New Law to Protect Bikers in Maryland Takes Effect

[Rusty5329]

From the Washington Post

Decades after the first "share the road" signs popped up, Maryland drivers could be fined as much as $500 if they pass within three feet of a bicyclist...

Although the new law is intended to protect cyclists, it does mandate that they handle their bikes responsibly. They are required to maintain a steady course, stay to the right and use a bike lane, if there is one, or the shoulder, if it is smoothly paved.

Drivers who are about to enter or cross a designated bike lane or the shoulder are required to yield to cyclists.

Whether or not this will be enforced is tough to say, although the article does reference a biker who was bumped by an aggressive driver's mirror. The biker got the license plate number and the police gave the driver a "warning."

[Fasteryoufool]

From the Washington Post



Whether or not this will be enforced is tough to say, although the article does reference a biker who was bumped by an aggressive driver's mirror and police. The biker got the license plate number and the police gave the driver a "warning."

See, I just love that whole downplaying thing they do. If you're hit by the mirror of a car, it wasn't an "aggressive driver" it was somebody who just assaulted you with a deadly weapon.

[noisebeam]

http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/bills/hb/hb0461f.pdf

http://law.justia.com/maryland/codes/gtr/21-1205.html

http://law.justia.com/maryland/codes/gtr/21-1205.1.html

[B. Carfree]

We have a similar fine (slightly under $400) for passing too closely to a cyclist on roads with speeds over 35 mph and no designated bike lane here in OR (Motorists are required to give a cyclist "room to fall in the car's direction".). In spite of the fact that approximately half of all motor vehicles violate this law on any given ride I go on, I don't think any motorist has ever been cited for this violation here. I think the most likely outcome of your new law is for cyclists to be cited for not riding on a shoulder. MD cyclists have gained nothing while giving up their right to the roadway; sounds like a loser to me.

[noisebeam]

We have a similar fine (slightly under $400) for passing too closely to a cyclist on roads with speeds over 35 mph and no designated bike lane here in OR (Motorists are required to give a cyclist "room to fall in the car's direction".). In spite of the fact that approximately half of all motor vehicles violate this law on any given ride I go on, I don't think any motorist has ever been cited for this violation here. I think the most likely outcome of your new law is for cyclists to be cited for not riding on a shoulder. MD cyclists have gained nothing while giving up their right to the roadway; sounds like a loser to me.

I agree the law is unnecessary and worse than no change at all.

However note that the new law (HB0461) does nothing to change the existing laws (1205 & 1205.1) about where a cyclist must ride on a road (or shoulder)

What it will do is increase hostilities toward cyclists as the requirements of 1205(.1) are too nuanced for the average person to understand and also should based on the cyclists judgment (for example: is the debris on the road a hazard or not) But now the public that has been made aware of this new law will think that they don't need to pass a cyclist safely if they are ever not in a bike lane or shoulder. That is exactly how the new article cited in the OP summed it up: "it does mandate that they handle their bikes responsibly. They are required to maintain a steady course, stay to the right and use a bike lane, if there is one, or the shoulder, if it is smoothly paved."

It is a really bad new law - motorists should pass cyclist safely no matter where in the roadway they are.

[maxine]

Noisebeam, I live and bike in central Maryland (one of the most congested places in the country), and I have no beef whatsoever with the existing law that requires me to ride on a smooth-paved shoulder if one is available. That's where I would ride, law or no law. It's the best of both worlds, as far as I'm concerned -- the shoulder gets me where I need to go (unlike some "road to nowhere" -- or "road that's waaaaaay out of your way" -- multi-use paths) *and* keeps me and the cars at a peaceable distance from one another. They go about their business, I go about mine, and everyone's happy.

There are sections of my commute to work where I have a nice big shoulder (almost as big as the travel lane.) There are also sections of my commute where there is zero shoulder and 45-50 mph traffic, and in those sections I take the lane (typically, in my area, riding the right tire track is enough to let the drivers know I mean it and to get them to pass me safely.)

Guess which sections of my commute I enjoy more??? Even though I rarely have any "incidents" with drivers on the no-shoulder stretches -- because I am capable of being both assertive and courteous when riding -- I would be happy as a clam to have a nice big shoulder for the entire commute. And based on what I see of other commuters in my area, they would likely agree.

I don't think Maryland motorists are going to go through a lot of over-analysis of this, as you seem to suggest: "Why, Mildred, when you compare this new law with the language of the current provisions of 1205 and 1205.1, I think we have a fine legal argument now available for running them off the road!!!" No, I think they've always known (whether they care or not is another matter, of course) that they need to pass bicycles at a "safe" distance; what they will take away from this law now is an actual idea of what "safe" is -- at least three feet.

[noisebeam]

I don't think Maryland motorists are going to go through a lot of over-analysis of this, as you seem to suggest:

That is exactly my point. There will be no review of the actual text of the new law or review of the associated 1205 laws. All they will know (if they know anything) is that they must pass a cyclist with 3ft clearance unless they cyclist is outside of a bike lane or shoulder.

[Bekologist]

Inflating concerns over the new safe passing laws is so far fetched coming from bicyclists. 'at least 3 feet of passing clearance' codified in state laws is sooo bad for bicyclists, wah.

what a fabricated complaint by noisebeam. really, why stand against safe passing laws?

There's no problem with new safe passing laws that explicitly serve to protect cyclists rights to the road and safe passage.

I think the most likely outcome of your new law is for cyclists to be cited for not riding on a shoulder. MD cyclists have gained nothing while giving up their right to the roadway;

BZZZZT! incorrect.....

"Senate Bill 624 repeals the general requirement that a bicyclist use the shoulder if it is a paved smooth surface."

mandatory shoulder use by bicyclists repealed in Maryland.

[High Roller]

What it will do is increase hostilities toward cyclists as the requirements of 1205(.1) are too nuanced for the average person to understand and also should based on the cyclists judgment (for example: is the debris on the road a hazard or not) But now the public that has been made aware of this new law will think that they don't need to pass a cyclist safely if they are ever not in a bike lane or shoulder. That is exactly how the new article cited in the OP summed it up: "it does mandate that they handle their bikes responsibly. They are required to maintain a steady course, stay to the right and use a bike lane, if there is one, or the shoulder, if it is smoothly paved."

It is a really bad new law - motorists should pass cyclist safely no matter where in the roadway they are.

Agree. Laws targeted to a minority, even if well-intentioned, inevitably wind up being misinterpreted by the majority and unfairly administered by LEOs and the courts. How strange that so-called cycling advocates would celebrate yet another assault on their freedom, another nail in their coffin.

[ianbrettcooper]

Noisebeam, I live and bike in central Maryland (one of the most congested places in the country), and I have no beef whatsoever with the existing law that requires me to ride on a smooth-paved shoulder if one is available.

That law doesn't exist anymore (as of today), and I for one am glad of it. I don't like laws that force me into dangerous situations, and riding on the shoulder takes me out of the roadway where drivers can easily see me and puts me in greater danger at intersections. As of today, the only Maryland laws that put me in danger are:

1. the law that says I must ride as far right as practicable.
2. the law that says I must use a bike lane if one is available.

The first law is open to abuse, since what's 'practicable' is subjective. I should be the only one in a position to decide what road position is safe - my road position should not be forced on me by government. As for the second law, I would have no problem with it if DOT would stop striping bike lanes fully in the door zone.

[Bekologist]

that's not what your laws say. safety is written into those laws.


ian misinterprets Maryland state law, what 'as far right as is practicable and safe' means and explicitly allows bicyclists.

the only thing putting ian in danger is ian himself.

[Rusty5329]

That is exactly my point. There will be no review of the actual text of the new law or review of the associated 1205 laws. All they will know (if they know anything) is that they must pass a cyclist with 3ft clearance unless they cyclist is outside of a bike lane or shoulder.

Based on the comments over at the Washington Post article (I've been responding to folks periodically over there, user name WUrquhart1984) I don't think they will even know the "outside of a bike lane or shoulder" part. All they hear is they can get a ticket. Some of them think they'll get a ticket for being stopped at a light and having a bike pass by them too close.

[B. Carfree]

Inflating concerns over the new safe passing laws is so far fetched coming from bicyclists. 'at least 3 feet of passing clearance' codified in state laws is sooo bad for bicyclists, wah.

what a fabricated complaint by noisebeam. really, why stand against safe passing laws?

There's no problem with new safe passing laws that explicitly serve to protect cyclists rights to the road and safe passage.


BZZZZT! incorrect.....

"Senate Bill 624 repeals the general requirement that a bicyclist use the shoulder if it is a paved smooth surface."

mandatory shoulder use by bicyclists repealed in Maryland.

Thanks for the correction. The Wash. Post article said otherwise; I should have known to check further. I hate to admit that Palin has gotten anything right, but when it comes to bike issues we sure do have a lame-stream media.

[Chris516]

From the Washington Post



Whether or not this will be enforced is tough to say, although the article does reference a biker who was bumped by an aggressive driver's mirror. The biker got the license plate number and the police gave the driver a "warning."

I highly doubt it will. While the new bike law is great, because we finally may start to get the road equality we have deserved for a long time. The way the cellphone ban is worded it is useless. The whole cellphone ban as it is presently worded, is a giant legislative cop-out. It means that aggressive drivers can use the new cellphone law as an excuse for involuntary manslaughter!!!!!!

[Chris516]

That law doesn't exist anymore (as of today), and I for one am glad of it. I don't like laws that force me into dangerous situations, and riding on the shoulder takes me out of the roadway where drivers can easily see me and puts me in greater danger at intersections. As of today, the only Maryland laws that put me in danger are:

1. the law that says I must ride as far right as practicable.
2. the law that says I must use a bike lane if one is available.

The first law is open to abuse, since what's 'practicable' is subjective. I should be the only one in a position to decide what road position is safe - my road position should not be forced on me by government. As for the second law, I would have no problem with it if DOT would stop striping bike lanes fully in the door zone.

The practicality, is a judgment call on the part of the cyclist, not the motorist. Therefore, Unless the Maryland state government changes the law anytime soon, it is almost a given, that cyclists will not be able to abide by the State of Maryland's insanity.

[ianbrettcooper]

The practicality, is a judgment call on the part of the cyclist, not the motorist...

It should be that way, but in the event of an accident or a law suit (which are really the only times the law matters), it's a judgment call that the police get to make - usually based on the motor vehicle driver's assessment, and a judge (who is most likely a motorist) gets to rule on. So the cyclist effectively has no say except when no one else cares. In effect, the law enforces a de facto 'as far right as POSSIBLE' law.

[Bekologist]

the law enforces an as far right as possible interpretation only in the minds of those willing to misstate the law.

Maryland cyclists are expressly statutorily afforded considerably more operating leeway than ian describes.

Even Ians' imprecise claims the law only matters in the courtroom discredits his belief in a de facto method of operation. if its only matters in court, it doesn't matter at all times. But that's not the case anyway.

Cyclists in Maryland are expressly guided and allowed to operate only as far to the right as is practicable AND safe.

Cyclists should heed the advice embodied in the law and not listen to misleading commentary that 'as far right as practicable and safe' somehow means as far right as possible.

[ianbrettcooper]

Cyclists should heed the advice embodied in the law and not listen to misleading commentary that 'as far right as practicable and safe' somehow means as far right as possible.

When did I ever say that cyclists are required to ride "as far right as possible". I said that they were required to ride as far right as practicable, but that in a courtroom it would be interpreted as 'as far right as possible'. The addition of the words 'and safe' in the law are useless and restrictive, as they allow the courts to decide what is safe, and officers of the court are hardly ever cyclists, so they don't know a damned thing about cycling safety or practicability.

[Bekologist]

As of today, the only Maryland laws that put me in danger are:

1. the law that says I must ride as far right as practicable.

People suggesting 'as far right as practicable laws' require cyclists put themselves in danger....

......don't know a damned thing about cycling safety or practicability.

Disingenuous framing of bicyclists rights is a grave disservice.

[unterhausen]

If it takes 2 years to rekindle the argument, it's time to let it go. Closed