Advocacy & Safety - Better off without "Ride to the Right?"

Most states have some kind of "Ride to the Right" law, usually some variation of staying "as far right as practicable (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/practicable)", and ideally with a list of exceptions such as avoiding debris, avoiding right-turn only lanes, and preparing for left turns. Paul Schimek has a nice comparison of these laws in various states in this article (http://bicycledriving.org/law/guide-to-improving-laws). Some states don't even have a Ride to the Right law!

One argument that Paul makes in that article, which I find myself increasingly in agreement with, is that this law is discriminatory and redundant with laws about slow-moving traffic staying to the right. It seems to me that it reinforces the idea that cyclists are not quite as welcome to use the road as motorists are, no matter that the law says elsewhere that we have all the same rights and duties. On the other hand, the better Right to the Right laws will explicitly list exceptions which are not present in the more general purpose slow-moving traffic law, which seems like a good thing.

So would we better off without it, or is it okay as it is?

Related but different question, for extra credit: If you believe it a negative overall, is it worth campaigning to get it repealed in states where it exists?

I ride where I feel I am the safest at any given moment. I don't give much thought to where "The Law" thinks I should ride. It's my funeral if I get it wrong.

In your poll, I checked "Yes"

As for Part II of the question, I would rather be riding my bike than lobbying, but think that persons with the time and energy should do whatever they can to level the playing field for Cyclist vs. Motorist laws. Either we are "equal" i.e., bound by the same rules of the road, or were not. I can roll with either decision.

I'm with Joey, I ride wherever I feel safe for the moment, whether that be between lanes of cars, in the middle of the lane or slightly to the right..The only thing I don't do is blow through stop lights (for the most part). The law says that we can be as far to the right as we deem safe, and well I never deem the white line safe...

I am partial to the messenger's left.

I am gonna vote yes. From the many letters I have read on these forums, it seems clear to me that (at least in urban/suburban areas) the obsession with 'bikes should ride as far to the right as....." is in serious conflict not only with the safety of many of you riders out there, but also stands in the way of cyclists due recognition of their rights and privileges on the roadway.

After all, as a practical matter, CARS should ride as far to the right as practicable, as well, leaving the left lanes for passing and faster traffic. But no one grudges an automobiles right to be flexible, lanewise, as traffic conditions permit. Much the same should be extended to bikes.

I still say, dollar for dollar the best cycling safety expenditure is to widen the shoulder of the road. But in congested areas---just where it is most needed!---the room for shoulders is at a premium.

roughstuff

Most states have some kind of "Ride to the Right" law, usually some variation of staying "as far right as practicable (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/practicable)", and ideally with a list of exceptions such as avoiding debris, avoiding right-turn only lanes, and preparing for left turns. Paul Schimek has a nice comparison of these laws in various states in this article (http://bicycledriving.org/law/guide-to-improving-laws). Some states don't even have a Ride to the Right law!

One argument that Paul makes in than article, which I find myself increasingly in agreement with, is that this law is discriminatory and redundant with laws about slow-moving traffic staying to the right. It seems to me that it reinforces the idea that cyclists are not quite as welcome to use the road as motorists are, no matter that the law says elsewhere that we have all the same rights and duties. On the other hand, the better Right to the Right laws will explicitly list exceptions which are not present in the more general purpose slow-moving traffic law, which seems like a good thing.

So would we better off without it, or is it okay as it is?

Related but different question, for extra credit: If you believe it a negative overall, is it worth campaigning to get it repealed in states where it exists?

Its very true. We are still being discriminated against and in essence "ride as far to the right as possible" is just like being told to "ride in the back of the bus."

I am partial to the messenger's left.

I'm not familiar with that phrase, "messenger's left". Please explain?

After all, as a practical matter, CARS should ride as far to the right as practicable, as well, leaving the left lanes for passing and faster traffic. But no one grudges an automobiles right to be flexible, lanewise, as traffic conditions permit. Much the same should be extended to bikes.

Agreed. That's the reason for the slow-moving vehicle law, which applies to bikes and cars alike. The big difference is that it doesn't have all the explicit exceptions listed, I guess implying that those exceptions should be common sense.

I think that the effect is probably negative -- I voted yes -- but more than likely the effect is trivial since most people do not know the specifics of the law in the first place.

I don't see much problem with the law. All it says is move over for faster traffic IF you feel conditions allow for it. Generally it is left to the discretion of the rider.

If you don't want to move over for faster traffic when there is room to do so, that sounds more like a personality issue than anything else.

the problem with ride to the right laws is that the exceptions are subjective and what a cyclist may determine is a hazard to be avoided may not even be seen by a following motorist, and the examples of cases where cops don't understand the law and give a variety of tickets to cyclists for violating the ride to the right laws that need to be sorted out in court at the cyclists' expense are quite abundant.

the problem with ride to the right laws is that the exceptions are subjective and what a cyclist may determine is a hazard to be avoided may not even be seen by a following motorist, and the examples of cases where cops don't understand the law and give a variety of tickets to cyclists for violating the ride to the right laws that need to be sorted out in court at the cyclists' expense are quite abundant.

Yeah I recall getting into a bit of an argument with a motorist when I was riding left in a right lane to avoid all the cracked pavement... the motorists response was to tell me to stop using "those skinny tires." :rolleyes:

But I suppose it was just my "personality" that kept me from riding on that poor pavement, eh?

the problem with ride to the right laws is ..... sorted out in court at the cyclists' expense are quite abundant.

Or put another way, the 'ride to the right' is sort of like an albatross hung ONLY around the neck of cyclists.

roughstuff

Yeah I recall getting into a bit of an argument with a motorist when I was riding left in a right lane to avoid all the cracked pavement... the motorists response was to tell me to stop using "those skinny tires." :rolleyes:

Hey ... at least he/she was thinking and demonstrated some understanding of the issue. ;)

You should have responded something along the lines of that they should be driving a skinnier car ... or stop using "those fat cars."

You should have responded something along the lines of that they should be driving a skinnier car ... or stop using "those fat cars."

Touche.

Thanks for the link John.

I'm not sure I can add anything to what has been said already. I voted yes. I think the ride2right laws (with a bunch of exceptions) effectively place cyclists as second class citizens. Someone mentioned above "get to the back of the bus" which I think is very apropos. As for fighting to get it repealed... I can't vote yes as John might assign that to me.

The 'ride to the right, with a bunch of exceptions' should be inverted.

As currently perceived by motorists, cyclists are meant to stay 'out of the way' on the right and my dollar says that more than 90% of motorists have zero knowledge of the exceptions. This, as stated eloquently above by RoughStuff is "an albatross hung ONLY around the neck of cyclists".

Inverting the law would bring it home to motorists that cyclists have every right to be on the road, and we are doing them a courtesy by riding to the right:

"Cyclists should take the lane, unless the lane is wide enough to allow all vehicles to pass with at least 3 feet of clearance".

No mention of position within a lane. No list of exceptions. That is how it should be.

Until the law is written this way, law enforcement will not only likely side with the motorists egregious perception, but is also likely to join those making unsafe passes.

As for fighting to get it repealed... I can't vote yes as John might assign that to me.

So, then, you're interested? ;)

Actually, I brought this up tentatively and informally recently with someone on the board of our state bike coalition, and he made a good tactical point that you want to be careful doing anything with the legislative process, because the way that things can get changed going through committee and rewriting, you can never ensure that you're going to really get what you want in the end, and sometimes it can even change in ways you don't really want. So it's not a process to be taken lightly. Given that we just strengthened our Ride to the Right law with more exceptions in 2007, mainly through the efforts of that very organization, I don't see it being politically feasible or advisable for the near future to say "Oh, we changed our minds. Let's just repeal the law altogether". :rolleyes:


Inverting the law would bring it home to motorists that cyclists have every right to be on the road, and we are doing them a courtesy by riding to the right:

"Cyclists should take the lane, unless the lane is wide enough to allow all vehicles to pass with at least 3 feet of clearance".

That's an interesting idea. I'm not sure how I feel about it, because I don't necessarily subscribe to the philosophy of always taking the entire lane whenever it's not wide enough to share. My approach is that I simply position myself at a comfortable distance from the usable right edge, wherever that is, and if I'm still not taking the entire lane, that just means cars don't have to move over as far to pass me safely, and that is a compromise I'm okay with. It may help that in Maine, the law actually allows motorist to cross a double-yellow, if it's safe, in order to give cyclists their 3'. So I think it's better to only require them to cross a foot or two over the line than 6' over the line. But in states without this law, I can see where you don't want to encourage the motorists to try to squeeze too close to avoid crossing the line at all.

I guess I'm still of the opinion that the law should say nothing at all about the lane choice and position of cyclists specifically, so that the only relevant statute is the one that already applies to all slow-moving vehicles, which would include bikes when they are going slower than prevailing traffic. That seems fairest.

I voted yes.


One thing I find is motorist read "ride to the right" and then don't bother to read the rest of the law.

If you don't want to move over for faster traffic when there is room to do so, that sounds more like a personality issue than anything else.

"Room" can sometimes be a right turn only lane, a debris-littered shoulder, or a sidewalk in the eyes of some motorists, and police for that matter.

It may help that in Maine, the law actually allows motorist to cross a double-yellow, if it's safe, in order to give cyclists their 3'. So I think it's better to only require them to cross a foot or two over the line than 6' over the line. But in states without this law, I can see where you don't want to encourage the motorists to try to squeeze too close to avoid crossing the line at all.
John, what I do not understand, if it is safe to move one foot into the adjacent (or oncoming) lane, then it is safe to move completely into the adjacent lane. Is it really that hard to move a car over laterally that we need to save motorist such hardship rather than giving the added safety to the cyclist?

When I am driving, I have never found it any harder to move completely into the next lane than moving just one foot into the lane. I always had to wait until the entire lane was clear for me to move over either way.

Personally I prefer to ride in the street in town instead of the badly planned bike lanes with the glass and potholes.
Yesterday while driving I followed a couple on bikes, the man seemed used to riding, the woman was behaving as though new at it, she wobbled nervously as I came up in my car, but I stayed well back, because I didn't know what she would do. Then she signaled a left turn meaning she was taking the lane. (I always take the lane at that same area so that I'm more visible to the overtaking cars, at the curve) and also because I'd be making a left turn in about 50 yards.
I saw a huge "pod" of cyclists one day, and I wished I was on my bike instead of in my car. The more bikes on that road, the more drivers will realize bikes are out there, and are more likely to keep an eye out for them.
So, I voted yes, because I would prefer to be a vehicular cyclist in places where the speed limit is below 40 mph. Preferably, 35 mph and lower, but I have found being more in the road is safer, with some common sense in place, of course. :)

This 'back of the bus' stuff is nonsense. Always makes my hair stand up. Displays a fairly frightening ignorance of history or an amazing sense of entitlement or both.

Newsflash folks -- bicyclists enjoy more freedom and 'rights' than any other class of road user. Don't screw it up with your misguided whining.

The ride to the right law, with exceptions written in to favor bicyclists, is really just a codification of common sense and common courtesy, in my opinion. As many here have mentioned, lots of cops and drivers have a very much less favorable view of where cyclists should be allowed to ride than is expressed in this law. It's not the law that's the problem. The law doesn't require anyone to ride in a door zone or through piles of litter or in a right turn lane or over potholes, it expressly says otherwise. It also allows you to ride wherever you want in the lane when there is no faster traffic around, in my interpretation. It does require a little bit of compromise, that's how the world works. It's a shame that we have to codify common courtesy.

Traffic is compromise. You move a little to the right, they move a little to the left and everybody goes on their way. I guess it comes as a shock to some people that they have to compromise with other road users while using the roads. The uncompromising bicyclist who refuses to cooperate with motorists who want to pass is just the same as the guy who pulls up behind them and lays on the horn. It's just two uncompromising road users saying howdy, and bickering like spoiled children.

I would add that it's the uncompromising lane takers, not the scofflaws, who will get us all kicked off the roads.

I'm not familiar with that phrase, "messenger's left". Please explain?

As a messenger I spend a lot more time in high density traffic than most and don't spend much time riding on the right as it simply far too hazardous... besides parked cars and the potential for being doored, errant pedestrians, cabs that don't signal when they pull out, etc... there are those motorists will speed up and pass you on the far left to make right turns (you gotta love that).

On quiet streets without right turns the right is fine... when it gets busy this is no place to be and one really wants to be a little more aggressive in their positioning.

One either takes the lane or in the case of multiple lanes, I will often ride in the left lane as this puts you in a place of higher visibility as you are directly in front of the driver and in many cases, it really gets their attention and one does have every right to be there.

It makes left turns easier too because you are already in that lane and I have never had a car pass me on the right and try to make a left turn... because they can't help but see me.

I am a really cautious rider and make sure I am always in the safest place possible... that place just might not be the place where people think a bike should be.

People look at messengers and will often say they are reckless but these guys really know what they are doing... it is one of those "do not try this at home" situations as it does require some really mad skills and a good knowledge of how the traffic flows where you are working.

I also have no problem breaking the law when I know it keeps me safer.

As a messenger I spend a lot more time in high density traffic than most and don't spend much time riding on the right as it simply far too hazardous... besides parked cars and the potential for being doored, errant pedestrians, cabs that don't signal when they pull out, etc... there are those motorists will speed up and pass you on the far left to make right turns (you gotta love that).

On quiet streets without right turns the right is fine... when it gets busy this is no place to be and one really wants to be a little more aggressive in their positioning.

One either takes the lane or in the case of multiple lanes, I will often ride in the left lane as this puts you in a place of higher visibility as you are directly in front of the driver and in many cases, it really gets their attention and one does have every right to be there.

It makes left turns easier too because you are already in that lane and I have never had a car pass me on the right and try to make a left turn... because they can't help but see me.

I am a really cautious rider and make sure I am always in the safest place possible... that place just might not be the place where people think a bike should be.

People look at messengers and will often say they are reckless but these guys really know what they are doing... it is one of those "do not try this at home" situations as it does require some really mad skills and a good knowledge of how the traffic flows where you are working.

I also have no problem breaking the law when I know it keeps me safer.

So how well does this work on 45 and 55MPH arterial roads?

I see no problem with the law, as it leaves the decision of "practicability" to the cyclist. All it does is establish a precedent, really-- the proper thing to do, if it's safe, is to move right and allow others to pass. Seems like common courtesy.

The issue here is that so many cyclists are timid, and so many drivers aggressive, that many riders have lost the will to assert their rights when safety should compel them to do so. I don't think changing the law is the answer. It seems like a social shift is necessary.

I see no problem with the law, as it leaves the decision of "practicability" to the cyclist. All it does is establish a precedent, really-- the proper thing to do, if it's safe, is to move right and allow others to pass. Seems like common courtesy.

The issue here is that so many cyclists are timid, and so many drivers aggressive, that many riders have lost the will to assert their rights when safety should compel them to do so. I don't think changing the law is the answer. It seems like a social shift is necessary.

The current law arguably reinforces the social norms which we all agree need shifting.

The 'ride to the right, with a bunch of exceptions' should be inverted.

"Cyclists should take the lane, unless the lane is wide enough to allow all vehicles to pass with at least 3 feet of clearance". ...

How 'bout "may take the lane, ...," since some of us doubt the wisdom of taking a 55mph lane when there is a perfectly good shoulder or bike lane available.

This 'back of the bus' stuff is nonsense. Always makes my hair stand up. Displays a fairly frightening ignorance of history or an amazing sense of entitlement or both.

Newsflash folks -- bicyclists enjoy more freedom and 'rights' than any other class of road user. Don't screw it up with your misguided whining.

The ride to the right law, with exceptions written in to favor bicyclists, is really just a codification of common sense and common courtesy, in my opinion. As many here have mentioned, lots of cops and drivers have a very much less favorable view of where cyclists should be allowed to ride than is expressed in this law. It's not the law that's the problem. The law doesn't require anyone to ride in a door zone or through piles of litter or in a right turn lane or over potholes, it expressly says otherwise. It also allows you to ride wherever you want in the lane when there is no faster traffic around, in my interpretation. It does require a little bit of compromise, that's how the world works. It's a shame that we have to codify common courtesy.

Traffic is compromise. You move a little to the right, they move a little to the left and everybody goes on their way. I guess it comes as a shock to some people that they have to compromise with other road users while using the roads. The uncompromising bicyclist who refuses to cooperate with motorists who want to pass is just the same as the guy who pulls up behind them and lays on the horn. It's just two uncompromising road users saying howdy, and bickering like spoiled children.

I would add that it's the uncompromising lane takers, not the scofflaws, who will get us all kicked off the roads.

I'm still not convinced it's nonsense. Granted, the "back of the bus" comparison may be a bit much in terms of relative important of the issue, but I think it's the same concept, even if obviously of much less larger societal relevance.

My gripe is not at all with the content of the law, but the cultural psychological effect of its existence. It's fine to have a law that says if you are going slower than everyone else, you should allow them to pass you if it is safe to. No problem there. But the general slow-moving vehicle law already says that! So having a bicycle-only version of it is redundant, especially if you believe that all the exceptions are common sense anyway.

So why have a redundant law that applies only to cyclists? You'd think there'd have to be a reason, and I suspect that most people would answer from ignorance that the reason is that bikes are less important road users. I think the existence of the law, not necessarily its content, implies this to many non-cyclists. Why else not make do with the slow-moving vehicle law? Are bikes different from other slow-moving vehicles? Yes, operationally, but should not be in terms of traffic law.

I think one reason that the law implies this to many people is because, as wheel noted, most folks just know that the law exists but know nothing of its content. So it's a natural conclusion to interpret it to mean "bikes have to stay out of the way of cars". Whereas if the Ride to the Right law didn't exist, the slow-moving vehicle law would be the only applicable one, and some alleged "difference" between bikes and cars would not muddy up the issue.

I think one reason that the law implies this to many people is because, as wheel noted, most folks just know that the law exists but know nothing of its content. So it's a natural conclusion to interpret it to mean "bikes have to stay out of the way of cars". Whereas if the Ride to the Right law didn't exist, the slow-moving vehicle law would be the only applicable one, and some alleged "difference" between bikes and cars would not muddy up the issue.

I don't think most folks even know the law exists... but they do know for some reason that "bikes have to stay out of the way of cars." Fundamentally I think most drivers don't know that we really don't "have to stay out of the way of cars." The thinking is indeed more along the lines of "the back of the bus."

We cyclists are not equal road users in the minds of most motorists... look at the typical responses seen in newspapers RE collisions between cyclist and motorist... the response is usually along the lines of "bikes have to stay out of the way of cars" and then some.

Sadly the laws of physics also tend to dictate that perhaps we don't want to "get in the way" of cars... in spite of our legal status. Of course that latter statement might be attributed to Forester's "inferiority syndrome." But the reality is that road designs and laws tend to strongly favor the motor vehicle... from such issues as the 85% rule to even Environmental Impact Studies in CA which deny the impact of the auto and have clauses that favor the use of the auto.

This overall is a societal problem stemming from our laziness and addiction to oil and the status of the auto in our culture.

I'm still not convinced it's nonsense. Granted, the "back of the bus" comparison may be a bit much in terms of relative important of the issue, but I think it's the same concept, even if obviously of much less larger societal relevance.

My gripe is not at all with the content of the law, but the cultural psychological effect of its existence. It's fine to have a law that says if you are going slower than everyone else, you should allow them to pass you if it is safe to. No problem there. But the general slow-moving vehicle law already says that! So having a bicycle-only version of it is redundant, especially if you believe that all the exceptions are common sense anyway.

So why have a redundant law that applies only to cyclists? You'd think there'd have to be a reason, and I suspect that most people would answer from ignorance that the reason is that bikes are less important road users. I think the existence of the law, not necessarily its content, implies this to many non-cyclists. Why else not make do with the slow-moving vehicle law? Are bikes different from other slow-moving vehicles? Yes, operationally, but should not be in terms of traffic law.

I think one reason that the law implies this to many people is because, as wheel noted, most folks just know that the law exists but know nothing of its content. So it's a natural conclusion to interpret it to mean "bikes have to stay out of the way of cars". Whereas if the Ride to the Right law didn't exist, the slow-moving vehicle law would be the only applicable one, and some alleged "difference" between bikes and cars would not muddy up the issue.

I think you've got it backwards John. The vast majority of motorists don't know the law exists or have only a very vague notion of it. Widespread knowledge of the law's wording would result in an improvement in the general conception of cyclists' rights held by the non-bicycling world, I believe. "Wow, you mean they don't have to move over if the lane is too narrow to share, if they are going the speed of traffic or if there are potholes or ice or doorzones or a whole mess of other crap that I don't even understand? Wow, I didn't know that..."

I don't see how eliminating the law would improve the situation for bicycling at all. I can see how it would make it worse.

I don't think most folks even know the law exists... but they do know for some reason that "bikes have to stay out of the way of cars." Fundamentally I think most drivers don't know that we really don't "have to stay out of the way of cars." The thinking is indeed more along the lines of "the back of the bus."

There is certainly anti-bicycle sentiment out there, some places worse than others. But it ain't the fault of this law. I believe it would be more accurate to blame ignorance of the law as the culprit. The law establishes critical rights for bicyclists. All it asks is that we get out of the way for a faster vehicle if it is safe for us to do so. Not much of a compromise there at all, imo, as I would do that anyway.

Using the language of the civil rights movement to describe bicycling in America is a sign of great confusion about the nature of bicycling and the history of racism. Clearly we bicyclists are sheltered to a fault if we start thinking along those lines. Riding in the back of the bus was about the least egregious form of racism that blacks suffered in this country. Hearing bicyclists whine using such words is particularly hard to take considering the role that bicyclists themselves played in the country's racist past.

the purpose of the laws mandating riding as far as practicable to the right (with exceptions) are not to codify road position by bicyclists but to spell out and codify the exceptions to the 'slower stay right' laws common to both bikes and motorists (like avoiding unsafe pavement conditions - not spelled out for motorists but clarified for bicyclists)

Robert - kudos to your explanations. +1

I think you've got it backwards John. The vast majority of motorists don't know the law exists or have only a very vague notion of it. Widespread knowledge of the law's wording would result in an improvement in the general conception of cyclists' rights held by the non-bicycling world, I believe. "Wow, you mean they don't have to move over if the lane is too narrow to share, if they are going the speed of traffic or if there are potholes or ice or doorzones or a whole mess of other crap that I don't even understand? Wow, I didn't know that..."

As far as I can tell, there is ZERO effort being made to reeducate motorists on these points, not by the Federal Transportation Safety folks, and certainly not by any of the state or local DOTs. All we get are erroneous opinions and clear misunderstandings, misinterpretations and misapplications of the law by the media and law enforcement agencies.

I am surprised that some here do not see the stay far right law a discriminatory.

Let us take another historic law for comparison. What if we rewrote the old time restroom laws to mimic the stay out of motorist way cycling laws as follows:

Georgia Revised Statutes
RCSM code 192.a
(1) Whites may use any restroom at any time they wish.
(2) Blacks shall only use black signed restrooms unless one of the following exceptions exist:
(a) the line to the black restroom is longer than ten,
(b) all toilets in the black restroom are broken, or
(c) the black restroom is closed for cleaning for longer than 30 minutes.


That law would actually give blacks more rights according to the logic of some here.

jebezzus.

As far as I can tell, there is ZERO effort being made to reeducate motorists on these points, not by the Federal Transportation Safety folks, and certainly not by any of the state or local DOTs. All we get are erroneous opinions and clear misunderstandings, misinterpretations and misapplications of the law by the media and law enforcement agencies.

Right down to the individual cops, the younger they are the more clueless they are, not a good sign.

I would guess that only a small percentage of bicyclists, for that matter, know about the exceptions to the ride to the right law, or the other variations on traffic laws that exist in their locales. For years I rode under the assumption that it was legal for bicyclists to ride on the left side of one-way streets in Denver (as far right OR left as practicable), but I was wrong. There is no provision for bicyclists to ride on the left side of one-ways in Denver as there exists in some cities. But I used the left side cooperatively for years and years and nobody ever harassed me and no cop ever said a word.

Problems with the ride-to-the-right law come from extremists on both sides. Uncompromising bicyclists and uncompromising motorists. Everybody else gets along fine without ever thinking or worrying much about this law.

There is certainly anti-bicycle sentiment out there, some places worse than others. But it ain't the fault of this law. I believe it would be more accurate to blame ignorance of the law as the culprit. The law establishes critical rights for bicyclists. All it asks is that we get out of the way for a faster vehicle if it is safe for us to do so. Not much of a compromise there at all, imo, as I would do that anyway.

Using the language of the civil rights movement to describe bicycling in America is a sign of great confusion about the nature of bicycling and the history of racism. Clearly we bicyclists are sheltered to a fault if we start thinking along those lines. Riding in the back of the bus was about the least egregious form of racism that blacks suffered in this country. Hearing bicyclists whine using such words is particularly hard to take considering the role that bicyclists themselves played in the country's racist past.

Yeah I have to agree with you there... I think that the issues we face are what you stated to John... on that we are in full agreement.
The vast majority of motorists don't know the law exists or have only a very vague notion of it. Widespread knowledge of the law's wording would result in an improvement in the general conception of cyclists' rights held by the non-bicycling world, I believe. "Wow, you mean they don't have to move over if the lane is too narrow to share, if they are going the speed of traffic or if there are potholes or ice or doorzones or a whole mess of other crap that I don't even understand? Wow, I didn't know that..."

Which is why I find it so darn frustrating that we as a collective group (which in itself is a problem) don't get out there and provide funding for training the general public... PSAs, billboards etc about HOW to share the road. Heck even simple "share the road" signs are often misinterpreted by the public to mean "cyclists move over and share..." vice their true meaning.

Educating cyclists is all well and good, but if even the most educated cyclist is up against mostly ignorant motorists that education means very little.

Personally I have always felt that "road use education" should be the 4th R in our public schools... Road use is after all a life long activity... so there should be a smattering of it taught in lower grades, with "road use" ultimately culminating in a drivers license in high school... with at least a full semester of training vice the usual 6 weeks of cram session.

I am surprised that some here do not see the stay far right law a discriminatory.

Let us take another historic law for comparison. What if we rewrote the old time restroom laws to mimic the stay out of motorist way cycling laws as follows:

Georgia Revised Statutes
RCSM code 192.a
(1) Whites may us any restroom at any time they wish.
(2) Blacks shall only use black signed restrooms unless one of the following exceptions exist:
(a) the line to the black restroom is longer than ten,
(b) all toilets in the black restroom are broken, or
(c) the black restroom is closed for cleaning for longer than 30 minutes.


That law would actually give blacks more rights according to the logic of some here.

Bicyclists already have more freedom than any other class of road user.

I just figured out what VC stands for: Victim Complex.

What is the problem with moving over for a faster vehicle if it is safe to do so?

Yeah I have to agree with you there... I think that the issues we face are what you stated to John... on that we are in full agreement.

Which is why I find it so darn frustrating that we as a collective group (which in itself is a problem) don't get out there and provide funding for training the general public... PSAs, billboards etc about HOW to share the road. Heck even simple "share the road" signs are often misinterpreted by the public to mean "cyclists move over and share..." vice their true meaning.

Educating cyclists is all well and good, but if even the most educated cyclist is up against mostly ignorant motorists that education means very little.

Personally I have always felt that "road use education" should be the 4th R in our public schools... Road use is after all a life long activity... so there should be a smattering of it taught in lower grades, with "road use" ultimately culminating in a drivers license in high school... with at least a full semester of training vice the usual 6 weeks of cram session.

I think we should raise the driving age to 18, as well as do a better job educating kids and adults about driving and bicycling.

Bicyclists already have more freedom than any other class of road user.

I just figured out what VC stands for: Victim Complex.

What is the problem with moving over for a faster vehicle if it is safe to do so?

Nothing... the problem tends to be NOT moving over when it is not safe to do so and having that decision being accepted by other road users.

How 'bout "may take the lane, ...," since some of us doubt the wisdom of taking a 55mph lane when there is a perfectly good shoulder or bike lane available.

I chose 'should' take the lane, so that it is not required i.e. 'must' take the lane. All sensible cyclists would automatically ride where they feel safer. For you and me that would probably be the shoulder or bike lane (if present).

The problem with 'may' take the lane, is that it sounds like we are being given permission. I prefer a statute that is neither giving nor taking. There is a strong argument that if a statute neither gives nor takes, then it is redundant and therefore does not need to exist. This would be true if repealing the ride-to-the-right rule was combined with considerable driver education. That is never going to happen.

The point, that I am failing to emphasize, is that motorists should be more cognizant of the fact that cyclists are providing a courtesy when they move to the right to allow them to pass. We are not getting out of the way!

If the ride-to-the-right rule is with us forever, then it should include a set of exclusions so long as to make it seem absurd i.e. it should list comprehensively all of the things that would give a cyclist legitimate reason to move left, including:

puddles of water - who knows how deep the hole is that lurks beneath the surface.
ice
debris
glass
build up of wet leaves to any depth
large cracks in the pavement
loose gravel, stones or sand
pot holes
steel plates
to position for a left turn
to pass pedestrians in the roadway
to pass stationary or parked vehicles
to pass slower cyclists
to pass slower vehicles
to avoid using right-turn-only lanes
when traveling at the same speed as other traffic or within 5 mph of the posted speed limit
and most important of all:
to adopt the position deemed safest by the cyclist
etc.

Reciting the list from memory would be required to pass a driving test.

the exceptions codified in every state law i've read include 'but not limited to' language when describing those conditions.

The reiteration of bicyclists as slower vehicles to ride as far right as is practicable laws (In WA state it is 'as near to the right edge of the rightmost thru lane as is safe) ARE to clarify, codify and allow cyclists to choose the position deemed safest by the bicyclist.

The 'ride to the right, with a bunch of exceptions' should be inverted.

As currently perceived by motorists, cyclists are meant to stay 'out of the way' on the right and my dollar says that more than 90% of motorists have zero knowledge of the exceptions. This, as stated eloquently above by RoughStuff is "an albatross hung ONLY around the neck of cyclists".

Inverting the law would bring it home to motorists that cyclists have every right to be on the road, and we are doing them a courtesy by riding to the right:

"Cyclists should take the lane, unless the lane is wide enough to allow all vehicles to pass with at least 3 feet of clearance".

No mention of position within a lane. No list of exceptions. That is how it should be.

Until the law is written this way, law enforcement will not only likely side with the motorists egregious perception, but is also likely to join those making unsafe passes.


Bicyclists already have more freedom than any other class of road user.

I just figured out what VC stands for: Victim Complex.

What is the problem with moving over for a faster vehicle if it is safe to do so?Nothing, that is why the laws should be revised to remove the discriminatory wording as HoustonB suggest or just go with the common slow moving vehicles laws that already exist and would work well with the concept of cyclist sharing the road.

RobertHurst "I just figured out what VC stands for: Victim Complex." Play the fool if you like.

the exceptions codified in every state law i've read include 'but not limited to' language when describing those conditions.

The reiteration of bicyclists as slower vehicles to ride as far right as is practicable laws (In WA state it is 'as near to the right edge of the rightmost thru lane as is safe) ARE to clarify, codify and allow cyclists to choose the position deemed safest by the bicyclist.

I can agree that to "allow cyclists to choose the position deemed safest by the bicyclist" may be the intent, but I disagree vehemently that it is the outcome.

I see the ride-to-the-right rule as a codified courtesy. I will accept it when Please and Thank you are also codified.

So how well does this work on 45 and 55MPH arterial roads?

It doesn't.

I would not put myself in the lane when the traffic is moving at 25-35 mph faster than me.

Fortunately... most of our arterials / freeways and highways have really wide shoulders that will allow a cyclist plenty of room on what is generally a smoother road surface as it is not normally subjected to vehicular traffic.

I thin a lot of this stems from a need to allow rural vehicles to travel our roads without interfering with regular traffic and even though I don't think the planners were thinking of cyclists, it serves our needs quite well.

We still have our fair share of narrow country roads with nominal shoulders and one just has to be really vigilant then you ride them... for the most part I have found that drivers in the country will give you lots of room when they pass.

I would add that it's the uncompromising lane takers, not the scofflaws, who will get us all kicked off the roads.

Can you elaborate on this point, please?

It doesn't.

I would not put myself in the lane when the traffic is moving at 25-35 mph faster than me.

Fortunately... most of our arterials / freeways and highways have really wide shoulders that will allow a cyclist plenty of room on what is generally a smoother road surface as it is not normally subjected to vehicular traffic.

I thin a lot of this stems from a need to allow rural vehicles to travel our roads without interfering with regular traffic and even though I don't think the planners were thinking of cyclists, it serves our needs quite well.

We still have our fair share of narrow country roads with nominal shoulders and one just has to be really vigilant then you ride them... for the most part I have found that drivers in the country will give you lots of room when they pass.

You are talking about rural country roads while I am thinking of in town arterials which are the only roads connecting suburban communities only a few miles apart. While indeed many have wide outside lanes, this is not always the case, and none the less, there are often situations in which such lanes are blocked and the need to take a lane becomes the only choice.

Even if the "ride to the right" rules were dropped, would that alone change where any particular cyclist rides, or how he/she is perceived or treated by motorists or law enforcement? Without additional education (which would probably help just as much with the laws kept as is) I think not.

Some form of _slow_moving_vehicle_ law is fine.

(Though probably most existing versions could use gussying-up, to note the _convenience_ rather than safety justification for this code... also noting _only_ as far right as a reasonable concern for _convenience_ calls for, eliminating the silly and bad 'practicable' versus 'possible' terminology/confusion debate [then education - not code - should hammer the _safety_ reasons for making this the _minimum_ amount right reasonable concern for convenience calls for.])

Since general slow moving vehicle code already covers bicyclists at the times and places bicyclist might be a slow moving vehicle driver - "slow moving" defined _relative_ to existing conditions and existing flows - there are good reasons not to duplicate this in a bicyclist-specific section.

Couple more points

1) the lane 'taker' terminology is often used by people who see bicyclist lateral placement as either/or - and not as it is really, which is a continuum.

2) Uncompromising lane 'takers' are likely a population of zero. Unfortunately the population of people who see many examples of good safe bicyclist lane placement as a lack of respect for 'common sense' and 'common courtesy' is larger than zero.