Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Bicyclists don't need 'three foot rule'

I'm interested in your comments about the following article:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bal-bikeletter0322,0,1125997.story

I wish to respond to the commentary published in the Sunday, March 21 eddition of The Sun entitled "Give Them Room" by Gregory T. Simmons. While Mr. Simmons hits all the in-vogue talking points with regard to bicycle transportation in and around Baltimore, unfortunately, these very same talking points help to perpetuate a host of fallacies. First, that riding a bike on a public roadway is inherently unsafe. It isn't. Second, that bike lanes advance the use of bicycles and safety of bicyclists. They don't. And third, that any form of feel good legislation aimed at errant motorists to supposedly benefit bicyclists will have its intended effect. Not a chance.

Mr. Simmons and those of his mindset propagate a form of mild psychosis best known as the bicyclist inferiority complex. People who suffer this psychosis think every motorist is out to run them off the road and that in order to ride a bicycle anywhere, a full set of private bicycle accommodations are necessary. The fact is that other than railways, bicycling is the safest form of land transportation in the U.S. In 2006, the National Safety Council reported that 928 people died while riding a bike. This compares with 45,316 motor vehicle deaths and 6,162 pedestrian deaths for the same year. Considering the fact that roughly half of the reported bicycle deaths each year are children who inadvertently ride out into traffic and another large percentage are wrong-way cyclists or non-illuminated nighttime riding deaths, the safety of an adult rider of a bicycle conforming to vehicular riding principles becomes even more pronounced. The cases of a motorist simply running into a bicyclist who is safely riding are so small as to be almost statistically insignificant. Yet those who clamor for more laws, mandatory helmet use and segregated bicycle facilities think nothing of driving their car -- a much more lethal activity.

This by no means translates into every bike ride in traffic being a walk in the park. It's not, nor should one expect it to be. A bicycle is a vehicle which requires operator knowledge and expertise like any other vehicle. Similar to a motorcycle or powered scooter, the fact that the rider is out in the open and the vehicle must be balanced demands a higher degree operator skill and vigilance than a four-wheeled vehicle. But that knowledge is readily available and the skills easily learned.

To Mr. Simmons request for legislation, there are already laws on the books that make it illegal to pass any other vehicle in a dangerous manner. There are a host of laws on the books that apply to all vehicles equally that prohibit a number of infractions with regard to overtaking another vehicle, yielding, right-of-way -- anything and everything associated with proper vehicle operation on a public road. The problem has nothing to do with how the laws are written; it's a lack of enforcement. There simply is no pro-active traffic law enforcement to speak of. When the government installs speed cameras and then mollifies the objectors by giving speeders 12 miles-per-hour grace above the posted limit, they effectively raised the speed limit of that roadway by 12 miles per hour. The average speed on the interstate system is routinely 20 miles per hour above the posted limit. While traveling by bike or by car, it would seem that the yellow line dividing opposing lanes of traffic simply does not exist for some motorists. Whether it's a same-direction motorist overtaking me when I am on my bike, or an opposite-direction motorist wishing to get around a the mail vehicle stopped on their side of the road, a percentage of motorists seem to have no qualms about crossing over the dividing line and forcing oncoming traffic to take evasive action instead of waiting for the lane to clear. I have even witnessed the local police doing this. So writing into law a three-foot passing margin will have no effect on how some people drive without enforcement. There are simply a percentage of motorists who don't follow the laws.

If the people of the state of Maryland via their elected representatives wish to make the roads safer for all users it's really quite simple: Enforce the existing traffic laws. If alternative forms of surface transportation other than the automobile are to be promoted, it's also not that difficult: Make it more exacting to gain and keep a motor vehicle operator's license and incorporate how to safely overtake a slow moving vehicle into the licensing education and testing process. Teach proper bicycle operation at a young age -- late middle school would be a good time. Maintain the road surfaces in good order for all users. To further encourage utilitarian bicycle use in urban areas where they are best suited, localities could reduce the speed limit to 30 miles per hour -- as fast as anyone need drive in an urban environment anyway.

Galen Wallace, Towson

chock full of fallacies and strawman arguments.

it became clear this fella is a vehicular parrot as soon as 'inferiority' cycling got mentioned in his 'essay'.


People who suffer this psychosis think every motorist is out to run them off the road and that in order to ride a bicycle anywhere, a full set of private bicycle accommodations are necessary.

"full set of private bicycle accommodations are necessary" :rolleyes: does he talk like that to his grandmother?


did that get published? blech. what a pile. it wasnt clear what he was endorsing other than no bike lanes or safe passing laws. make cycling safer teaching bike ed in middle school, better drivers ed, and enforcing existing laws? well, those all play a very small part in making communities more amenable to bike transportation.....

another throw the cyclists to the lions parrot. his message is one of unwittingly stunting populist bicycling thru navel gazing about his own road prowess.

Tooo looooooong to read..........

there are already laws on the books that make it illegal to pass any other vehicle in a dangerous manner
The only proof that passing was done "in a dangerous manner" is a collision. The problem is that motorists have no real information about what is still dangerous without a collision. It's not clear to me that the same distance is appropriate for passing cars and bicycles. Motorists get lots of practice/experience passing other cars but comparatively less passing bicyclists.

The value of a "x foot passing" law is that it gives motorists a clearer picture of what isn't "dangerous". Such a law is nearly unenforceable (but that doesn't mean it has no value).

(Note, too, that there are laws that effectively ban cell-phone use without a specific law that bans cell-phone use.)

Bicycles have a fairly unique characteristic of regularly operating FRAP (there are other vehicles that do, but none so common that I can think of). As such it lends to it a situation that doesn't often happen when you are talking about just cars - you are sharing a lane and passing occurs within that lane. Not even to mention the fact that since bikes often operate slower, motorists can get impatient which can lead to a number of unsafe actions, including a tight pass. I see nothing wrong with clarifying what exactly an unsafe pass is, which seems to be all this law does... it simply spells out plainly that under 3' is considered unsafe. I fail to see how this doesn't conform to vehicular cycling principles.

The only proof that passing was done "in a dangerous manner" is a collision. The problem is that motorists have no real information about what is still dangerous without a collision. It's not clear to me that the same distance is appropriate for passing cars and bicycles. Motorists get lots of practice/experience passing other cars but comparatively less passing bicyclists.

The value of a "x foot passing" law is that it gives motorists a clearer picture of what isn't "dangerous". Such a law is nearly unenforceable (but that doesn't mean it has no value).

(Note, too, that there are laws that effectively ban cell-phone use without a specific law that bans cell-phone use.)

In Yoram Kaufman's fatality a SUV barreling towards him at 55 mph on a 25 mph road. Because he might have veered, the accident was clearly not entirely the drivers fault according to the state law.

We already have safe passing laws, ya, right.

Without something like a 3'-passing law, the definition of what is acceptable separation (notice I didn't say 'safe') is left to someone who's already inconvenienced, and therefore p.o.'d. Thanks, no -- some impatient anus in a 3000-lb, 200-hp land rocket isn't a reliable judge of my safety.

Since bicycles are inherently slower, yeah, we have to deal with FRAP in a lot of areas in this country, which most of us already know doesn't mean "up against the curb". But DRIVERS believe that, not knowing the difference between 'possible' and 'practicable'. PRACTICABLE puts the definition of what is safe for us in our hands. And since we are slower by nature, we can't be expected to maintain the same speed on a lot of roads, therefore, we can only be impeding if we're dawdling along. (1mph is hyperbole, but not strawman -- less than 9-10 for an adult would be pretty much dawdling, IMO.)

The article does make one good point -- lack of enforcement, but doesn't really address the motivation behind it. I don't buy the overworked cop idea, when I can see them just sitting in their cars for half an hour or more at a time, not operating the radar gun or anything else. MAYBE they're doing paperwork.... (BTW, I also think cops have too much paperwork -- few reports should be bigger than the ticket out of the book for the average uniform.)

It's just a sad fact of life that the cops are mostly auto-centric, as is the rest of the population. Cars are all over, bikes are few -- if bikes were equal on the road in REALITY and not just theory, there'd be more of them -- standard cop logic. Just like "if you have nothing to hide, why can't I search you?" So bikes are minimized in the eyes of the law, regarded as toys, for the most part. There's also the thought that if a cyclist is ABLE to report something like this, then it couldn't be that bad, because they're still in one piece.

We're fighting the whole "no blood, no foul" mentality.

To me it's a boring combination of misinformation and stale argumentation seemingly designed to discourage three-foot legislation and advance a particular extreme position. I ride vehicularly but do not appreciate the Taliban mentality in which rigid purity is all, creating enemies of those who should be friends.

And since we are slower by nature, we can't be expected to maintain the same speed on a lot of roads, therefore, we can only be impeding if we're dawdling along. (1mph is hyperbole, but not strawman -- less than 9-10 for an adult would be pretty much dawdling, IMO.)

Can we not turn this thread into another droll "impeding traffic" thread. I mean, I'm willing to have a go at honest debate if you are, but it's getting old...

Besides which impeding traffic has nothing to do with a 3' passing law.

sudo, it's all interrelated -- FRAP, or lack of it affects impeding, 3'-passing is affected by FRAP/no FRAP, beased simply on the idea that those who want cyclists off the road will use anything they can grab to outlaw us -- and WAAAAY too many courts accomodate their arguments.

And speaking for myself, I'm not trying to turn this thread into anything, I'm addressing points that were made by other posters. You want to moderate, earn the job.

sudo, it's all interrelated -- FRAP, or lack of it affects impeding, 3'-passing is affected by FRAP/no FRAP, beased simply on the idea that those who want cyclists off the road will use anything they can grab to outlaw us -- and WAAAAY too many courts accomodate their arguments.

I'm still not seeing the tie-in. They are related... but no more than any other traffic laws are interrelated. A 3' passing law simply spells out plainly what constitutes a safe pass. This has little to do with impeding traffic. Impeding traffic has to do with when a vehicle must pull off the roadway. The only way a 3' passing law would really affect that is inasmuch as if there is not enough room for at least 3' of passing space then a cyclist might be cited for impeding when he otherwise might not have been (let's not get into whether he should be or not at this point). I could only really see this happening if a cyclist was riding FRAP, rather than taking the lane, in a substandard width lane for sharing (i.e. leaving himself less than 3' of "cushion")...



And speaking for myself, I'm not trying to turn this thread into anything, I'm addressing points that were made by other posters. You want to moderate, earn the job.

Easy there, killer. :D

All I'm saying is we just went through a bear of a thread about this. Which, I would note, ended in closure. If you want to turn this thread into another SMV thread, have at it.

PRACTICABLE puts the definition of what is safe for us in our hands. .

DX-Man..... I clipped a ton of your post.....just wanted to comment on this statement specifically.

This is not by any means 100% true, as with any law what happens in actual court rulings brings the preponderance of case law. As an example, in california, there is a state supreme court opinion (don't know the tecnical term, but is was not a ruiling based on a case, but the court was asked for how they would interpret parts of the FRAP code) that basically says that single file is required. In short, 2 bicylist cannot decide it is practicble to ride side by side as the the cyclist on the left is as far right a practible because there is a cylist on the right.

Back to OP..... I think the idea of a clear standard that is well understoood 3 ft/ 1 yard/ 1 meter gives a better guidline to all concerned, motorists, cylists and hopefully law enforcement. So there is value there

This is not by any means 100% true, as with any law what happens in actual court rulings brings the preponderance of case law. As an example, in california, there is a state supreme court opinion (don't know the tecnical term, but is was not a ruiling based on a case, but the court was asked for how they would interpret parts of the FRAP code) that basically says that single file is required. In short, 2 bicylist cannot decide it is practicble to ride side by side as the the cyclist on the left is as far right a practible because there is a cylist on the right.

There is also an implicit understanding that "practicable" doesn't mean "anything goes". That is, there has to be a "good", "reasonable", "convincing" reason to move to the right. Put another way, the reason has to seem reasonable to other people too. The problem with convincing other people is that most other people aren't cyclists (and are not aware of the risks to cyclists) and often think that there is nearly no reason ever to leave the right side. People often think FRAP means "shoulder". (One thing FRAP does not allow is taking the lane in all situations.)

Technically, with riding abreast, tthe left rider isn't riding as close to the right edge anyway (ie, it's clear that riding abreast is a voluntary choice and fails to be a "good" reason to stay left). Anyway, many states address "single file/abreast" issues explicitly and apart from the FRAP law.

I'll note as long as bicycle safety training is NOT part of the police curriculum, the police are very likely to understand practicable as possible (we have statements from MD police to that effect) or at best 2' from the curb no matter how convoluted the resulting course maybe. Additionally police statements have a lot of sway in the lower courts so unless you want to go through what Chipseal is going through to get the issue to a higher court the word "practicable" does not do us a lot of good under current conditions.

FWIW I thought the following illustration that might do some good in a lower court (or police):

A judge wearing a robe while hearing a case is practicable.
A judge wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt while hearing a case is practical.
A judge wearing a tutu while hearing a case is possible.

I agree 100% with Mr. Wallace's comments. More enforcement of existing laws, more stringent qualification of motor vehicle operators, and reduced urban speed limits will do much more to foster a hospitable environment for cyclists than an unenforceable measure that serves only to reinforce our persecuted victim status.

DX-Man..... I clipped a ton of your post.....just wanted to comment on this statement specifically.

This is not by any means 100% true, as with any law what happens in actual court rulings brings the preponderance of case law. As an example, in california, there is a state supreme court opinion (don't know the tecnical term, but is was not a ruiling based on a case, but the court was asked for how they would interpret parts of the FRAP code) that basically says that single file is required. In short, 2 bicylist cannot decide it is practicble to ride side by side as the the cyclist on the left is as far right a practible because there is a cylist on the right.

Back to OP..... I think the idea of a clear standard that is well understoood 3 ft/ 1 yard/ 1 meter gives a better guidline to all concerned, motorists, cylists and hopefully law enforcement. So there is value there

Out of curiosity, do you think that this would be applicable (or at least attempted to be applied) in a case where a cyclist has the right to take the lane?

I mean, by California law you need not share the lane with a car if it's of "substandard width"... but what is substandard for a car and bike to ride side by side may not be substandard for two bikes to ride side by side.

Has anyone ever heard of FRAP being invoked to pop someone not riding single file in a situation where single file would have no bearing on motor vehicle traffic? Just curious...

Wallace has explained a well-considered pro-bicycle opinion about how bicycle traffic should be integrated which is basically in accordance with how the rest of the world treats bicycle traffic. We don't need bicycle lanes, bicycle paths, or other transportation features that segregate bicycle traffic from auto traffic. We don't need special passing laws for bicycles -- current laws, if adequately enforced, are sufficient. It seems to me that Wallace's opinion is basically that expressed by John Forester in his "Effective Cycling" book (which I read about 25 years ago). Bicycle traffic should mostly be treated as any other traffic and bicycle riders should be expected to behave as all other traffic.

Unfortunately, that's not how things are in the United States today and as long as bicycle transportation remains marginal I don't see how it can change. So, I think Wallace is wrong (in practice, though not theory) about the 3' rule. I also confess to liking some bike lanes. Others, not so much. The worst thing is a crap filled, narrow bike lane carved out of a high-traffic street with a 35mph speed limit (which means that traffic is traveling at 40-45mph). You start out with a 12' lane and then narrow it for the bike lane and the drivers think it's ok to pass you as fast as they can without consideration as if it's the bike rider's obligation to create the safety margin rather than the other way around. That's the sort of thing, I believe, that Wallace is against.

Out of curiosity, do you think that this would be applicable (or at least attempted to be applied) in a case where a cyclist has the right to take the lane?

I mean, by California law you need not share the lane with a car if it's of "substandard width"... but what is substandard for a car and bike to ride side by side may not be substandard for two bikes to ride side by side.

Has anyone ever heard of FRAP being invoked to pop someone not riding single file in a situation where single file would have no bearing on motor vehicle traffic? Just curious...

It's been a while since I dug this up. (for another A*S thread of course).... but what I remember is the opinion was an interpretation of the California FRAP law, stating that FRAP implies single file riding and that an argument that that "I am riding as far right is safe, because there is a ccylist beside me means I am ok and we can take the whole lane" is not valid. Also as I remember the California FRAP law has a specific allowance for passing.

Late I will try to dig up the details. Don't know of any actual cases

and remember this is a 3 foot thread..... so I am trying to keep it there

I was thinking more of a different situation.

For example: I'm toodling along and come across a narrow lane - too narrow for a car to pass safely. As such, I should take the lane. After taking the lane, a friend turns in from a side street and joins me. Since I'm already in a lane taking position anyway, does it matter if he rides at my side rather than behind? Just curious, I've never personally heard of any applications of FRAP around here...

Wallace has explained a well-considered pro-bicycle opinion about how bicycle traffic should be integrated which is basically in accordance with how the rest of the world treats bicycle traffic. We don't need bicycle lanes, bicycle paths, or other transportation features that segregate bicycle traffic from auto traffic. We don't need special passing laws for bicycles -- current laws, if adequately enforced, are sufficient. It seems to me that Wallace's opinion is basically that expressed by John Forester in his "Effective Cycling" book (which I read about 25 years ago). Bicycle traffic should mostly be treated as any other traffic and bicycle riders should be expected to behave as all other traffic.

Unfortunately, that's not how things are in the United States today and as long as bicycle transportation remains marginal I don't see how it can change. So, I think Wallace is wrong (in practice, though not theory) about the 3' rule. I also confess to liking some bike lanes. Others, not so much. The worst thing is a crap filled, narrow bike lane carved out of a high-traffic street with a 35mph speed limit (which means that traffic is traveling at 40-45mph). You start out with a 12' lane and then narrow it for the bike lane and the drivers think it's ok to pass you as fast as they can without consideration as if it's the bike rider's obligation to create the safety margin rather than the other way around. That's the sort of thing, I believe, that Wallace is against.

More on track - in theory, I don't disagree. It should be that way. But you know what they say about theory and practice... :D

I was thinking more of a different situation.

For example: I'm toodling along and come across a narrow lane - too narrow for a car to pass safely. As such, I should take the lane. After taking the lane, a friend turns in from a side street and joins me. Since I'm already in a lane taking position anyway, does it matter if he rides at my side rather than behind? Just curious, I've never personally heard of any applications of FRAP around here...

It doesn't look like CA has any single-file or abreast law (many states do). Therefore, if FRAP is not required (in a narrow lane), abreast is (implicitly) allowed (since nothing says it is not allowed). Note that the CA FRAP law does talk about passing bicycles (which isn't "riding abreast").

I was thinking more of a different situation.

For example: I'm toodling along and come across a narrow lane - too narrow for a car to pass safely. As such, I should take the lane. After taking the lane, a friend turns in from a side street and joins me. Since I'm already in a lane taking position anyway, does it matter if he rides at my side rather than behind? Just curious, I've never personally heard of any applications of FRAP around here...

My take is that you are taking the lane.....as is legal and a specific right supported by the callfonia FRAP code see below. There fore you are covered by frap and based on the opinion from the CA supreme court just because you take the lane it doesn't mean you can ride parallel. The code also talks about passing.

I have no idea if this is enforced, but it could be for things like critical mass to hazard a guess

Operation on Roadway
21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.

Amended Sec. 4, Ch. 674, Stats. 1996. Effective January 1, 1997.

The only proof that passing was done "in a dangerous manner" is a collision. The problem is that motorists have no real information about what is still dangerous without a collision. It's not clear to me that the same distance is appropriate for passing cars and bicycles. Motorists get lots of practice/experience passing other cars but comparatively less passing bicyclists.

The value of a "x foot passing" law is that it gives motorists a clearer picture of what isn't "dangerous". Such a law is nearly unenforceable (but that doesn't mean it has no value).

(Note, too, that there are laws that effectively ban cell-phone use without a specific law that bans cell-phone use.)

I tend to agree... the reality is "3 foot LAWs" are unnecessary, but informing the public that a safe distance is more than "I missed you" IS necessary... along with a host of other tidbits of how to properly share the road with legitimate road users.

But a law... not hardly, the law is already there. It is the information that needs disseminating to an otherwise poorly trained motoring public... that is the task at hand.

FWIW I thought the following illustration that might do some good in a lower court (or police):

A judge wearing a robe while hearing a case is practicable.
A judge wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt while hearing a case is practical.
A judge wearing a tutu while hearing a case is possible.

Ya gotta finish it...
A judge wearing a tutu while hearing a case is not probable.

My take is that you are taking the lane.....as is legal and a specific right supported by the callfonia FRAP code see below. There fore you are covered by frap and based on the opinion from the CA supreme court just because you take the lane it doesn't mean you can ride parallel. The code also talks about passing.

Keep in mind that we don't have the actual words the supreme court used (I'm assuming that what you indicate is all they said about it).


but what I remember is the opinion was an interpretation of the California FRAP law, stating that FRAP implies single file riding

The supreme court ruling indicated that riding parallel isn't riding FRAP. Clearly, taking the lane isn't riding FRAP either. There isn't any prohibition to riding parallel except when FRAP is required.

Put another way, if a cyclist is allowed to ride in any part of the lane (in a "substandard width lane"), it doesn't make sense that that cyclist is magically required to ride at the right side of that lane when there happens to be a bicycle to his right.

"For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane."

While "vehicle" includes "bicycles", it would seem that "vechicle" here means a "vehicle" of normal width (like a car).

But a law... not hardly, the law is already there. It is the information that needs disseminating to an otherwise poorly trained motoring public... that is the task at hand.
The law is the best place to put this information. Otherwise, it's an ambiguous recommendation (which is weak), which people can then argue doesn't always apply. Being a law also precludes the "I didn't know" excuse!

The law also indicates that people thought about it and agreed to it. If a traffic related issue isn't in the law, what authority "owns" the issue? If it isn't in the law, what would keep different groups from picking their own number to recommend?

There is no real specific information in the law about how much space is reasonable for passing anything (as far as I know).

The law is the best place to put this information. Otherwise, it's an ambiguous recommendation (which is weak), which people can then argue doesn't always apply. Being a law also precludes the "I didn't know" excuse!

The law also indicates that people thought about it and agreed to it. If a traffic related issue isn't in the law, what authority "owns" the issue? If it isn't in the law, what would keep different groups from picking their own number to recommend?

There is no real specific information in the law about how much space is reasonable for passing anything (as far as I know).

I don't disagree on principle... adding such a law would inform the public of what is and isn't reasonable, and for that I do agree. But the law really isn't needed.

Education of the driving public IS what is needed. If it takes a law to educate that driving public, so be it.

My apologies to the OP and the 3 foot discusssion, but since we are on a roll.....I goofed off and did some more research a) to make sure my memory was good and b) see if there is any clarity

my memory is clear this is the opinion I refered to

[80]. Cal. Att’y. Gen., Indexed Letter, No. CV 74/224 (Jan. 21, 1975), at 7, in S. Con. Res. 47 Statewide Bicycle Committee, supra note 33.

here are comments on it from http://www.cabobike.org/articles/bicycles-and-the-law/#_edn80

Nonetheless, some police officers believe that the slow bicycle rule does so implicitly, because the bicyclist on the left is not riding “as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.” This opinion is also expressed in a 1975 Attorney General’s letter of advice to the Statewide Bicycle Committee, without further elaboration.[


As for clarity....the general feel I get from the sites I visited is: nuanced, it depends, not settled.......Nothing prervents, but nothing allows.... there is no clarity.

The legal and support group sites have lots of opinions....but who knows how these will play out in a court as most of these sites view from the bicylist point of view which is not necesarrily the courts view.

From the Bob Mionske blog http://www.bicyclelaw.com/blog/index.cfm/2009/11/24/NonExistent-Laws-And-The-Cops-Who-Enforce-Them

here is what kinda of best summarizes it, in his opinion/interpretation of the laws, and it is interesting to note that his final comment is good luck in a court

For cyclists traveling in a vehicular lane on the roadway:

In California, cyclists may legally ride two or more abreast, as long as they are traveling at the "normal speed of traffic," or if they are traveling in a lane that is too narrow to safely share with a motor vehicle.

However, if the cyclists are not traveling at the "normal speed of traffic," and the lane is wide enough to safely share with a motor vehicle, then the cyclists must ride single file.

For other situations:

It is legal for cyclists to ride two or more abreast in the following situations:

When both cyclists are riding on the shoulder
When both cyclists are riding in a bicycle lane
When one cyclist is riding on the roadway, and one cyclist is riding on the shoulder.
Now, the other trick for cyclists will be to explain that they are riding within what the law allows to any law enforcement officers who stop them in the mistaken belief that “single file is the law.” Good luck with that one—you may have better luck explaining the law to a traffic court judge.

In California, cyclists may legally ride two or more abreast, as long as they are traveling at the "normal speed of traffic," or if they are traveling in a lane that is too narrow to safely share with a motor vehicle.

However, if the cyclists are not traveling at the "normal speed of traffic," and the lane is wide enough to safely share with a motor vehicle, then the cyclists must ride single file.


Indeed, this was the whole basis of the legality of the situation concerning the cyclists and the Brentwood Doctor that slammed on his brakes in front of the cyclists, who were two abreast.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/cyclist-sentenced.html

In California, cyclists may legally ride two or more abreast, as long as they are traveling at the "normal speed of traffic," or if they are traveling in a lane that is too narrow to safely share with a motor vehicle.

However, if the cyclists are not traveling at the "normal speed of traffic," and the lane is wide enough to safely share with a motor vehicle, then the cyclists must ride single file.

Yeah, that's sort of the situation I was getting at. Good to know.


Now, the other trick for cyclists will be to explain that they are riding within what the law allows to any law enforcement officers who stop them in the mistaken belief that “single file is the law.” Good luck with that one—you may have better luck explaining the law to a traffic court judge.

For sure. I generally ride with a small paper that has the most applicable laws I'm worried about being misconstrued (FRAP, impeding traffic, etc).

Bicyclists don't need 'three foot rule'

Correct. How about a 10 foot rule?

-Kurt

Actually again... I note that cyclists don't need the 3 foot rule.... motorists do as their judgment of what is a safe pass is often not consistent with a cyclists view of the same.

yes, there's about 10 states that have no frap requirement at all and cyclists are (theoretically and lawfully) allowed to ride anywhere in the right hand lane available for thru travel. in these states i'd suspect cyclists can operate with impunity and stack up as deep as they'd like.

OF COURSE< however, regardless of individual states' laws, a singular vehicular cyclist should still always be riding frap in the presence of overtaking traffic to fairly share the roads with that faster traffic, and groups should single up if significant impeding can be alleviated by singling up- say, the 101 along the Hood Canal for instance or any other narrow, two lane, busy highway speed roadways.


Groups of cyclists should be allowed to double up for safety IMO in all states on multiple lane roads.

And a three foot passing law would help all cyclists (and other vulnerable road users in some states!)and the cause of cycling and equitable road use in a positive manner regardless if a state has a frap law or not.

I believe cyclists in washington state are expressly allowed to ride no more than two abreast and still be legal - i don't believe the presence of faster traffic mandates single file in this state.

The latest safe passing law bill here (which i believe passed and got signed on by the gov already) benefited both pedestrians and cyclists when i was down lobbying for it at the state capitol this spring.

The fact is that other than railways, bicycling is the safest form of land transportation in the U.S. In 2006, the National Safety Council reported that 928 people died while riding a bike. This compares with 45,316 motor vehicle deaths and 6,162 pedestrian deaths for the same year. Considering the fact that roughly half of the reported bicycle deaths each year are children who inadvertently ride out into traffic and another large percentage are wrong-way cyclists or non-illuminated nighttime riding deaths, the safety of an adult rider of a bicycle conforming to vehicular riding principles becomes even more pronounced. The cases of a motorist simply running into a bicyclist who is safely riding are so small as to be almost statistically insignificant. Yet those who clamor for more laws, mandatory helmet use and segregated bicycle facilities think nothing of driving their car -- a much more lethal activity.

And lion fighting must be the safest form of recreation ever discovered, because as far as I know, there were zero deaths from gladiator-style lion fights last year. Zero. Presenting numbers out of context is fun. Then spinning off into some emotionally salient propaganda after planting a false impression in your readers' minds is a great way to lie to people. :thumb:

How do things look when we compare the fatalities per mile traveled, or per hour traveled? Sure, these numbers are hard to get at, because most people don't track them, and the cyclists and drivers who do, often don't report them to anyone who can aggregate statistics. How many miles were biked last year? Nobody knows. But there are at least some estimates, and a guess is better than pretending it doesn't matter.

This page has some interesting data: http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html I found this on the same page, and it's more salient, to me at least:


U.S. cyclists are three more likely to be killed than German cyclists and six times more than Dutch cyclists, whether compared per-trip or per-distance traveled. (Reuters, Aug. 28, 2003, by Maggie Fox)

And lion fighting must be the safest form of recreation ever discovered, because as far as I know, there were zero deaths from gladiator-style lion fights last year. Zero. Presenting numbers out of context is fun. Then spinning off into some emotionally salient propaganda after planting a false impression in your readers' minds is a great way to lie to people. :thumb:

How do things look when we compare the fatalities per mile traveled, or per hour traveled? Sure, these numbers are hard to get at, because most people don't track them, and the cyclists and drivers who do, often don't report them to anyone who can aggregate statistics. How many miles were biked last year? Nobody knows. But there are at least some estimates, and a guess is better than pretending it doesn't matter.

This page has some interesting data: http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html I found this on the same page, and it's more salient, to me at least:

Although I would like to believe the conclusions of this study, that the motorists are the bad guy, I have to question the data. How do they determine the motroists are at fault when they are not cited or when the motorist is not found? What is the data based on?

"Most at-fault motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians get off the hook. A study by the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition shows that three out of four at fault drivers were never even cited for hitting and killing pedestrians. 22% of fatal pedestrian crashes involved hit and run drivers, yet, none of the runaway motorists were found or charged. In New York, 70-92% of drivers were at-fault in killing pedestrians and cyclists, but 74% didn't even get a ticket. (RightOfWay.org, 1999) The story in Austin is similar."

This sounds like so much horse puckey. These '70-92% of drivers' were supposedly 'at fault' yet not even cited. How was it determined they were at fault?

It does not serve the cause of cyclists to make up statistics, or to pass on this drivel without foundation. It only weakens the credibility of those who make the claims without honest data. I'm not saying these claims that SOUND like bull are false, but I'd like to see the evidence before I endorse what appears to be speculative.

there's nothing speculative about increases to public safety from greater motorist culpability in the safety of vulnerable road users, danarnold!

Bek has spoken; thereby confirming the story IS horsepuckey

bwahuaha.

Not familiar with current analyses of global interventions that support bicycling, are you?

"Most at-fault motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians get off the hook. A study by the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition shows that three out of four at fault drivers were never even cited for hitting and killing pedestrians. 22% of fatal pedestrian crashes involved hit and run drivers, yet, none of the runaway motorists were found or charged. In New York, 70-92% of drivers were at-fault in killing pedestrians and cyclists, but 74% didn't even get a ticket. (RightOfWay.org, 1999) The story in Austin is similar."

This sounds like so much horse puckey. These '70-92% of drivers' were supposedly 'at fault' yet not even cited. How was it determined they were at fault?

It does not serve the cause of cyclists to make up statistics, or to pass on this drivel without foundation. It only weakens the credibility of those who make the claims without honest data. I'm not saying these claims that SOUND like bull are false, but I'd like to see the evidence before I endorse what appears to be speculative.

FWIW the standard crash reporting form includes who is at fault or unknown, 3 major contributing circumstances as well as the citations given. Police have the discretion to cite or just give a warning (and just the the insurance companies ding the at fault driver.)

If we could replace the 3' rule with a "half the lane" rule, then I'd agree with the thread title.

Stats are boring.........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

If we could replace the 3' rule with a "half the lane" rule, then I'd agree with the thread title.

Stats are boring.........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Hey, that's not bad... really. Makes more sense too. As higher speed roads tend to have (not always) wider lanes, the gap would also increase. Jeeze that is a perfect slogan!

"Just give me half a lane, that's all I ask!"

Of course some may object and still prefer to "take a lane."

I donno... worth some thought anyway.

What about something similar to what is applicable for motorcycles:
"A. (http://www.bikeforums.net/A.%20All%20motorcycles%20are%20entitled%20to%20the%20full%20use%20of%20a%20lane.%20A%20person%20shal l%20not%20drive%20a%20motor%20vehicle%20in%20such%20a%20manner%20as%20to%20deprive%20any%20motorcycl e%20of%20the%20full%20use%20of%20a%20lane.%20This%20subsection%20does%20not%20apply%20to%20motorcycl es%20operated%20two%20abreast%20in%20a%20single%20lane.) All motorcycles are entitled to the full use of a lane. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle in such a manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection does not apply to motorcycles operated two abreast in a single lane."

What about something similar to what is applicable for motorcycles:
"A. (http://www.bikeforums.net/A.%20All%20motorcycles%20are%20entitled%20to%20the%20full%20use%20of%20a%20lane.%20A%20person%20shal l%20not%20drive%20a%20motor%20vehicle%20in%20such%20a%20manner%20as%20to%20deprive%20any%20motorcycl e%20of%20the%20full%20use%20of%20a%20lane.%20This%20subsection%20does%20not%20apply%20to%20motorcycl es%20operated%20two%20abreast%20in%20a%20single%20lane.) All motorcycles are entitled to the full use of a lane. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle in such a manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection does not apply to motorcycles operated two abreast in a single lane."
No doubt, that will be an easy sale!!