Advocacy & Safety - Massachusetts Road Biking Scenario, what do you think

30mph zone
2 lanes separated by a double yellow line, one going one way, the other going the opposite
2 bikers riding on the 'right' (one biker is all the way to the right, and the other is next to him, appx 1/3 of the way into the road where cars would usually be)

More than 3 cars piled up behind them (5? 6?) for about a mile, or 3 minutes driving time
Cars only able to go 15mph in a 30 because they are behind bikers
Traffic is pretty heavy, and it is fully oncoming in the opposite direction

Called the police station about this
They said

a) use common sense
b) be courteous
c) a biker is not equivalent to a vehicle and does not have the same rights to drive in the middle of or in the road
d) the biker should have moved over
e) it is NOT ok to cross the double lines for a biker

What is your input on this?
Apparently you can get a ticket for crossing the double line.

The MA law is:

CHAPTER 85. REGULATIONS AND BY-LAWS RELATIVE TO WAYS AND BRIDGES

Chapter 85: Section 11B. Bicycles; operation and equipment; regulations; federal product safety standards, effect; races; violations; penalties
[ First paragraph effective until April 15, 2009. For text effective April 15, 2009, see below.]

Section 11B. Every person operating a bicycle upon a way, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, shall have the right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted, and shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth and the special regulations contained in this section, except that: (1) the bicycle operator may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way, (2) the bicycle operator shall signal by either hand his intention to stop or turn, and (3) bicycles may be ridden on sidewalks outside business districts when necessary in the interest of safety, unless otherwise directed by local ordinance. A person operating a bicycle on the sidewalk shall yield the right of way to pedestrians and give an audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian.

[ First paragraph as amended by 2008, 525, Sec. 3 effective April 15, 2009. For text effective until April 15, 2009, see above.]

Every person operating a bicycle upon a way, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, shall have the right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted, and shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth and the special regulations contained in this section, except that: (1) the bicycle operator may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way, (2) the bicycle operator shall signal by either hand his intention to stop or turn; provided, however, that signals need not be made continuously and shall not be made when the use of both hands is necessary for the safe operation of the bicycle, and (3) bicycles may be ridden on sidewalks outside business districts when necessary in the interest of safety, unless otherwise directed by local ordinance. A person operating a bicycle on the sidewalk shall yield the right of way to pedestrians and give an audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian.

Operators of bicycles shall be subject to the following regulations:

[ Clause (1) of the second paragraph effective until April 15, 2009. For text effective April 15, 2009, see below.]

(1) The operator shall ride single file on any way except when passing.

[ Clause (1) of the second paragraph as amended by 2008, 525, Sec. 4 effective April 15, 2009. For text effective until April 15, 2009, see above.]

(1) Bicyclists riding together shall not ride more than 2 abreast but, on a roadway with more than 1 lane in the direction of travel, bicyclists shall ride within a single lane. Nothing in this clause shall relieve a bicyclist of the duty to facilitate overtaking as required by section 2 of chapter 89.
.
.
.
.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/85-11b.htm

Riding two up with traffic behind is ******baggery. Although in this situation, with oncoming traffic, even single file is hard to pass.

I would say a), b) and d) are correct, not from a legal standpoint so much, but just to show consideration for other road users. However, how wide is this lane? About as far to the right as I typically ride is the right tire track in a 12' lane. This gives me about 3' to my right, and I have found that riding further to the right invites problems. So I likely would have gone single file on this road, with neither bike further to the right than the right tire track. In other words; I use the entire right half of the right lane.

c) and e) are not true in FL and if they are true in MA it makes no sense.

Called the police station about this
They said

a) use common sense
b) be courteous
c) a biker is not equivalent to a vehicle and does not have the same rights to drive in the middle of or in the road
d) the biker should have moved over
e) it is NOT ok to cross the double lines for a biker

What is your input on this?
Apparently you can get a ticket for crossing the double line.


a - yes
b - yes

c - absolutely wrong in Massachusetts. As your quotes of the law state, we are a full use of the lane state.

d - probably/maybe Would that have made it possible for the following cars to pass safely? If no, than what difference does it make if they were single file?

e - I have wondered about this. In practice cars cross over the double to pass me all the time. I have one stretch of road on my commute that it would be impossible for a car to pass, no matter how close I was to the edge of the road, without crossing over the double. On that stretch of road I have been passed by police cruisers crossing over the double yellow.

Speedo

It's not legal for vehicles to pass bikes on double yellow roads in many places. I doubt it would ever be enforced.
I'd stay doubled up. Passing one bike length is easier than passing two. I'd also pull off onto a side street or driveway if possible to let some people pass. I hate having traffic stuck behind me.

d - probably/maybe Would that have made it possible for the following cars to pass safely? If no, than what difference does it make if they were single file?

Yes, the cyclists are legally required to move to the right and ride single file.

Note the last line of the law quoted in the OP.


Nothing in this clause shall relieve a bicyclist of the duty to facilitate overtaking as required by section 2 of chapter 89

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/89-2.htm

Chapter 89: Section 2. Except as herein otherwise provided, the driver of a vehicle passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction shall drive a safe distance to the left of such other vehicle and shall not return to the right until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle; and, if the way is of sufficient width for the two vehicles to pass, the driver of the leading one shall not unnecessarily obstruct the other. If it is not possible to overtake a bicycle or other vehicle at a safe distance in the same lane, the overtaking vehicle shall use all or part of an adjacent lane if it is safe to do so or wait for a safe opportunity to overtake. Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on visible signal and shall not increase the speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle..

Riding abreast is not "necessary".

The section highlighted in red indicates that the passing driver can use the other lane.

While the double yellow indicates a no passing zone (and there's a prohibition against crossing the double yellow), I'd be surprised if a person got a ticket for doing this when passing a bicyclist.

=============


It's not legal for vehicles to pass bikes on double yellow roads in many places.
No, it's only illegal to move into the other lane. If you can (safely) pass within the lane, vehicles can pass cyclists.

"The section highlighted in red indicates that the passing driver can use the other lane." - Unless that other lane is oncoming traffic, separated by double lines, in which case it's illegal for cars to do so, it would seem.

By the way, the road width is a typical one, with enough space to pass a single file line of bikers without going over the doubles.

c - absolutely wrong

So that would mean it's ok for a biker to travel 5mph in a 30mph road, in the middle. That just doesnt seem to make sense.

So that would mean it's ok for a biker to travel 5mph in a 30mph road, in the middle. That just doesnt seem to make sense.

c is clearly wrong (in MA). There still is a requirement for the cyclist (any vehicle) to facilitate passing. The fact that this is easier for a cyclist than a Mack truck is incidental.


"The section highlighted in red indicates that the passing driver can use the other lane." - Unless that other lane is oncoming traffic, separated by double lines, in which case it's illegal for cars to do so, it would seem.

Note the rest of what I said!



The section highlighted in red indicates that the passing driver can use the other lane.

While the double yellow indicates a no passing zone (and there's a prohibition against crossing the double yellow), I'd be surprised if a person got a ticket for doing this when passing a bicyclist.


No, it's only illegal to move into the other lane. If you can (safely) pass within the lane, vehicles can pass cyclists.

I tried looking for the MA law that mentioned this prohibition (which is not being argued against!). I think it's allowed (in all states) to move around obstacles (eg, a parked car). That is, the prohibition isn't absolute.

Yeah..it's confusing...the militant cop just kept asking "well what would YOU think?"
Uhhhh I dunno, that's why I'm calling you...ass
She made it seem like no matter water crossing over the doubles was illegal and you're supposed to wait..but I guess the law states otherwise.

So where in the law does it place the burden on the cyclist to facilitate passing?
Is it this - "(1) the bicycle operator may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way"
Only, it says "may" as if it's an option or something. Sorry for being so dense ..

Yeah..it's confusing...the militant cop just kept asking "well what would YOU think?"

I think the most important thing you learned here is that the police don't always (dare I say usually?) know the laws as the pertain specifically to bicycles.

Asking cops the law will get you what the cop thinks and not much else.
Rhode Island just passed a law with the specific language that it is allowed to cross double yellow lines to safely pass a cyclist. They also screwed up by allowing the driver to judge a safe distance with out the three foot rule.
I think the defense lawyers added that loophole.

This is true, knew as I was dialing it was a waste of time, but figured hey maybe it'll be worth it..nope, course not.

I usually let the cars pass at some point where it's convenient for me in such situations (meaning I don't have to slow down too much and it's safe). Who cares what the law says, being right doesn't mean you have to do something under all circumstances.

Most of it boils down to courtesy of course, which the bikers in this case clearly lacked.

If the lane was wide enough for the cyclists to be safely passed in the same lane, then they should have moved single file to facilitate passing.

If, however, the lane is not wide enough, then they should be riding two abreast right smack dab in the middle of the lane. I don't care what the law says.

If no cars are on the approach behind them, they should ride two abreast to increase their visibility.

As a side note, in Colorado, cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast unless there is approaching traffic. Also, traffic is allowed to cross the double yellow while yielding to oncoming traffic in order to pass cyclists - but only to pass cyclists.

If the lane was wide enough for the cyclists to be safely passed in the same lane, then they should have moved single file to facilitate passing.
the OP failed to mention this vital piece of information. If the road is not over 14 feet, it's not safe to pass a cyclist without using at least part of the other lane. Massachusetts is not known for wide lanes. If the lane width is substandard, the cyclist should ensure their own safety by riding far enough out that motorists understand they need the other lane to pass safely.

If the lane was wide enough for the cyclists to be safely passed in the same lane, then they should have moved single file to facilitate passing.
the OP failed to mention this vital piece of information. If the road is not over 14 feet, it's not safe to pass a cyclist without using at least part of the other lane. Massachusetts is not known for wide lanes. If the lane width is substandard, the cyclist should ensure their own safety by riding far enough out that motorists understand they need the other lane to pass safely.

So where in the law does it place the burden on the cyclist to facilitate passing?

Here.


[ Clause (1) of the second paragraph as amended by 2008, 525, Sec. 4 effective April 15, 2009. For text effective until April 15, 2009, see above.]

(1) Bicyclists riding together shall not ride more than 2 abreast but, on a roadway with more than 1 lane in the direction of travel, bicyclists shall ride within a single lane. Nothing in this clause shall relieve a bicyclist of the duty to facilitate overtaking as required by section 2 of chapter 89.

And here.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/89-2.htm

Chapter 89: Section 2. Except as herein otherwise provided, the driver of a vehicle passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction shall drive a safe distance to the left of such other vehicle and shall not return to the right until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle; and, if the way is of sufficient width for the two vehicles to pass, the driver of the leading one shall not unnecessarily obstruct the other. If it is not possible to overtake a bicycle or other vehicle at a safe distance in the same lane, the overtaking vehicle shall use all or part of an adjacent lane if it is safe to do so or wait for a safe opportunity to overtake. Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on visible signal and shall not increase the speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle..

thanks

I keep forgetting to print and laminate relevant Mass General Laws and keep them on me when I ride- I'm afraid I'm going to meet that officer someday and I'll need them :/

I do think those two cyclists were pushing their boundaries, however. I'd have to see the road they were on- sometimes even riding solo I've got to ride 1/3rd of the way out into the lane to avoid craggy pavement.

Totally understandable if the pavement is a little bad or if there's debris in the road!

Yes, the cyclists are legally required to move to the right and ride single file.

Note the last line of the law quoted in the OP.


Chapter 89, Section 2? That's another section that I've found a bit confusing for a couple of reasons. Even in the single file case. What constitutes giving way to the right; how far over are you required to move? Also, it requires that the overtaking vehicle give a visible signal. So in this case, if the overtaking driver didn't flash lights or give some other signal, there's no requirement to give way?

Speedo

720 CMR 9.06(6)(a) Minimum speed law -- obstructing traffic punishable by $20 fine. Can't find CMR language to see definition for obstructing traffic. In ME, it is defined as driving under the speed limit with 5 or more cars behind.

720 CMR 9.06(6)(a) Minimum speed law -- obstructing traffic punishable by $20 fine. Can't find CMR language to see definition for obstructing traffic. In ME, it is defined as driving under the speed limit with 5 or more cars behind.

According to Bob Mionske (http://www.amazon.com/Bicycling-Law-Your-Rights-Cyclist/dp/1931382999) there has to be a certain intent involved in obstructing traffic. So if you are a slow moving vehicle like a tractor or a bicycle, moving at reasonable tractor/bicycle speeds, you can't be cited for obstructing traffic.

Speedo

covalent jello, i suggest you get more familiar with the laws affecting bicycling in your state, and legally allowed safe lane positioning for bicyclists.

bicyclists are allowed to ride two abreast in your state, and cyclists have no obligation to facilitate passing in a narrow lane, one too narrow for a bike and car to share safely. Bicyclists are compelled to NOT share a narrow lane for their safety, and only share when it is safe to do so in your state. bicyclists do have to operate FRAP to facilitate passing, but frap does not apply within a too narrow to share lane, generally speaking.

there is little case precedent in MA for these interpretations, but the general scope of the rights of bicyclists suggest the state of Mass fairly uniformly codifies safe bicycling behavior consistent with many other states. no duty to share lanes unsafely, use of full lane allowed, riding two abreast allowed, must facilitate passing by moving safely right.

this scenario falls under : probably too narrow, bicyclists within the law, angered motorist who might also ride a bike on occasion feels it his duty to a)call the cops on fellow bicyclists! & b) posts to complain about lawful bicycling in bike forums.




YOU might think there is enough room for bicyclists and cars within the same lane; the bicyclists did not and were under no obligation to either ride single file OR facilitate passing as the lane to them was unsafe to share with motor vehicles.

the new state laws affecting bicycling clarify this, no partial lane passing of bicyclists anymore, and bicyclists can now ride two abreast.

these two new aspects of the laws of the commonwealth of massachusetts clearly codify these cyclists behavior as allowed, despite it not being 'acceptable' to the motorists behind them.

Be courteous.

maybe the OP could be courteous and post the approximate street location so people can street view it on google.

YOU might think there is enough room for bicyclists and cars within the same lane; the bicyclists did not and were under no obligation to either ride single file OR facilitate passing as the lane to them was unsafe to share with motor vehicles.

This is mind reading. You have no idea what the bicyclists were thinking.

Chapter 89, Section 2? That's another section that I've found a bit confusing for a couple of reasons. Even in the single file case. What constitutes giving way to the right; how far over are you required to move? Also, it requires that the overtaking vehicle give a visible signal. So in this case, if the overtaking driver didn't flash lights or give some other signal, there's no requirement to give way?

This law is ambiguous. How far over is any vehicle required to move? Note that the law doesn't require people to do something that is unsafe.

I suspect that "giving way to the right" mostly means that you can't block the passing vehicle and that you need to move right as long as safety is maintained. That is, you have to help (in some way), not hinder, the passing vehicle.

The "visible signal" is often a left-turn signal and the law indicates that the signal is a required prerequisite.

According to Bob Mionske (http://www.amazon.com/Bicycling-Law-Your-Rights-Cyclist/dp/1931382999) there has to be a certain intent involved in obstructing traffic. So if you are a slow moving vehicle like a tractor or a bicycle, moving at reasonable tractor/bicycle speeds, you can't be cited for obstructing traffic.

If you don't need to hold up traffic (as you would if the lane was narrow or moving to the right was hazardous), you "intend" to hold up traffic.

That is, if there is a safe and legal alternative to avoid holding up traffic, you are obstructing traffic if you don't take it. The typical alternative for bicycles is to move to the right. This alternative is usually legally required (if it is safe to do so).

The analogy is somebody driving for no reason at 10 mph in a 55 mph zone.

(Don't think that "intent" is established by the person "confessing" that they wanted to hold-up traffic!)

This is mind reading. You have no idea what the bicyclists were thinking.


well, i do know what the cyclists were DOING so will exrapolate a few of the most likely scenarios as to their reasoning to ride doubled up in the face of faster traffic needing to pass.

i can understand the likely rationale for cyclists to double up, yes.

i suspect it was an exercise of the newly codified and strengthened bicyclists rights to the travel lane under the newly modified statutes of the commonwealth of massachusetts.


lane too narrow to share? check. ( a likely motivation, despite the OPs claim there is plenty of room)

cyclists allowed to ride doubled up? check.

motorists now required to change lanes to pass cyclists, if safe within the lane passing cannot be done? check.

Calling the cops on bicyclists traveling within the law? check, and pretty despicable.

There is also a new 3 foot passing law.

I think we all recognize the importance of distinguishing between what we think the law should require versus what we want to see cyclists do voluntarily as a matter of courtesy, at their discretion.

Since we don't know whether roadway conditions would make it unsafe for the cyclists to ride far enough right to facilitate same-lane passing, I think most of us would want the law to give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them to maintain control of the lane for at least some substantial amount of time.

Normally, at least in my experience, drivers will pass over the double yellow with minimal delay regardless of any legal prohibitions against doing so. The OP, however, describes a delay of multiple minutes, due to heavy oncoming traffic. If this is the case, then if the lane is wide enough to share, the cyclists should have been able to find a reasonably safe and convenient opportunity for them to allow the traffic to pass within that time period, and I would encourage cyclists to do so. (I prefer that this be a voluntary act rather than a legally compelled act, so as to allow cyclists to decide for themselves when it is safe to pull over in a wide lane and when it is safer to control it; therefore, I oppose legal mandates to ride on the right edge of a lane simply because it is 14' or wider.)

Another possibility is that the the cyclists were traveling at a reasonably fast speed for conditions and traffic. This is another situation that does happen in urban locations, in dense residential neighborhoods, or on descents, and is another reason to not compel cyclists to ride to the right. However, it doesn't seem to fit the OP description.

In the unlikely event that prohibitions against crossing a double yellow deters motorists from passing when it is safe to do so, the legal prohibition against crossing the yellow probably ought to be relaxed to allow passing if the slower vehicle is traveling at less than half the posted speed limit. This is the case in Ohio, generic for all slow vehicles. But again, I think this is unlikely to be the reason traffic backed up in the case of the OP.

Some states have laws requiring slow traffic traveling on two lane roads to turn out to the right at an appropriate location to allow passing based on the number of vehicles stacked up. Does MA? My state of NC does not. It's not clear if an appropriate location was available in the case of the OP. Most of us would dislike a legal compulsion to pull onto a soft shoulder or private driveway to allow passing, but would happily pull onto a reasonably smooth paved shoulder every once in a while if it made a difference for others, and might occasionally choose to do so in a private driveway on a voluntary basis.

it would be valuable to the discussion to know the location of the alleged bicycling.

So that would mean it's ok for a biker to travel 5mph in a 30mph road, in the middle. That just doesnt seem to make sense.

Use your common sense here. If the lane is wide enough to share safely, share it, if not, don't. Speed never enters into the equation.

If the lane isn't wide enough to share and you find you are backing up traffic behind you, common courtesy dictates that you pull off and allow traffic to pass, when/if it is safe to do so.

Why everyone insists on complicating such a simple concept is beyond me.

Boiled down in simple terms, in Massachusetts under the new law for bicyclists:

-Riders may ride single file, or 2 abreast in the lane, provided that they are not impeding traffic. They must move to the right in single file in order to facilitate overtaking traffic pursuant to MGL ch.89, sec.2 All vehicles must abide by that rule.
-If there is more than one travel lane in the same direction, then Riders may take the entire lane, again not riding more than 2 abreast. There is no duty to surrender the lane, as there is above.
-If it is unsafe to do so, there is no requirement for the Rider to relinquish the lane...(ie if there is debris, no shoulder, etc.,) and ride to the right.
(however, being curteous to others on the road, would dictate that if you are a slow moving vehicle, then at some point your should consider allowing faster moving vehicles behind you to pass freely. I would say, being substantially below the speed limit for extended periods, and holding up traffic for some time would be one of these scenarios.)
-Riders must obey all MV traffic rules, except for the specific ones carved out by MGL ch.85 sec.11B (pass on the right, signaling, etc.)
-Riders are vehicles, but not "motor vehicles." for the purposes of the MV rules and regulations of Massachusetts.

-A motor vehicle operator CANNOT cross a double yellow line for any reason (there are exceptions that don't apply here). The new passing law, DOES NOT authorize the crossing of the double yellow. It merely permits (somewhat requires) a MV operator to cross the center line and use the opposing lane for passing. The statute was written like that to emphasize the fact that MV operators should NOT SHARE the same lane with a cyclist when passing, if it can be avoided. Mass does not have a 3 foot passing zone, in some respects this new law emphasizes that it is much greater, and is specifically geared toward protecting cyclists.
-This being said, I doubt there are many police who would pull over a MV for an incidental crossing of the double yellow to allow for a wide passing zone around a cyclist, provided the crossing and passing were reasonable and safe.
-It has been alluded to regarding the conflict between crossing a double yellow, and the requirement of the overtaking mv to use the other lane, I would freely argue that this could be successfully used in a civil MV infraction hearing as a defense to a crossing a double yellow.

zac


EDIT: After reading through the entire thread, bekologist and njkayaker, are correct in their interpretations of the Mass Law. I merely posted to summarize the Mass law on this topic. But I must add, that there is very little case law regarding cycle law in Massachusetts. And there is none yet regarding the new statute.

If you are looking for concise rules regarding cycling on Mass roads, look no further than my signature and go over to the same roads same rules (http://massbike.org/srsr/) website. I keep this bookmarked on my iPhone, although I have yet to need to show it to any local police. They all seem pretty well aware of the new laws. There are also some laminated cards that have the new rules, although they are somewhat lacking in details.

....Why everyone insists on complicating such a simple concept is beyond me.

Blame it on the cycling-lawyers, who think the law is everything and common sense is nothing. They should be required to wear spandex while in court. That would mellow them out.

...More than 3 cars piled up behind them (5? 6?) for about a mile, or 3 minutes driving time
Cars only able to go 15mph in a 30 because they are behind bikers....

Three whole minutes, oh, the Humanity! For all the dot-baggery I've had to tolerate from cars for the last 40 years, it just doesn't seem like much. I'm glad some cagers had a bad day, they need more of them, not less....

...If you are looking for concise rules regarding cycling on Mass roads, look no further than my signature and go over to the same roads same rules (http://massbike.org/srsr/) website. I keep this bookmarked on my iPhone, although I have yet to need to show it to any local police. They all seem pretty well aware of the new laws. There are also some laminated cards that have the new rules, although they are somewhat lacking in details.

Great resource, thanks. Just added it to my favorites. I was also thinking about getting/making some laminated cards with rules just in case I needed them.



...Massachusetts is not known for wide lanes. If the lane width is substandard, the cyclist should ensure their own safety by riding far enough out that motorists understand they need the other lane to pass safely.

So true. I constantly take the lane for this reason and better visibility.

If you don't need to hold up traffic (as you would if the lane was narrow or moving to the right was hazardous), you "intend" to hold up traffic.

That is, if there is a safe and legal alternative to avoid holding up traffic, you are obstructing traffic if you don't take it. The typical alternative for bicycles is to move to the right. This alternative is usually legally required (if it is safe to do so).

The analogy is somebody driving for no reason at 10 mph in a 55 mph zone.

(Don't think that "intent" is established by the person "confessing" that they wanted to hold-up traffic!)

See Trotwood v. Selz (http://www.cincinnaticycleclub.org/education/law/trotwoodvselz/).

Cyclists here have the right to the full use of the lane and it's a rare lane around here that's 14 feet wide so just about any lane would be considered too narrow to share. Under those conditions a bicyclists here, riding at a reasonable bicycling speed, would likely prevail against an impeding traffic charge.

Speedo


Speedo

See Trotwood v. Selz (http://www.cincinnaticycleclub.org/education/law/trotwoodvselz/)Trotwood v. Selz was in Ohio. It's likely binding on lower courts served by that appeals court, but not on higher courts or lower courts not served by that appeals court.

Outside of Ohio, it's just a court case in another state -- it's how some other courts have approached a particular situation, but it doesn't "make it so".

See Trotwood v. Selz (http://www.cincinnaticycleclub.org/education/law/trotwoodvselz/).
Right, because an Ohio appellate court has jurisdiction over Massachusetts...

Right, because an Ohio appellate court has jurisdiction over Massachusetts...

The invasion failed?

See Trotwood v. Selz (http://www.cincinnaticycleclub.org/education/law/trotwoodvselz/).

Cyclists here have the right to the full use of the lane and it's a rare lane around here that's 14 feet wide so just about any lane would be considered too narrow to share. Under those conditions a bicyclists here, riding at a reasonable bicycling speed, would likely prevail against an impeding traffic charge.


I'm aware of that case (and I think the result was reasonable). You are reading too much into it.

Basically, it established (in Ohio) that bicyclists can't be required to accelerate quickly from a stop (it isn't in the nature of bicycles to do that). That is, the use of the lane is qualified.

A vehicle that is charged with impeding traffic (in an abstract sense) has to have a legal and practicable remedy to avoid holding up traffic. For motor vehicles, this remedy is typically speeding up (or, in some situations, pulling over). For bicycles, the remedy is to move to the right.

In the Trotz v. Selz case, the prosecution's problem was not charging the bicyclist from riding FRAP (see following).


was not charged with a violation of Ohio Revised Code Section 4511.55(A), which requires cyclists to ride “as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable…

Keep in mind too, that, if there are more than one same-direction lanes, vehicles can't generally be charged with "impeding traffic" because the extra lane makes it easy to pass the slow vehicles. Additionally, in some states, bicyclists are not required to ride FRAP if there are more than one same-direction lanes available. In the Trotz v. Selz situation, there were two same direction lanes plus a center passing lane.

In MA, all vehicles have to facilitate overtaking traffic. If they can facilitate passing traffic and fail to do so, the drivers are breaking the law.

==================


Cyclists here have the right to the full use of the lane.

That isn't quite correct (see following). They can use the full lane if it is "unreasonable or unsafe" to keep to the right.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.55


(A) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable obeying all traffic rules applicable to vehicles and exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.

(B) Persons riding bicycles or motorcycles upon a roadway shall ride not more than two abreast in a single lane, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles or motorcycles.

(C) This section does not require a person operating a bicycle to ride at the edge of the roadway when it is unreasonable or unsafe to do so. Conditions that may require riding away from the edge of the roadway include when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it otherwise is unsafe or impracticable to do so, including if the lane is too narrow for the bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

Right, because an Ohio appellate court has jurisdiction over Massachusetts...

While an Ohio case isn't applicable to other states, the logic behind this case generally applies to (nearly) all other states (in my opinion). The problem is that many people don't really understand the details of the Trotz v. Selz case!

actually, the trotwood v selz decision does qualify as a decision from a compelling authority that could be cited in favor of a cyclist in other states. i believe it has already been referenced in some of the cyclists rights cases in arizona, trotwood v selz does have heft across state lines.


Basically, it established (in Ohio) that bicyclists can't be required to accelerate quickly from a stop...

Oh, Trotwood V Selz did a bit more than that. arguably if you want to try and diminish the impact of this case you could describe it like that, maybe...? but why anyone who self-identifies as a bicyclist would choose to color it that way. impossible to identify the rationale for that mischaracterization from a fellow bicyclist.

quoting the lawyer who represented Steve Trotwood in the ohio court of appeals, describing the finding of the court,



“The Court of Appeals compared the Georgia case to this one and stated "In either case, holding the operator to have violated the slow speed statute would be tantamount to excluding operators of these vehicles from the public roadways, something that each legislative authority, respectively, has not clearly expressed an intention to do.”
Publication of the court’s decision on May 14, 2001, gives the opinion increased importance and precedential value....


As to Massachusetts,



under the new laws in the state of massachusetts, that requires motorists to change lanes completely to pass cyclists that are operating in a lane unsafe to share safely, a bicyclist would arguably be under no obligation to facilitate other road users breaking the law and would have no legal obligation to facilitate passing.

this, coupled to the two abreast revisions, seems to allow two bicyclists to indefinitely control a lane too narrow to safely share if they were riding single file in the lane.

Try telling that to the judge though! even though it is allowed, cyclists accustomed to safe road sharing can very well single up and encourage other road users to break the law just to keep things operating smoothly out there! maybe we'll get some slack when needed, eh?

Oh, Trotwood V Selz did a bit more than that. arguably if you want to try and diminish the impact of this case you could describe it like that, maybe...? but why anyone who self-identifies as a bicyclist would choose to color it that way. impossible to identify the rationale for that mischaracterization from a fellow bicyclist.
So, the lawyer for the case is prone to histrionics and hyperbole! Like that never happens.

==================

Bicyclists can't generally be held to the "slow speed statute" because they have a legally-explicit alternative remedy (ie, riding FRAP) and because they can't "speed up" like motor vehicles can (it's not "in their nature").

If the cyclists in Trotz v. Selz were holding up traffic, they should have been charged with not riding FRAP (which is required in Ohio). That is, the cyclists were charged with the wrong law.

ah, good thing they weren't ! bicyclists can't be required to accelerate quickly from a stop? I usually accelerate more quickly from most stops than most cars. but not really on target in describing the selz v trotwood decision.

While an Ohio case isn't applicable to other states, the logic behind this case generally applies to (nearly) all other states (in my opinion). The problem is that many people don't really understand the details of the Trotz v. Selz case!

The real issue of an out of state opinion being used by the Massachusetts SJC (Supreme Judicial Court) is whether the laws and circumstances under which the decision was rendered can be reconciled with the case at hand. It certainly would never be used as precedent. Not speaking for njkayaker, but he is correct in his characterization here. The Ohio case would merely be used as a brief reference, and may even be cited by a Mass Court as an example as to what other States have done. All that being said, I must say that the Mass SJC rarely relies on other state court opinions when formulating and rendering its opinion in a case.

actually, the trotwood v selz decision does qualify as a decision from a compelling authority that could be cited in favor of a cyclist in other states. i believe it has already been referenced in some of the cyclists rights cases in arizona, trotwood v selz does have heft across state lines.

Certainly it "could be" but it could also be completely ignored too. The Ohio decision has exactly zero precedential effect on any matter brought before any Massachusetts Court, even if the laws and circumstances were identical. While it could be used, it would only be used at the pleasure of the Court.



As to Massachusetts,

under the new laws in the state of massachusetts, that requires motorists to change lanes completely to pass cyclists that are operating in a lane unsafe to share safely, a bicyclist would arguably be under no obligation to facilitate other road users breaking the law and would have no legal obligation to facilitate passing.

this, coupled to the two abreast revisions, seems to allow two bicyclists to indefinitely control a lane too narrow to safely share if they were riding single file in the lane.


You have somewhat misunderstood the Massachusetts Law, Bekologist.
You cannot look at MGL Ch.85 sec.11B in a vacuum. You have to consider it along side all the other rules and regulations for vehicles on the road. All 11B does is carve out some exceptions that are particular to bicycle use of the road, and permits some activity that would otherwise not be legal for other vehicles using the road. However, bicycles are still vehicles and are still subject to other laws and one all important exception to 11B is ch.89 sec 2, which specifically requires bicyclists to facilitate passing. Look at my prior post about the summary.

Does this require a cyclist to abandon the road? I would argue, no it doesn't. But it would require riding to the right, while retaining a safe road surface. It would require single file, to free up more room to pass. Note that the explicitness of the two abreast law in Mass is new, and recognizes the obvious safety and normal operation of bikes when they ride in groups. It however is still subject to the requirement to "skinny up" when there is a "car back."

HTH
zac