Advocacy & Safety - The bicycle "has all the rights and responsibilities" ... to avoid impeding traffic.

From the Baltimore Sun per Buel Young, spokesman for the Motor Vehicle Administration.

According to Young, the bicycle "has all the rights and responsibilities" of any other vehicle. One of those responsibilities, he said, is to avoid impeding traffic.

But what does that mean? It turns out there's a very precise answer.

According to Young, a vehicle is impeding traffic if it is forcing following vehicles to slow down to more than 15 mph under the speed limit. Anything less and the driver just has to wait his turn.

Let's say you're driving along a winding country road with a speed limit of 35 mph and you come upon a bicycle in the middle of your lane, pedaling at 15 mph. The law says the bicyclist has the responsibility to move aside and let you pass.

But let's say the speed limit on that country lane is 25 mph. As long as the bicyclist can keep up a pace of 10 mph or more, the bicyclist has the right to use the traffic lane and the driver has no legal recourse but to slow down and exercise patience until the bicyclist moves aside or the double yellow ends. Blaring the horn to prod the bicyclist to move aside is unsafe, illegal and downright rude.

Now let's say the bicyclist is in the wrong – blithely hogging the travel lane while slowing the motorist to 20 mph under the speed limit. In that case, the buffer rule does not apply. But drivers who would prefer not to spend their day explaining that to police after a collision should keep their distance anyway.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-10-01/features/bs-md-dresser-getting-there-1004-20101004_1_bicyclist-speed-limit-common-sense

*******************************************************************
I am flabbergasted by such nonsense, help me out and give me some talking points.

What is The Motor Vehicle Administration? Feds,State, which state?

Is what he says-the 15 mph less stuff- correct? By correct I mean is this an actual law or did he just make it up?

On its face-15 mph under the speed limit- makes a bit of sense, but that doesn't mean it is the law.

Is it law, or did he just make it up? And why 15 mph-why not 10 mph or 20 mph- is there some fact based reason to make it 15 mph?

The exact numbers of course cause more confusion than they are worth, but its a nice idea. It all comes down to courtesy and common sense, in short supply amongs cyclists and motorists alike these days.

This is in the State of Maryland and for what it's worth our impeding law:

§ 21-804. Minimum speed regulation.
(a) Slow speed impeding traffic prohibited.- Unless reduced speed is necessary for the safe operation of the vehicle or otherwise is in compliance with law, a person may not willfully drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

The 15mph may come from our SMV law (10mph + 5mph grace)

§ 21-301. Driving on right side of roadway; exceptions.
(b) Special rule for slow-moving traffic.- On every roadway, except while overtaking and passing another vehicle going in the same direction or when preparing for a lawful left turn, any vehicle going 10 miles an hour or more below the applicable maximum speed limit or, if any existing conditions reasonably require a speed below that of the applicable maximum, at less than the normal speed of traffic under these conditions, shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

I saw somewhere a rule that said that a vehicle could not impede traffic if it was going at its normal speed. But I don't remember where I saw it.

This is in the State of Maryland and for what it's worth our impeding law:

§ 21-804. Minimum speed regulation.
(a) Slow speed impeding traffic prohibited.- Unless reduced speed is necessary for the safe operation of the vehicle or otherwise is in compliance with law, a person may not willfully drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

I'd just point out that 21-804 as quoted specifically does not apply to bicycles -- by its plain wording, it applies only to operating motor vehicles below the normal speed of traffic. That's an important legal distinction -- "vehicle" and "motor vehicle" are terms of art, separately defined in law.



21-301. Driving on right side of roadway; exceptions.
(b) Special rule for slow-moving traffic.- On every roadway, except while overtaking and passing another vehicle going in the same direction or when preparing for a lawful left turn, any vehicle going 10 miles an hour or more below the applicable maximum speed limit or, if any existing conditions reasonably require a speed below that of the applicable maximum, at less than the normal speed of traffic under these conditions, shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

This law, on the other hand, does state that it applies to "vehicles" rather than "motor vehicles", and would therefore require bicycles to ride in the right-hand lane, or as close as practicable to the right hand curb.

"Practicable" generally means something can be done safely under the circumstances at hand -- it might be "possible" to ride an inch away from the top of a hundred-foot cliff, but it would not be "practicable."

Many states have very similar language, and in general it does mean that bicycles traveling slower than prevailing traffic must ride as far to the right as is safe.

What factors into that will vary by jurisdiction depending on your local precedent. Here in Washington State, for example, our Supreme Court ruled many decades ago that a cyclist was not violating the law when riding six feet into the lane because the right edge of the lane was covered with gravel. The law did apply, but riding further to the right was not safe.

Some jurisdictions, but not all, have recognized that it's not safe to ride so far to the right in a substandard lane that you're encouraging motorists to pass illegally close to you within the lane.

No idea what the precedents are in your area, might be worth checking with local cycling advocacy groups.

Clearly the minimum speed laws do not apply to bicycles, only to motor vehicles, or in some cases to vehicles which have normal speeds equivalent to the speed limit.

The famous bike slogan is "I'm not blocking traffic--I am traffic!" My new version is "I'm not blocking traffic--I'm calming traffic!" :)

My new version is "I'm not blocking traffic--I'm calming traffic!" :)

Judging by some motorists' reaction, I tend to think otherwise at times.

§ 21-1202. Traffic laws apply to bicycles and motor scooters.
Every person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter in a public bicycle area has all the rights granted to and is subject to all the duties required of the driver of a vehicle by this title, including the duties set forth in § 21-504 of this title, except:
(1) As otherwise provided in this subtitle; and
(2) For those provisions of this title that by their very nature cannot apply.


So SMV gets supplanted by:

§ 21-1205. Riding on roadways or on highway.
(a) Riding to right side of roadway.- Each person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter at a speed less than the speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing on a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable and safe, except when:
(1) Making or attempting to make a left turn;
(2) Operating on a one-way street;
(3) Passing a stopped or slower moving vehicle;
(4) Avoiding pedestrians or road hazards;
(5) The right lane is a right turn only lane; or
(6) Operating in a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motor scooter and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(b) Riding two abreast.- Each person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter on a roadway may ride two abreast only if the flow of traffic is unimpeded.
(c) Passing.- Each person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter on a roadway shall exercise due care when passing a vehicle.
(d) Walking bicycles on right side of highway.- Each person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter on a roadway may walk the bicycle or motor scooter on the right side of a highway if there is no sidewalk.

I tend to like California's standard for impeding traffic. Basically, if there is another lane available for passing, or if the passing vehicle can legally and safely use the oncoming lane for passing, you aren't impeding traffic. If you are riding on a two lane country road, there is no passing lane, there is too much oncoming traffic to allow a pass (or it's illegal), and you have 5 or more cars behind you waiting to pass, you are impeding traffic and must pull over when it's safe to do so. Not hugging the cliff, or facilitating an unsafe pass - when it's safe to do so. Myself, I tend to think this is a fairly reasonable and exact standard.

Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, during rush hour when traffic is stacked up all the cars have to move over to allow bicycles (faster traffic) to go by?

Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, during rush hour when traffic is stacked up all the cars have to move over to allow bicycles (faster traffic) to go by?

:thumb:

The famous bike slogan is "I'm not blocking traffic--I am traffic!" My new version is "I'm not blocking traffic--I'm calming traffic!" :)

Two words come to mind, when thinking about your version.

To quote actor Al Pacino in a recent promotional ad:

OOH YAH!!!!!:thumb:

§ 21-1202. Traffic laws apply to bicycles and motor scooters.
Every person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter in a public bicycle area has all the rights granted to and is subject to all the duties required of the driver of a vehicle by this title, including the duties set forth in § 21-504 of this title, except:
(1) As otherwise provided in this subtitle; and
(2) For those provisions of this title that by their very nature cannot apply.


So SMV gets supplanted by:

§ 21-1205. Riding on roadways or on highway.
(a) Riding to right side of roadway.- Each person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter at a speed less than the speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing on a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable and safe, except when:
(1) Making or attempting to make a left turn;
(2) Operating on a one-way street;
(3) Passing a stopped or slower moving vehicle;
(4) Avoiding pedestrians or road hazards;
(5) The right lane is a right turn only lane; or
(6) Operating in a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motor scooter and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(b) Riding two abreast.- Each person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter on a roadway may ride two abreast only if the flow of traffic is unimpeded.
(c) Passing.- Each person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter on a roadway shall exercise due care when passing a vehicle.
(d) Walking bicycles on right side of highway.- Each person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter on a roadway may walk the bicycle or motor scooter on the right side of a highway if there is no sidewalk.


Parts 1-6 of 21-1205, regardless of the advance in the acceptance of cyclists on the road, basically make the whole issue moot, as to all the regulations thrown at cyclists. Because the never-ending attempts by the state legislature to somehow make it so motorists can beautify the curbside with dead bodies of cyclists

1-Life would be so easy for motorists if cyclists never had to make another left turn in their lifetime. WELL TO DARN BAD, LIFE ISN'T THAT EASY!!!

2-This is a given

3-When is a cyclist not going to pass a stopped or slower moving vehicle. It is not like a cyclist can make a prearranged schedule to do so.

4-The same thing in reference to stopped or moving vehicles, applies to avoiding pedestrians and road hazards.

5-The 'right turn lane' exception is bogus. Because that is just another excuse to get cyclists out of the stream of traffic, instead of accepting cyclists as part of the traffic.

6-Since when is a lane NOT TOO NARROW!!!!!

I saw somewhere a rule that said that a vehicle could not impede traffic if it was going at its normal speed. But I don't remember where I saw it.

Trotwood vs Selz, legal case. This precident says that a vehicle can not be charged with impeding traffic if it is going a reasonable speed for that vehicle. A bicycle going 25 MPH in a 50 MPH zone is not impeding traffic, since it's unreasonable to expect him to go any faster.

Most drivers seem to feel that bicycles are impeding traffic even if they're going OVER the speed limit. If a car sees a bike in front of them even if it's going faster than they are, they'll speed up to pass it, then cut it off and slow down, because, you know, you can't be behind a bicycle.

Trotwood vs Selz, legal case. This precident ...The precedent is only set in Ohio, and I'm not sure how far up the food chain it went -- I think it just went to the appeals court, so it would only be a binding precedent to courts under that appeals court.

Outside of that area, it's just a court case in another area -- look at it if you want, cite it if you wish, but it doesn't have any legal weight besides showing how your court's peers have ruled.

Don't get me wrong -- it was a landmark case, an important case. But it didn't magically solve the problem for the entire country.

there's nothing in the laws of maryland that would substantiate that claim from the OP.

a cyclist operating a bicycle in maryland shall operate their bicycle only as far right as is practicable and safe when traveling slower than traffic at a specific place and time.

no traffic, no FRAP. Faster traffic present here and now, operate a bicycle FRAP safely.

The person barry quoted is misstating the laws of maryland. someone from maryland should write him a letter and the newspaper with the correct info.

Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, during rush hour when traffic is stacked up all the cars have to move over to allow bicycles (faster traffic) to go by?

If a bike is moving faster than traffic during rush hour, he's likely FRAP'ing, hence he can pass, hence no burden for a car to pull over. :)

In all seriousness though, I've never seen or heard of it applied in any situation other than the stretches of country road that connect towns. Or mountain roads. As a cyclist who has ridden on country roads and mountain roads, I can only think of one or two times the law actually applied. Otherwise, there was always either another way for cars to pass, or a passing situation would occur before I had 5 cars behind me. In practice, I'll pull over and let cars pass anyway if I can do so safely and without having to stop. It's common courtesy on such roads, whether car, bike, or truck.

Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, during rush hour when traffic is stacked up all the cars have to move over to allow bicycles (faster traffic) to go by?

BINGO!!! I wonder how the Baltimore Sun writer would deal with this?

If a bike is moving faster than traffic during rush hour, he's likely FRAP'ing, hence he can pass, hence no burden for a car to pull over. :)

In all seriousness though, I've never seen or heard of it applied in any situation other than the stretches of country road that connect towns. Or mountain roads. As a cyclist who has ridden on country roads and mountain roads, I can only think of one or two times the law actually applied. Otherwise, there was always either another way for cars to pass, or a passing situation would occur before I had 5 cars behind me. In practice, I'll pull over and let cars pass anyway if I can do so safely and without having to stop. It's common courtesy on such roads, whether car, bike, or truck.

We had a cyclist here in San Diego that wasn't FRAPing... he decided that since the rest of traffic was moving slow, he was passing, and did so on the left. He was pulled over and ticketed. The judge determined that he should have been FRAP as the POSTED SPEED was 35, and the cyclist could not do the posted speed, so therefore was riding illegally.

This case was appealed, it was pointed out in appeal that the posted speed is not a minimum; that according to FRAP, the rule is based on the speed of traffic "at that time" and not what is posted. In effect, the cyclist was merely doing what any other vehicle operator might do when facing slower traffic and finding it safe to pass... he passed. The case was dropped.

But the cyclist had to go to court, had to appeal, had to fight a stupid judge... all because the public fails to acknowledge that cyclists have "all the rights..."

Wow, this is tricky stuff and not altogether clear or obvious.It isn't really intuitive.
No surprise since most car drivers would prefer to not deal with much much slower vehicles slowing them down-and car drivers are the vast majority(99.9% maybe).

It will be interesting to see how bicycles are treated after the coming elections.

Bike riders have been identified with the "progressive agenda" so I guess they can expect some payback if the elections goes as the talking heads say they will.

We-bike riders- should play up the "getting USA off foreign energy" aspect of bike riding, and the keeping USA citizens healthy needing less healthcare aspects.We should downplay the "we want to be like Europe, cities are good and suburbs are evil aspects." I like suburbs-live in a suburb-and you would have to pay me plenty of $$ to live in a city.

Oh well-we'll see.
Charlie

Wow, this is tricky stuff and not altogether clear or obvious.It isn't really intuitive.
No surprise since most car drivers would prefer to not deal with much much slower vehicles slowing them down-and car drivers are the vast majority(99.9% maybe).

99.9% of the time car drivers slow down other car drivers... and yet there is no loud hew and cry about how "all those other motorists slow down traffic..." Oh no, don't even suggest that carpools might help the flow of traffic... just doesn't fit "the picture."

Bikes really very rarely slow down motorists... but at the moment, when a driver does have to deal with a cyclist... the first (or maybe second) thing that goes through the driver's mind is "why do I always have to slow down for these stupid cyclists... "

The reality is that motorists spend more time waiting at stoplights or stuck in traffic behind OTHER cars, than the time they deal with cyclists on any single day.


It will be interesting to see how bicycles are treated after the coming elections.

Bike riders have been identified with the "progressive agenda" so I guess they can expect some payback if the elections goes as the talking heads say they will.

We-bike riders- should play up the "getting USA off foreign energy" aspect of bike riding, and the keeping USA citizens healthy needing less healthcare aspects.We should downplay the "we want to be like Europe, cities are good and suburbs are evil aspects." I like suburbs-live in a suburb-and you would have to pay me plenty of $$ to live in a city.

Oh well-we'll see.
Charlie

While it might seem like a good play to work the "non-polluting" and "get off foreign energy bit..." the reality is you end up pointing the finger back at those that drive and are heaping the guilt on them... not a good plan. The other issue is that many " 'Mericans" don't want to be like those "skinny, gay, europeans... "

"ARRRGGG... 'Mericans don't eat pasta, they eat meat and drive big cars... Hurrumppp! Ho Yah!

(yeah yeah, terrible stereotype... but it exists, and is strong in a lot of folks here that consider themselves "red blooded 'Mericans.")

This is in the State of Maryland and for what it's worth our impeding law:

§ 21-804. Minimum speed regulation.
(a) Slow speed impeding traffic prohibited.- Unless reduced speed is necessary for the safe operation of the vehicle or otherwise is in compliance with law, a person may not willfully drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.



The guy is an idiot. Bicycles aren't motor vehicles. The law seems very clear, they don't write extra words into law because they're like totally 16 year old girls and like love to like write like extra words and stuff.

all that concern about how americans see themselves sidelines the important factors in this thread post - someone in officialdom, Maryland is misinforming journalists, newspapers and the public about the rights and duties of cyclists.

Cyclists in Maryland have the right to the road and have a responsibility to operate only as far right as is practicable AND safe in the presence of faster, overtaking traffic.

Impeding traffic statutes in that state are superseded by the statute applicable to bicyclists that they operate FRAP.

This right to the road, operate FRAP is a fairly consistent, uniform duty and right of cyclists and other slow moving vehicles throughout the states.


Misinformation thru the Baltimore Sun about bicyclists rights - from a muckymuck in their Motor Vehicle Administration - begs for a correction. I hope onelesscar has crafted a couple of letters.

Look at all the threads here. Hell look at my posts on threads where I read the law and changed my opinion because what I previously thought the law said was wrong.

Most traffic laws I've seen are easy to read and understand. But people don't know then unless they read them and understand the terms.

§ 21-1205. Riding on roadways or on highway.
(a) Riding to right side of roadway.- Each person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter at a speed less than the speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing on a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable and safe, except when:

Is the “speed of traffic” determined by the actual speeds at the time and place, even when traffic is exceeding the maximum speed limit laws? Since speeding is illegal behavior I would think it could not. Legally, it seems to me that only the actual speed limit (or something lower) could be used as the “slower than” guideline.

Trotwood vs Selz, legal case. This precident says that a vehicle can not be charged with impeding traffic if it is going a reasonable speed for that vehicle. A bicycle going 25 MPH in a 50 MPH zone is not impeding traffic, since it's unreasonable to expect him to go any faster.

That's half of it.

The "Trotwood vs Selz" case indicated that the cyclists should have been charged with violating the "keeping to the right" law and not the "impeding traffic" law.

No, a vehicle that is holding up other traffic is impeding traffic but it may not be doing so illegally.

A cyclist that rides to the right isn't impeding traffic because other traffic can pass him. If there is debris that makes keeping to the right unsafe, he could be impeding other traffic but it would not be illegal.


The "impeding traffic" law requires the operator to not hold up traffic if there is a remedy available to avoid holding up traffic. The remedy available to cyclists (in most states) is to keep to the right. That is, the bicycle FRAP law is, practically and obviously, a "impeding traffic" law for bicyclists.

"Speeding up" is a remedy but can't (typically) apply to bicyclists because it's "not in the nature" (of a bicycle).

While there is often a requirement for all vehicles to keep to the right, this fails as a remedy for illegally impeding traffic for cars because they are too wide.

Is the “speed of traffic” determined by the actual speeds at the time and place, even when traffic is exceeding the maximum speed limit laws? Since speeding is illegal behavior I would think it could not. Legally, it seems to me that only the actual speed limit (or something lower) could be used as the “slower than” guideline.

Sort of.

Note that some states require drivers on multilane highways to keep to the right lane (and only use the left lane for passing). Drivers still have the requirement to keep right even if the drivers in the left lane are speeding. That is, it's still illegal to squat in the left lane.

That would seem to indicate that the bicyclist still has to keep to the right (if it is practical to do so).

I just sent the following letter to the Baltimore Sun and added a condensed version to the article's comments section:

I just read "Getting There: New bicycle law codifies common sense, courtesy: But folks on two wheels have responsibilities, too", by Michael Dresser. I find this article lacking in journalistic standards. Not only does the writer get certain points of law wrong (apparently he only got one source for the Maryland traffic law as it pertains to a bicyclist's ability to impede traffic, and that source clearly does not understand the law). A cyclist cannot impede traffic in the way that the article suggests. The law Mr. Dresser refers to only applies to MOTOR vehicles. While a bicycle is a vehicle, it is not a motor vehicle. The fact is, a bicycle that is taking the full lane can be overtaken, even if the road has double yellow lines, as long as the oncoming traffic lane is clear. Mr. Dresser seems to believe a double yellow line may never be crossed. This is incorrect.

Also, Mr. Dresser inserts his own quite biased opinion of cyclists. For one thing, he claims that cyclists can 'blithely hog' the travel lane. Often, cyclists take possession of narrow lanes in order to prevent dangerous passes of the kind that drivers can very easily be tempted to attempt. In fact, all cyclists are passed unsafely regularly - I'd say I am the victim of unsafe passes at least once per day. To a motorist, this may seem like 'blithely hogging the lane', but taking of the lane is done, not because cyclists like getting in people's way, but specifically to keep the situation safe. It is not a cyclist's responsibility to let cars by in every situation. In fact a cyclist has the right of way when at the head of a line of traffic, and with that right of way comes the responsibility to keep the roadway safe. Sometimes safety demands that we take the lane.

Mr. Dresser also opines: "Prudence dictates that you get out of the way of a faster and bigger vehicle as soon as it is safe to do so." This suggests that bigger and faster vehicles are some kind of untamed beasts. This is nonsense! Drivers are perfectly capable of adjusting speed to meet varying road situations. As a cyclist, I find the implied threat - that I need to get out of the way or face injury or death - offensive. My bicycle is a vehicle, and I have the same right to use the roads as any other vehicle operator. Does Mr. Dresser believe that all slower vehicles - cars too - ought to get out of the way of faster ones? The road is not governed by 'might makes right', nor should it be!

Mr. Dresser ends the article with this snide comment: "Those of us behind the wheel can only hope that bicyclists use this discretion wisely." The fact is, the 3ft passing law and the repeal of the law that mandated shoulder use were instituted in the hope that they will save lives! They did not come about because of some powerful cycling lobby (how I wish there were one - maybe then cycle commuters would get some equal respect). Too many cyclists are injured or killed because drivers don't give cyclists enough room and because shoulders are not meant to serve as traffic lanes. Just last week, a senate candidate was killed on her bicycle. Since a shoulder AND unsafe passing were factors in the accident, both of these new laws may have saved her life. I find it deeply offensive to read an article in a respected paper that basically treats cyclists like naughty children who need to be disciplined.

Sort of.

Note that some states require drivers on multilane highways to keep to the right lane (and only use the left lane for passing). Drivers still have the requirement to keep right even if the drivers in the left lane are speeding. That is, it's still illegal to squat in the left lane.

That would seem to indicate that the bicyclist still has to keep to the right (if it is practical to do so).

But the speed limit is the maximum allowed, ever, in any lane. Aren’t we just telling vehicle operators it’s ok to break this law when we require others to move out of their way so they can do so? Why is obeying the maximum speed law almost always considered less important than obeying slower traffic keep to the right laws? I see no valid legal reason for it.

Well said ian.

But the speed limit is the maximum allowed, ever, in any lane...

Not sure that's the case. If you're overtaking, I think you are allowed to speed for a short time. Then again, I'm not a driver and I'm pretty slow on the bicycle too, so speeding really doesn't come up for me, and I usually get my wife's version of the law as it pertains to speeding, which might be nonsense.

I really need to get myself a copy of Maryland's Driver's Handbook, so that I can be sure of this kind of stuff in case it does ever apply to me.

Well said ian.

Thanks. I think it would have been a bit better if the last sentence had been "I find it deeply offensive to read an article in a respected paper that basically treats cyclists like naughty children who can't be trusted with responsibility.", but it got sent like that, so, oh well.

Sometimes I spend hours tweaking and editing even minor forum posts. I really should get a life, LOL.

genec
But those that drive are us.Most people on this forum drive a car.
"While it might seem like a good play to work the "non-polluting" and "get off foreign energy bit..." the reality is you end up pointing the finger back at those that drive and are heaping the guilt on them... not a good plan.".

But the speed limit is the maximum allowed, ever, in any lane. Aren’t we just telling vehicle operators it’s ok to break this law when we require others to move out of their way so they can do so?

No, we aren't telling operators that.

There are two people breaking the law: 1) the speeder, and the left-lane squatter. The fact that 1 is breaking the law doesn't allow 2 to break the law. That's kind of a basic legal principle.


Why is obeying the maximum speed law almost always considered less important than obeying slower traffic keep to the right laws? I see no valid legal reason for it.

"Almost always"? Really? Based on what?

Not sure that's the case. If you're overtaking, I think you are allowed to speed for a short time.

It's pretty clear in Illinois law. There are exceptions for requiring operators to travel slower, but I see none that allows them to go faster under any situation. Frankly, I don't see how there could be unless the amount allowed was specified. By the way, I'm talking actual laws here, not what may be tollerated or allowed by the police in practice.

(625 ILCS 5/Ch. 11 Art. VI heading)
ARTICLE VI. SPEED RESTRICTIONS


(625 ILCS 5/11‑601) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11‑601)
Sec. 11‑601. General speed restrictions.
(a) No vehicle may be driven upon any highway of this State at a speed which is greater than is reasonable and proper with regard to traffic conditions and the use of the highway, or endangers the safety of any person or property. The fact that the speed of a vehicle does not exceed the applicable maximum speed limit does not relieve the driver from the duty to decrease speed when approaching and crossing an intersection, approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, or when special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions. Speed must be decreased as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person or vehicle on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care.
(b) No person may drive a vehicle upon any highway of this State at a speed which is greater than the applicable statutory maximum speed limit established by paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f) or (g) of this Section, by Section 11‑605 or by a regulation or ordinance made under this Chapter.

Not sure that's the case. If you're overtaking, I think you are allowed to speed for a short time. Then again, I'm not a driver and I'm pretty slow on the bicycle too, so speeding really doesn't come up for me, and I usually get my wife's version of the law as it pertains to speeding, which might be nonsense.

I really need to get myself a copy of Maryland's Driver's Handbook, so that I can be sure of this kind of stuff in case it does ever apply to me.

Wait, let's think about this for a second... really. If car A is doing the speed limit and car B is "overtaking," that means car B is exceeding the speed limit... otherwise everyone would just queue up no problem... but a motorist is overtaking another car that is already at the limit, that means that the overtaking car IS over the speed limit.

Now what you are saying is that to pass another car, one has to speed for a moment... OK, but why are you having to pass another car that is already at the speed limit?

If you are passing a SMV, then you don't need to speed to do so... you just come up to the speed limit and you will be an overtaking vehicle.

This constant need to speed and to generate excuses to speed ("just to pass") and the turning of a blind eye to speeding is really all embedded in the root problem of motorists feeling that they must pass "everyone." This also ends up raising speed limits in an area that uses the 85% rule.

genec
But those that drive are us.Most people on this forum drive a car.
"While it might seem like a good play to work the "non-polluting" and "get off foreign energy bit..." the reality is you end up pointing the finger back at those that drive and are heaping the guilt on them... not a good plan.".

Sure, but you can't get others to join the cycling club by telling them how "guilty" they are.... really, it just doesn't work.

Not sure that's the case. If you're overtaking, I think you are allowed to speed for a short time.
I was talking about a multilane highway. On such a road, there isn't any need to speed when overtaking. (There's some vague allowance when using an opposing lane to pass but I wasn't talking about that case.)


It's pretty clear in Illinois law. There are exceptions for requiring operators to travel slower, but I see none that allows them to go faster under any situation.

The police are allowed to exceed the speed limit (for duty-related purposes). Why should they have to wait for people squatting in the left lane (especially when such squatting is illegal)?

Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, during rush hour when traffic is stacked up all the cars have to move over to allow bicycles (faster traffic) to go by?

Yes. Now please get out of my way.

No, we aren't telling operators that.

There are two people breaking the law: 1) the speeder, and the left-lane squatter. The fact that 1 is breaking the law doesn't allow 2 to break the law. That's kind of a basic legal principle.


Of course. But does the speeders non-right to exceed the limit supersede an operators non-right to disobey the slower traffic keep right rule? If so, where is it written? If one must move over for someone wanting to travel 10mph over, must that operator then move over if someone else wants to go 20 over? If yes, where does it end?

More pertinent to this discussion... When a cyclist is legally riding in the center of the lane, at the posted limit, is he too required to move aside to allow a motorist who wishes to ignore the posted limit past?

While a bicycle is a vehicle, it is not a motor vehicle. The fact is, a bicycle that is taking the full lane can be overtaken, even if the road has double yellow lines, as long as the oncoming traffic lane is clear. Mr. Dresser seems to believe a double yellow line may never be crossed. This is incorrect.

Is this explicitly stated somewhere? It makes sense; but I've never heard anyone state this ... (or I just plain forgot)

Of course. But does the speeders non-right to exceed the limit supersede an operators non-right to disobey the slower traffic keep right rule? If so, where is it written? If one must move over for someone wanting to travel 10mph over, must that operator then move over if someone else wants to go 20 over? If yes, where does it end?

The driver's requirement to keep to the right is independent of what other drivers are doing. It doesn't magically become legal to stay in the left lane if someone, somewhere is breaking the law.

The driver doesn't enforce speeding laws.


More pertinent to this discussion... When a cyclist is legally riding in the center of the lane, at the posted limit, is he too required to move aside to allow a motorist who wishes to ignore the posted limit past?
No, there isn't any legal requirement. But if there is a "keep to the right" law, then the cyclist isn't riding legally (assuming the exceptions don't apply).

I really need to get myself a copy of Maryland's Driver's Handbook, so that I can be sure of this kind of stuff in case it does ever apply to me.

Since even as a cyclist you are subject to the laws/rules described in that book (and should be as familiar with the rules specific to cars as they are required to be of those rules specific to bicycles), then yes that is a very good idea. Excellent case for licensing cyclists as well as motorists...

This constant need to speed and to generate excuses to speed ("just to pass") and the turning of a blind eye to speeding is really all embedded in the root problem of motorists feeling that they must pass "everyone." This also ends up raising speed limits in an area that uses the 85% rule.

I agree. Like I said, my memory is hazy, so it probably is my wife's made up rule. I actually asked her yesterday how often she speeds. Her response was to ask "Per day or per trip?" I think that illustrates the problem right there.

The driver's requirement to keep to the right is independent of what other drivers are doing.

No it’s not. One can travel legally in any lane until someone comes along wanting to go faster, then (in some cases) they are suddenly breaking a “slower traffic keep right law”. How is that independent?

Since exceeding the speed limit is always illegal, and traveling in the left lane is not, the law cannot legally require anyone to move aside for those breaking the law, without giving the wink wink to those ignoring the speed limit rules. Yet it does, and there is where I have a problem.

Sure, but you can't get others to join the cycling club by telling them how "guilty" they are.... really, it just doesn't work.

What does work? I mean you'd think accumulating 50+lbs of belly lard would work, but it doesn't. The reality is that the only way most drivers will stop suckling at the gasoline teat is if gas prices go up by 500% or more. In the meantime, making them (by 'them' I'm probably just talking about my wife, LOL) feel guilty at least vents some of my frustration.

Since even as a cyclist you are subject to the laws/rules described in that book (and should be as familiar with the rules specific to cars as they are required to be of those rules specific to bicycles), then yes that is a very good idea.

I agree, and reference my states vehicle code frequently. While I'm no expert, I'm certain I know the rules of the road better than most motorists do.

I really need to get myself a copy of Maryland's Driver's Handbook, so that I can be sure of this kind of stuff in case it does ever apply to me.

Here it is: www.mva.maryland.gov/resources/dl-002b.pdf

One can travel legally in any lane until someone comes along wanting to go faster, then (in some cases) they are suddenly breaking a “slower traffic keep right law”. How is that independent?
Not always. Some states have a "keep right except to pass" law.

http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html

There are two forms of the "keep right" law: 1) always keep right except to pass, 2) move right in the presence of faster traffic.

The second form of the law never says "move right in the presence of faster traffic unless the faster traffic is speeding".

One reason for that is that drivers can easily tell whether traffic is faster but not whether that traffic is, in fact, speeding. (Note that it's common for speedometers to report a slightly higher speed that the actual speed.)


Since exceeding the speed limit is always illegal, and traveling in the left lane is not, the law cannot legally require anyone to move aside for those breaking the law, without giving the wink wink to those ignoring the speed limit rules. Yet it does, and there is where I have a problem.

The law isn't requiring you to "move aside for those breaking the law". It's simply requiring you to move over for faster traffic. Whether or not that traffic is speeding is irrelevant to the requirement of moving over.

If the requirement to move over did not exist for speeding traffic, the driver/bicyclist would have to be able (somehow!) be able to determine that the other traffic was exceeding the speed limit.