Advocacy & Safety - Bike Lane Question?

***I also posted this in 41***

I am curious about the legality of bike lanes. Specifically, if there is an available lane, do I *have* to ride in it? I ask because there are lots of new bike lanes popping up in my area, but they are often way off to the right. This is the the worst part of the road for bikes -broken pavement, storm drains, "door zone", etc.

Going through an intersection or waiting for a light to change in the bike lane means there is a high probability that a motorist is going to make a right turn directly in front of me cutting me off (or worse) as if I was not there.

After being a bike messenger for 5 years, I learned to ride as if completely invisible and assume I never have the right of way and that every motorist/pedestrian/fellow cyclist/etc is going to do the thing most likely to cause the most damage to me. I learned to take full responsibility for my own safety. That often (usually) means leaving the designated lane.

So do I have to stay in the lane? I am comfortable taking the lane and do so without being obnoxious about it, but since there is a lane set aside, what does that do to my own liability?

I tried looking up the legality here in Mass and the language is vague.

Someone from MA can probably interpret the vague-ish MA law. Most of the time it won't be enforced anyway, but when it is, rest assured it will be enforced to your detriment. That said, I bet there are words to the effect of riding in a bike lane if provided and/or as far to the right as practical, unless it isn't safe to do so and then you can ride in the street with the rest of the vehicles. Or something like that.

if youve been a bike messenger for five years in boston you can probably figure out how to use that extra space on the roadway when its open for ya. Massbike indicates theres' no mandatory bike lane law.

enjoy!

what is 41?

41 is the road forum. I think there are very few states with mandatory sidepath laws. Seems like Oregon is one, but don't quote me on that.

***I also posted this in 41***

I am curious about the legality of bike lanes. Specifically, if there is an available lane, do I *have* to ride in it? I ask because there are lots of new bike lanes popping up in my area, but they are often way off to the right. This is the the worst part of the road for bikes -broken pavement, storm drains, "door zone", etc.

Going through an intersection or waiting for a light to change in the bike lane means there is a high probability that a motorist is going to make a right turn directly in front of me cutting me off (or worse) as if I was not there.

After being a bike messenger for 5 years, I learned to ride as if completely invisible and assume I never have the right of way and that every motorist/pedestrian/fellow cyclist/etc is going to do the thing most likely to cause the most damage to me. I learned to take full responsibility for my own safety. That often (usually) means leaving the designated lane.

So do I have to stay in the lane? I am comfortable taking the lane and do so without being obnoxious about it, but since there is a lane set aside, what does that do to my own liability?

I tried looking up the legality here in Mass and the language is vague.

It depends on what your state, county, and city law(s) say. In some areas even though there is a bike lane, bike path, or a MUP there are no laws saying that we have to use them. In some areas there are laws that say that we do have to use them unless they fall into the exceptions category of the general law(s) pertaining to riding as Far Right As Practicable.

Hopefully there will be someone here who has a good understanding of Mass & Boston law who will be able to help you.

http://www.massbike.org has the laws regarding bikes and their interpretation on their website. Basically, in Massachusetts the only rules about bike lanes is that automobiles are not supposed to be in them. But if you ride down Commonwealth Avenue near BU you'll be challenged to go from the BU Bridge to Kenmore Square without encountering at least 1/2 dozen trucks/cars in the bike lane.

I've been yelled at for not using the bike lanes in Cambridge by drivers but they are ignorant of the law. My personal feeling about bike lanes is I like them but if they aren't serving me for any reason I am out of them and in the next lane with the cars.

They're good in that they seem to encourage cycling, they often are where I would be riding in any case and, if you're not legally obligated to use them don't use them if you feel the another lane is a better alternative.

That being said, I also don't advocate "politicizing your ride". If the bike lane is usable, maybe not perfect, but perfectly usable and you choose not to use it to make a "statement" of some kind be prepared to defend that statement, from drivers who resent your presence in the lane, from other cyclists who feel you're making a bad example for all of them or even from a traffic cop that may feel that, though you are not obligated to use the bike lane, that slower vehicles are obligated to ride as far to the right as practicable and may choose to enforce that provision of the law.

I used to ride in Manhattan long before they added the bike lanes and the West Side bike path and must say the ease of getting around in NYC since the bike lanes is profound and there are a lot more cyclists. But even in NYC I use them only when they suit my needs.

That being said, I also don't advocate "politicizing your ride". If the bike lane is usable, maybe not perfect, but perfectly usable and you choose not to use it to make a "statement" of some kind be prepared to defend that statement, from drivers who resent your presence in the lane, from other cyclists who feel you're making a bad example for all of them or even from a traffic cop that may feel that, though you are not obligated to use the bike lane, that slower vehicles are obligated to ride as far to the right as practicable and may choose to enforce that provision of the law.


I don't know what any bike lanes are like in Newton, but from my visit to Boston in October and my experience working in Boston from 1985-1990, I get tired of hearing riding like normal traffic referred to as "politicizing your ride."

Both in the 80's and recently, commuting traffic was so congested that the cars were not going any faster than bicycling speed (which was severely constricted due to autos blocking the lanes). Almost the bike lanes I saw last fall in Cambridge were in the door zone, with parked cars on one side and moving buses and cars 4' from the parked cars. (The exceptions were the lanes on the sidewalk on Vassar Street.)

I know people that have been doored in Boston and Baltimore (including one pushed in front of a bus by a motorist getting into a car that had waved the bicyclist on, but changed his mind). Written traffic law virtually everywhere allows bicyclists to use a full lane if they are traveling at the speed of traffic and want to avoid car doors. What part of wanting to get to work without being pushed in front of a bus is "politicizing my ride"?

I'm asking this because almost every bike lane I've seen in Philadelphia is also in a door zone (I haven't seen 3 miles of new bike lanes on Spruce and Pine, but I do see lanes still being installed to right of RTOL lanes). Local Philadelphia bicyclists keep saying there is not enough space to install lanes outside the door zone if we insist on lanes wide enough to be safe, and attack a local bicyclist that points the problems with door zone lanes. They see it as unacceptably confrontational to insist on the right to ride safely.

To address other points
My understanding of Massachusetts is that the lanes are optional but not required.

I find I'm harassment by motorists and police not when I'm moving slower than traffic but when traffic is so congested it's slowing me down. If traffic is light, motorists can and do pass. When rush hour traffic is so slow it blocks bicycles, this is when motorists tell bicyclists they should be on the sidewalk, or police threaten to cite them for riding slower than the speed limit (i.e. riding as slow as the cars blocking them). While there are logical exceptions to the far right rule, I have only seen 2-3 policemen that were aware of them in 25 years.

I think he made it clear that "politicizing your ride" is when you could reasonably and safely use a bike lane but choose not to in order to make a statement that you don't have or want to. In fact, I don't think he wrote anything other than if you *do* politicize your ride then be prepared to defend yourself from an agitated public. If the bike lane is empty but you opt to ride in traffic simply to prove that you can, don't be surprised if a motorist yells at you.

***I also posted this in 41***

I am curious about the legality of bike lanes. Specifically, if there is an available lane, do I *have* to ride in it? I ask because there are lots of new bike lanes popping up in my area, but they are often way off to the right. This is the the worst part of the road for bikes -broken pavement, storm drains, "door zone", etc.

Going through an intersection or waiting for a light to change in the bike lane means there is a high probability that a motorist is going to make a right turn directly in front of me cutting me off (or worse) as if I was not there.

After being a bike messenger for 5 years, I learned to ride as if completely invisible and assume I never have the right of way and that every motorist/pedestrian/fellow cyclist/etc is going to do the thing most likely to cause the most damage to me. I learned to take full responsibility for my own safety. That often (usually) means leaving the designated lane.

So do I have to stay in the lane? I am comfortable taking the lane and do so without being obnoxious about it, but since there is a lane set aside, what does that do to my own liability?

I tried looking up the legality here in Mass and the language is vague.

One thing for sure, not all states have the same law. Michigan does not require bike lanes or paths to be used when they are available. Bikes are permitted to use all public roads except for high-speed limited-access highways, bike lane or not. Practically, not all the cops here are aware of the law. You do have to clarify what's at least the practical law in Mass.

I appreciate your use of practical safety techniques, not just limiting yourself to the lanes.

http://www.massbike.org has the laws regarding bikes and their interpretation on their website. Basically, in Massachusetts the only rules about bike lanes is that automobiles are not supposed to be in them. But if you ride down Commonwealth Avenue near BU you'll be challenged to go from the BU Bridge to Kenmore Square without encountering at least 1/2 dozen trucks/cars in the bike lane.

I've been yelled at for not using the bike lanes in Cambridge by drivers but they are ignorant of the law. My personal feeling about bike lanes is I like them but if they aren't serving me for any reason I am out of them and in the next lane with the cars.

They're good in that they seem to encourage cycling, they often are where I would be riding in any case and, if you're not legally obligated to use them don't use them if you feel the another lane is a better alternative.

That being said, I also don't advocate "politicizing your ride". If the bike lane is usable, maybe not perfect, but perfectly usable and you choose not to use it to make a "statement" of some kind be prepared to defend that statement, from drivers who resent your presence in the lane, from other cyclists who feel you're making a bad example for all of them or even from a traffic cop that may feel that, though you are not obligated to use the bike lane, that slower vehicles are obligated to ride as far to the right as practicable and may choose to enforce that provision of the law.

I used to ride in Manhattan long before they added the bike lanes and the West Side bike path and must say the ease of getting around in NYC since the bike lanes is profound and there are a lot more cyclists. But even in NYC I use them only when they suit my needs.

I appreciated the lanes when I biked in Manhattan. Here in Ann Arbor we have some streets with lined-off BOLs, and they seem to be indicating to drivers that to go in them is to not drive in their lane, which can be ticketable. If there's a traffic problem, like a left-turning car, the BOL might be used by cars to go around the turning car, but I don't think this can be avoided without a massively expensive street rebuild.

Is the left edge of the bike lane a good solution? I ride into Brighton 2-6 times per week, but I can use bike paths from Arlington center to work.

I doubt any laws require you to ride in unsafe locations when safe ones exist, and even if they did, I'd know what to do with that law and I'm sure you do too.

I think he made it clear that "politicizing your ride" is when you could reasonably and safely use a bike lane but choose not to in order to make a statement that you don't have or want to. In fact, I don't think he wrote anything other than if you *do* politicize your ride then be prepared to defend yourself from an agitated public. If the bike lane is empty but you opt to ride in traffic simply to prove that you can, don't be surprised if a motorist yells at you.

Thanks so much for your clarification of my earlier post. I guess I didn't articulate my meaning quite as clearly as I hoped. You certainly seemed to have read it as I intended but it was evidently not perceived quite that way in AngleoDolce's post. I certainly don't consider "riding like normal traffic" as "politicizing your ride".


Is the left edge of the bike lane a good solution? I ride into Brighton 2-6 times per week, but I can use bike paths from Arlington center to work.

I often ride to the extreme left of the bike lane. Most especially on the Commonwealth Avenue bike lane, which I frequently leave and ride in the common traffic lane whenever I deem necessary.

I think he made it clear that "politicizing your ride" is when you could reasonably and safely use a bike lane but choose not to in order to make a statement that you don't have or want to. In fact, I don't think he wrote anything other than if you *do* politicize your ride then be prepared to defend yourself from an agitated public. If the bike lane is empty but you opt to ride in traffic simply to prove that you can, don't be surprised if a motorist yells at you.

Let's not forget that what we as cyclists think of as being "safe and usable" is quite often going to be different from what some cager or LEO is going to think of as being "safe and usable." And we shouldn't have to explain or justify why we're riding where we are riding to cagers or LEOs. And both the cagers and LEOs should be able to figure out on their own that if a cyclist is riding out in the regular lane instead of the bike lane provided that there most be a logical reason for it.

Let's not forget that what we as cyclists think of as being "safe and usable" is quite often going to be from what some cager or LEO is going to think of as being "safe and usable." And we shouldn't have to explain or justify why we're riding where we are riding to cagers or LEOs. And both the cagers and LEOs should be able to figure out on their own that if a cyclist is riding out in the regular lane instead of the bike lane provided that there most be a logical reason for it.

Key word for me here is should. There's what should be and there's what is.

Absolute agree with you that what I may think of as "safe and usable" may differ drastically from what a driver or an LEO may consider what is "safe and usable" but the reality is if an LEO wants to make a big deal out of it or a driver decides he/she wants to muscle me off the road with their SUV I'm going to have to deal with it. (read about Chipseal's currently dilemma in Texas)

I choose my battles carefully and I push the limits often but I'm willing to deal with consequences when I do- I don't do it and expect motorists to do what they "should". Worse thing to do is to should all over oneself.

Key word for me here is should. There's what should be and there's what is.

Sadly this is true more often then not in the real world.


Absolute agree with you that what I may think of as "safe and usable" may differ drastically from what a driver or an LEO may consider what is "safe and usable" but the reality is if an LEO wants to make a big deal out of it or a driver decides he/she wants to muscle me off the road with their SUV I'm going to have to deal with it. (read about Chipseal's currently dilemma in Texas)

This is also sadly very true, as I experienced a couple of years ago in dealing with an off-duty traffic homicide officer. I think that I have read mention of this on the Florida Bicycle Association web site.


I choose my battles carefully and I push the limits often but I'm willing to deal with consequences when I do- I don't do it and expect motorists to do what they "should". Worse thing to do is to should all over oneself.

We should all do that, but sadly not all of us use the best care in doing so.

Ride where you need to ride to get to where you are going safely.
It really is just that simple.