. I wouldn't consider 5 cars waiting to pass an extreme emergency.

Here's the thing. Say you are on a long, busy stretch of road with a lot of traffic (5+ vehicles and growing) being slowed up behind you. There are no safe passing oppurtunities for the next few miles. In that situation, I would (eventually) slow down and stop on the side of the road to let traffic by. It's not that it's an emergency that they pass, but when you are the sole reason that they will be delayed over the next few miles (no lights or intersection, high speed limit say 35+ mph), it's the courteous thing to do, and arguably the law. Now, if you had a sheer rock face to your right, that's another story, or even a guard rail or drop off on the edge of the road. It could really be argued that anything but a paved shoulder is not a safe place for a turnout but in an effort to work with traffic, I try a little harder than that when I realize that I really am causing a significant delay. One thing I won't do is hug the edge of the road to let traffic squeeze by though.


Just because some cars have to wait does not mean the normal and reasonable flow of traffic is impeded. The normal and reasonable flow of traffic is slowed or stopped by any manner of things which don't require one to leave the roadway. Ever make a left hand turn on a 2 lane road? I've done it and been there quite a while and had way more than 5 cars stacked up behind me. Should I have to pull off onto the gravel and wait for half an hour for traffic to clear to try and make my turn? How about when school busses stop to drop off or pick up kids, are they such an impedement to trafffic that they should have to pull off onto the gravel shoulder?

You seem to be misinterpretting why I posted these laws. Sorry if I did not make it clear. As a daily cyclist and plenty often a motorist, I know there are times when there's not much else I can do but cause a delay for others in order to get where I'm going. I'm perfectly ok with that and would never consider that impeding traffic. However, if I am going to cause a multi-minute delay for others and could instead, pull over for a few seconds to let them all pass, I'll often pull over when I find a good spot to do so, whether it's a driveway or cross street or something resembling a roadway shoulder. This rarely happens on the roads I ride most often but there is one road in particular on the way to my parents' that if I ride it during rush hour, I almost always end up pulling over to let a line of 20 vehicles pass me. The road is narrow, winding, uphill, and quite busy. I would cause a considerable delay for anyone stuck behind me for the full 2 mile uphill climb, and passing spots are so rare that it could easily happen.

Note that I have done the same thing plenty of times while driving a motor vehicle when I've noticed that someone behind me is looking to travel considerably faster than me.


If a cyclist is going as fast as they reasonably can, they have a right to be on the roadway. Read Trotwood v Selz it talks about this very issue.

Honestly, I don't want to have to be going as fast as I reasonably can to have a right to travel on the roadway. Often, I could go much faster, such as in the morning on the way to work or when riding with my wife. But I don't want to and the law doesn't say anywhere that I have to. As long as I'm not impeding traffic per the slow moving vehicle law, I can move along at walking speed and should not get hassled by the cops. Of course, they don't seem to understand the law around here and I've been pulled over while doing 25mph in a 45mph zone for using the right hand lane on a multilane road during rush hour.

I've read that case and honestly, I disagree with the notion that cyclists cannot impede traffic. They can, and often do, and that's ok assuming that's there nothing reasonable (and that word is open to everyone's interpretation) that the cyclist can do to help traffic move along quicker.

Since regulation 3364 refers specifically to drivers and motor vehicles, does it cover bikes? or is there some other reference elsewhere?

Only 3364 (a) refers to motor vehicles. The other two laws apply to slow moving vehicles which cyclists, when travelling less than the normal speed of traffic, are a part of. In both states (PA and DE) cyclists have the rights and responsibilities of drivers so the laws certainly apply in that respect.

From the PA code:

§ 3501. Applicability of traffic laws to pedalcycles.
(a) General rule.--Every person riding a pedalcycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this title, except as to special provisions in this subchapter and except as to those provisions of this title which by their nature can have no application.

The last part makes it clear that when a law applies to motor vehicles, it does not apply to a cyclist.

For 4-way stops say with line of x-traffic and 10 cyclists coming the other way everyone is more convenienced if 10 riders stop then go as a unit when it is the lead riders turn. By the time the last rider is thru the next x-vehicle has often not even pulled up to the stop line for their turn.


I agree.

And indeed the cyclists would cause very little delay for even the first driver in the x group... but bear in mind that these are the same motorists that think cyclists are causing "traffic problems" when they (motorists) have to slow down from 35MPH to 20MPH for a commuting cyclist taking the lane for a 1/4 mile... that motorist is still moving in that situation, yet probably thinks "that darn bicycle guy delayed me for 5 minutes... "

So the driver in the first X spot sees the first cyclist and then the driver is ready to bolt from the stopsign... never mind that 10 or even 100 other cyclists moving at 20MPH will pass before his eyes in (29 feet per second/ 6 feet per cyclist X 50 cyclists (two abreast) is only... ) 24 seconds for 10 cyclists or 4 minutes for the entire pack... That motorist feels quite inconvenienced... they were ready to go from their stop sign right after the first cyclist passed... and now they have to wait... So you can see the frustration for that individual motorist.

Now of course if you put x motorists in, and add their delay, plus the delay of the individual cyclists starting between each individual X motorist... well heck you might be talking 20 minutes or so before the last X motorist finally gets through... verses the 4 minutes everyone waits for the peloton.

But motorists don't "group think." It is every driver for themselves... (you really see this in any merging situation with rush hour traffic... sigh. ) :rolleyes:

Sadly that is the case. Convince that lead driver that he only has to give up a bit of his time so everyone can move on smoothly, and hey no problem... but you won't be able to convince that driver of that... period. Otherwise folks would gladly car pool, or buy smaller cars or all sorts of things for "the greater good." But it ain't happening.




Call it what you want, but it is better for everyone involved.

Advocates for a local cycling club even asked neighbors on a popular route with five back to back 4-way stops who confirmed they preferred this.

edit: Look I am not globally defending club cyclists behavior. There are many actions I've seen from club riders (including ones I am part of) that are unnecessarily rude and/or illegal, but going thru a 4-way stop as a unit has never been anywhere near the top of the list of causing motorist/cyclist friction and neither has it been having the back of a pack clearing an intersection after the light has turned red (but always before the x-light turns green)

Al

Look, I fully agree with you. Really I do. Hell I've done group rides... I see this argument very well... but the first motorist, or the second motorist... they don't care... It's all about the individual (and this country is founded on the individual... so this is a really hard "sell.")

Heck, motorists should love us if they ever really evaluated what cyclists mean to them... we are "one less car." That means one more parking space, one less merge, one less bit of wait on the freeway...

But no... we are "those damn bikers..." "They made me wait 4 whole minutes this morning while all those gay *****s rode their toys out on.... "

Anyway... I think I made my point... and BTW those 4 minutes would turn to "a half hour" in every motorists' mind. ;)

Only 3364 (a) refers to motor vehicles. The other two laws apply to slow moving vehicles which cyclists, when travelling less than the normal speed of traffic, are a part of. In both states (PA and DE) cyclists have the rights and responsibilities of drivers so the laws certainly apply in that respect.

From the PA code:

§ 3501. Applicability of traffic laws to pedalcycles.
(a) General rule.--Every person riding a pedalcycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this title, except as to special provisions in this subchapter and except as to those provisions of this title which by their nature can have no application.

The last part makes it clear that when a law applies to motor vehicles, it does not apply to a cyclist.

Ah, but there is a "special provision" for bicycles traveling slower than prevailing speeds:



Slower than prevailing speeds.-- A pedalcycle operated at slower than prevailing speed shall be operated in accordance with the provisions of Section 3301(b), unless it is unsafe to do so.

3301(b). Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.
Upon all roadways, any vehicles proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions than existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into an alley, private road or driveway. This subsection does not apply to a driver who must necessarily drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on his intended route.


So the only requirement for a bicycle traveling slower than prevailing speeds is to ride in the right lane.

Delaware has a similar construction of its laws, where there is a general-purpose law (section 4193) saying that laws for vehicles appy to operators of bicycles, unless there is a bicycle-specific section. Then there is a bicycle-specific section of the law regarding operating slower than prevailing speeds that says nothing about an obligation to pull over (Section 4196A).

Ah, but there is a "special provision" for bicycles traveling slower than prevailing speeds:

PA 3301 is the standard "as far right as practicable" law. It applies to anyone travelling slower than the normal speed of traffic. In PA, the nice part about the law is that when there is a right lane (meaning that there is also a left lane) cyclists, like other slow moving vehicles, are only required to use that lane. In DE, there is a special "as far right as practicable" law for cyclists; slow moving vehicles get full use of the right lane when available but cyclists must still be AFRAP (actually it's "as close as practicable to the right hand edge" but AFRAP is more standard language). The cyclist specific AFRAP law is what I was cited for violating last August (trial this July). If I was in PA, my defense would be a lot easier.


So the only requirement for a bicycle traveling slower than prevailing speeds is to ride in the right lane.

In my interpretation, 3364 is a followup law to 3301. Even if 3301 is being obeyed, one still must obey 3364, after all, they both apply to slow moving vehicles. Simply obeying 3301 is not enough.

3301's purpose is to facilitate the passing of faster traffic but of course there are exceptions when for safety's sake, facilitating the passing of faster traffic gets overruled. The law makers felt that there might be cases where those exceptions might apply for a considerably long time and thus added 3364 to prevent unnecessary delays.

If you notice, in both PA 3301 and DE 4196 (http://http://delcode.delaware.gov/title21/c041/sc12/index.shtml#TopOfPage), the position specified is the "roadway" which does not include the shoulder. If only 3301 or 4196 was applicable to cyclists, on a single lane each way road with no passing zones, 12 foot lanes and a 12 foot shoulder, a cyclist could legally ride in the center of the lane while traffic continually piled up behind him. PA 3364 and DE 4125 make this illegal, and logically so.

Delaware has a similar construction of its laws, where there is a general-purpose law (section 4193) saying that laws for vehicles appy to operators of bicycles, unless there is a bicycle-specific section. Then there is a bicycle-specific section of the law regarding operating slower than prevailing speeds that says nothing about an obligation to pull over (Section 4196A).

DE's code seperates slow moving vehicles from cyclists as opposed to PA's code which lumps them together. DE 4125 is worded specifically to remove this distinction between slow moving vehicles and cyclists and make it applicable to all vehicles travelling slower than the normal speed of traffic: As used in this section, a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

This definiton of a slow moving vehicle is used for this law only. Any other place where "slow moving vehicle" is used, it is not meant to include cyclists.

I've never heard of that before. It makes sense that bikes in a group should be mostly concerned about yielding to oncoming traffic, but I've not heard that most police do not want each individual in a group to stop. Is that true?

The letter of the law does require each individual (or 2 abreast) to stop independently, so when groups of cyclists cause problems by violating right-of-way, the police often threaten to require each one to individually stop. I think the primary purpose of that is to encourage the trouble-making cyclists to find some other place to ride. They acknowledge it would cause a nightmare of delay and get motor vehicles and bicycles all jumbled up. They don't want to enforce the law that way, they just want the groups to behave. The police officials I've talked to all agree on this. (I'm usually interacting with these guys in an advocacy setting, not on the street)

Bob Mionske argues in his book, rather convincingly, that cyclists, being traffic, can never impede traffic, but that is theory and does not echo the practicalities of everyday riding.

That's an interesting viewpoint. Maybe I should read his book. A similar thought has occurred to me, in a more limited way, when I take the lane stopped at a light. Especially when I'm commuting or otherwise driving my bike for transportation, I figure that if I weren't taking up this space on my bike, I'd be taking it up in my car, so what's the difference?

That means one more parking space, one less merge, one less bit of wait on the freeway...

A cyclist I know has a great bumper sticker on his truck: "Had I ridden my bike, you could have this parking space." :)