Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

>> I don't mind sharing the lane if I safely can.
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>> Tom
>>
>
> This is the way I ride also. I willingly share my lane most of the time.
> My point is that it is not codified in traffic law that bicyclist MUST
> share their lane.

I think the "ride as far to the right as practicable" thing at least
implies that we bicyclists are indeed expected to share our lane
when we determine that we safely can.

> I believe the 3 ft clearance requirement is a step
> toward that end though.

Just out of curiosity I googled-up some overtaking/passing provisos
& rules in various jurisdictions. Now I wish I kept some of the URLs.
IIRC, one was for an overtaking vehicle operator to not attempt to
overtake by crossing the centre line unless he could return to his
original lane at a minimum distance of 200 yards in front of the
overtaken vehicle. That might have been exclusive for high-speed
expressways.

I figure all traffic law and all traffic ettiquette boils down to
Right-of-Way. If everybody respected ROW, there'd be no probs.
Trouble is, there's a dearth of understanding of ROW. And I don't
profess to be an expert, myself, although I'm trying to get there.
Right-Of-Way isn't as simple a subject as some might think. It's
at least as complex as the variety of possible traffic movements,
including U-turns, parallel parking, merging, pedestrian/vehicle
interactions, letting emergency response vehicles through, &c.

While we're all familiar with ROW rules at intersections, I understand
there's also applicable ROW in the zone directly in front of a vehicle's
direction of travel, into which no other vehicle operator should
dangerously intrude.

Maybe passing clearance is one factor determining where an overtaking
vehicle takes its place in front of the overtaken vehicle? IOW, maybe
the closer they pass ya, the closer they're likely to cut in front of ya
(and intrude into your ROW/"safe zone")? If so, laws regarding overtaking
should first consider ROW (regardless, of course, of the type of vehicles
involved.)

I suspect we're on the same page


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Paul Hobson <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 2006-10-10, Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I would caution Florida riders to increase their vigilance and perhaps
>>> add a rear-view mirror to their gear at this point. In my opinion, if
>>> the reaction to the new law can be predicted in any manner, it is that
>>> there will be assholes around who will *intentionally* see just how
>>> close they can come to cyclists when they perceive that there is no
>>> enforcement possible.
>
> John Thompson wrote:
>> Maybe a 3' long fiberglass pole with bright orange flag and a carbide
>> tip might be in order?
>
> How about a spring loaded paint roller to give cars a good, hot pink
> stripe when they pass to close? It'll be a scarlet letter of sorts

For that, it would have to paint an 'A'.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Chris Neary]

>Such laws as in CA and elsewhere are also simply discriminatory to
>bicyclists.

Well of course they are (in the same manner that CVC 21656 is
"discriminatory" to slow moving vehicles).

Whats important is that there be a valid technical basis for the law.


Chris Neary
[email protected]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

 

[Joshua Putnam]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> I don't mind sharing the lane if I safely can.
> >>
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >> Tom
> >>
> >
> > This is the way I ride also. I willingly share my lane most of the time.
> > My point is that it is not codified in traffic law that bicyclist MUST
> > share their lane.
>
> I think the "ride as far to the right as practicable" thing at least
> implies that we bicyclists are indeed expected to share our lane
> when we determine that we safely can.

What I can't find in the law is a prohibition on sharing a lane while
passing that applies to *motorists*.

The requirement in the RCW is that "The driver of a vehicle overtaking
other traffic proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left
thereof at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side
of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken traffic."

There's nothing that says they can't straddle the lane line while
passing, or even that they can't share a lane while passing if there
happens to be a lane wide enough to share while passing at a safe
distance. (The lanes on the road in front of my house happen to be wide
enough for cars to pass within the same lane. That flaw will be
remedied by an upcoming sidewalk project.)

That means that if a motorist thinks it's safe to pass my car entirely
within my lane, giving me less than one foot of clearance, he can do it.
*If* he happens to get cited for passing to close, he can take it to the
judge and argue about whether it was a safe distance or not, since
there's no definition in the statute of what constitutes a safe
distance.

Now, if I'm on a bicycle instead of in my car, the law is slightly
different:

"The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian or bicycle that is on
the roadway or on the right-hand shoulder or bicycle lane of the roadway
shall pass to the left at a safe distance to clearly avoid coming into
contact with the pedestrian or bicyclist, and shall not again drive to
the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken
pedestrian or bicyclist."

As with passing a car, there's no statutory prohibition on passing in
the same lane. But motorists must also give safe clearance to bicycles
that are on the shoulder rather than in the roadway. And they have to
give safe clearance to bicycles or pedestrians going against traffic,
not only those "proceeding in the same direction."

Still, there's no statutory definition of what "a safe distance to avoid
coming into contact" is -- if the motorist believes he can squeeze by
with a foot of clearance and gets cited for it, he can still try to
convince the judge that was a safe distance. If he actually hits me,
that's different, he did not avoid contact, so he clearly wasn't far
enough away to avoid contact.



--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>

 

[Mark Hickey]

Joshua Putnam <[email protected]> wrote:

>What I can't find in the law is a prohibition on sharing a lane while
>passing that applies to *motorists*.
>
>The requirement in the RCW is that "The driver of a vehicle overtaking
>other traffic proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left
>thereof at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side
>of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken traffic."
>
>There's nothing that says they can't straddle the lane line while
>passing, or even that they can't share a lane while passing if there
>happens to be a lane wide enough to share while passing at a safe
>distance.

I'm curious...

How many of those who are participating in this thread have a problem
with a motor vehicle passing "straddling the line" if the clearance is
3-6' (1-2m) depending on the speed? That is, how many feel slighted
when a car passes at an undeniably safe distance, but without changing
lanes entirely?

I'll go first - I could care less if the car fully changes lanes. I'm
passed all the time by cars that straddle the line (on roads that
don't have bike lanes), and it never occurred to me to be upset about
it, as long as they give me adequate clearance.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[TomP]

Wayne Pein wrote:

>
> I don't see the point in passing clearance laws. First, they are
> unenforceable.

They could be enforced, just as all laws. How many cops to you see when
riding???


> Second, by specifiying a distance, it implies motorists
> are legally entitled to use the bicyclist's lane for passing. Currently,
> to my knowledge, it does not say in any state that motorists may pass in
> the same lane.

California, lane splitting is not against the law.





--
Tp,

-------- __o
----- -\<. -------- __o
--- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\<.
-------------------- ( )/ ( )
-----------------------------------------

No Lawsuit Ever Fixed A Moron...

 

[wvantwiller]

[email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote in news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Paul Hobson <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> On 2006-10-10, Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I would caution Florida riders to increase their vigilance and perhaps
>>>> add a rear-view mirror to their gear at this point. In my opinion, if
>>>> the reaction to the new law can be predicted in any manner, it is that
>>>> there will be assholes around who will *intentionally* see just how
>>>> close they can come to cyclists when they perceive that there is no
>>>> enforcement possible.
>>
>> John Thompson wrote:
>>> Maybe a 3' long fiberglass pole with bright orange flag and a carbide
>>> tip might be in order?
>>
>> How about a spring loaded paint roller to give cars a good, hot pink
>> stripe when they pass to close? It'll be a scarlet letter of sorts
>
> For that, it would have to paint an 'A'.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>

Could just be an I or lower case L.

I really don't see where the car is committing adultry if you can get a
paint roller between it and the bicycle (like between an Irish Wolfhound
and a toy Poodle).

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
wvantwiller <[email protected]> writes:

>>> How about a spring loaded paint roller to give cars a good, hot pink
>>> stripe when they pass to close? It'll be a scarlet letter of sorts
>>
>> For that, it would have to paint an 'A'.
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>> Tom
>>
>
> Could just be an I or lower case L.
>
> I really don't see where the car is committing adultry

Who say's the 'A' stands for "adultery"? ;-)


cheers,
Tom

> if you can get a
> paint roller between it and the bicycle (like between an Irish Wolfhound
> and a toy Poodle).


--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

gds wrote:
> ...
> But even so having worked on the staff of congress people and one
> governor I can tell you that when the voices get too shrill they get
> very discounted.

Unless those very shrill voices are backed by large amounts of campaign
cash!

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

"Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> wvantwiller <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>>> How about a spring loaded paint roller to give cars a good, hot pink
>>>> stripe when they pass to close? It'll be a scarlet letter of sorts
>>>
>>> For that, it would have to paint an 'A'.
>>>
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Tom
>>>
>>
>> Could just be an I or lower case L.
>>
>> I really don't see where the car is committing adultry
>
> Who say's the 'A' stands for "adultery"? ;-)

Some states have a Morality Law that may preclude the use of the A in that
context.

 

[JP]

"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I'm curious...
>
> How many of those who are participating in this thread have a problem
> with a motor vehicle passing "straddling the line" if the clearance is
> 3-6' (1-2m) depending on the speed? That is, how many feel slighted
> when a car passes at an undeniably safe distance, but without changing
> lanes entirely?
>
> I'll go first - I could care less if the car fully changes lanes. I'm
> passed all the time by cars that straddle the line (on roads that
> don't have bike lanes), and it never occurred to me to be upset about
> it, as long as they give me adequate clearance.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

I'd love 3-6 feet of courtesy room.
I'd also love a bike lane.
Typically I've got neither.

 

[Wayne Pein]

gds wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>
>>I state my case emphatically (you call it getting worked up) because
>>there is a lot of misinformation put out by government and ngo's about
>>bicycling, and this misinformation is a source of problems that need not
>>exist. That you don't see bad facilities and bad law as infringement on
>>cyclist's rights is your perogative. I see it differently and work to
>>change it.
>>
>>Wayne
>
>
> I guess the difference is that I don't see all these bad laws and and
> bad facilites.

Huh? Poorly worded stay right laws; mandatory bike lane laws, mandatory
shoulder laws; mandatory sidepath laws; etc. They all exist in various
places.

You don't see bad facilities or you don't know they exist? You really
can't be serious.

Wayne

 

[Wayne Pein]

Tom Keats wrote:


>
>
> I think the "ride as far to the right as practicable" thing at least
> implies that we bicyclists are indeed expected to share our lane
> when we determine that we safely can.
>

I believe that this rule has been poorly written, bastardized over time,
and in places has been distorted to be discriminatory to bicyclists.

Below is what I've written about NC's version of the "as far right as
practicable rule." Thankfully, it is not specific to bicyclists as are
versions in some other states. Still, it is often misinterpreted.


§20-146. Drive on right side of highway; exceptions.
Part (a) directs vehicles to be driven on the right half of the road (in
England it’s on the left).
Part (b) is a refinement of part (a), and says: “Upon all highways any
vehicle proceeding at less than the legal maximum speed limit shall be
driven in the right-hand lane then available for thru traffic, or as
close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the highway...”

NC. §20-146(b) is intended to facilitate orderly overtaking. But the
statute is unclearly written, and often misinterpreted.

First, the use of the conjunction “or” in the cited law indicates two
possibilities and choices:
“... the right-hand lane then available for thru traffic, or as close as
practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the highway.” When is
either choice appropriate? §20-146(d) is illustrative, and says,
“Whenever any street has been divided into two or more clearly marked
lanes for traffic...,” indicating the two possible conditions of roads:
with or without marked lanes. The most reasonable interpretation of
§20-146(b) is that “...in the right-hand lane then available for thru
traffic...” applies when lanes are marked, while “...as close as
practicable to the right...” applies when a street lacks marked lanes.
§20-146(b) imposes no requirement on any driver to operate as far right
as practicable within a marked lane. §20-146(b) ought to say “....or
when upon an unmarked roadway as close as practicable to the right-hand
curb or edge of the roadway (rather than highway)...”

The origins of §20-146(b) are from yesteryear when roads with no
striping were the norm. Now, only residential and minor rural roads are
stripe free. If there is no center line, any vehicle driver is required
to stay “...as close as practicable...” to the right and make available
that part of the road to his or her left to allow another driver to
pass. You can’t drive on the left or be a “road hog.” If there is a
center line, or lane separator stripes on a multi-lane road, the “...as
close as practicable...” provision is not relevant since an overtaking
driver can use the part of the roadway to the left of the line, the
adjacent or opposing lane, to pass a slower driver.

Wayne

 

[Smokey]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Joshua Putnam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >What I can't find in the law is a prohibition on sharing a lane while
> >passing that applies to *motorists*.
> >
> >The requirement in the RCW is that "The driver of a vehicle overtaking
> >other traffic proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left
> >thereof at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side
> >of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken traffic."
> >
> >There's nothing that says they can't straddle the lane line while
> >passing, or even that they can't share a lane while passing if there
> >happens to be a lane wide enough to share while passing at a safe
> >distance.
>
> I'm curious...
>
> How many of those who are participating in this thread have a problem
> with a motor vehicle passing "straddling the line" if the clearance is
> 3-6' (1-2m) depending on the speed? That is, how many feel slighted
> when a car passes at an undeniably safe distance, but without changing
> lanes entirely?
>
> I'll go first - I could care less if the car fully changes lanes. I'm
> passed all the time by cars that straddle the line (on roads that
> don't have bike lanes), and it never occurred to me to be upset about
> it, as long as they give me adequate clearance.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

I don't have a problem with a vehicle not going over completely into
the other lane if he passes me at a safe distance. I also haven't had
that big of a problem with motorists buzzing me. It has happened a few
times, but most drivers are pretty courteous and allow a safe distance;
many do cross over into the other lane. I do a lot of riding on chip
seal roads, some of which don't have a painted centerline. Here again
most drivers move over to a safe distance when passing. I live in
central MO in a very rural area so that could have something to do with
it.

Smokey

 

[gds]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> gds wrote:
>
> > Wayne Pein wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I state my case emphatically (you call it getting worked up) because
> >>there is a lot of misinformation put out by government and ngo's about
> >>bicycling, and this misinformation is a source of problems that need not
> >>exist. That you don't see bad facilities and bad law as infringement on
> >>cyclist's rights is your perogative. I see it differently and work to
> >>change it.
> >>
> >>Wayne
> >
> >
> > I guess the difference is that I don't see all these bad laws and and
> > bad facilites.
>
> Huh? Poorly worded stay right laws; mandatory bike lane laws, mandatory
> shoulder laws; mandatory sidepath laws; etc. They all exist in various
> places.
>
> You don't see bad facilities or you don't know they exist? You really
> can't be serious.
>
> Wayne

Having cycled all over the US (and parts of Europe) for over 40 years
and many, many miles I can honestly say that I have not experienced
that many problems. Sure there are areas which are poorly designed and
which do not lend themselves to to enjoyable or safe cycling. So I
avoid them. It would be an issue if they were common but I find them to
be the exception rather than the rule.
An example, I regularly ride through downtown Tucson. (It isn't very
large as Tucson is very geographically dispersed) The main street is
very congested, has diagonal parking with cars constantly backing into
traffic lanes and it really is diificult for cars and bike to coexist
happily.( Hard for cars vs. cars too!) However, if you simply move one
street over there is little traffic and the cycling is fine. I don't
find that cycling one street over compromises me in any menaingful way
and the result is I have a pleasant ride through downtown and that is
my solution to the poor design of the main street.

 

[Wayne Pein]

gds wrote:

>> Wayne Pein wrote:


>>You don't see bad facilities or you don't know they exist? You really
>>can't be serious.

> Having cycled all over the US (and parts of Europe) for over 40 years
> and many, many miles I can honestly say that I have not experienced
> that many problems. Sure there are areas which are poorly designed and
> which do not lend themselves to to enjoyable or safe cycling. So I
> avoid them. It would be an issue if they were common but I find them to
> be the exception rather than the rule.

The bad facilities of which I speak are bicycle specific facilities.
Bike lanes in general, substandard width bike lanes, debris strewn bike
lanes, bike lanes with storm grates or other suface hazards, bike lanes
to the right of significant right turning traffic, parallel paths, paths
with bollards, poles, or other obstructions, paths with near
non-existent sight distance, etc.

Wayne

 

[gds]

Wayne Pein wrote:

>
> The bad facilities of which I speak are bicycle specific facilities.
> Bike lanes in general, substandard width bike lanes, debris strewn bike
> lanes, bike lanes with storm grates or other suface hazards, bike lanes
> to the right of significant right turning traffic, parallel paths, paths
> with bollards, poles, or other obstructions, paths with near
> non-existent sight distance, etc.
>
> Wayne

OK thanks for the definition and examples. In general I agree with what
you are saying but, again, don't find them to be very common. I'm no
fan of bike paths and I avoid MUP's like the plague. I find it bizarre
that some cycling advocacy groups actually lobby for them.
But I'm quite happy sharing the road with motor vehicles and
particularly like wide shoulders which tend to result in very happy
coexistence. Of course, it is sometimes the case that there is too much
debris off on the shoulder but at least here in the SW shoulders do get
swept. BTW the laws here clearly state that a cyclist can take the lane
to avoid debris in a bike lane or on a shoulder.

So, in the end I agree with your dislike of poorly designed facilites
but don't find them all that common.

 

[Werehatrack]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:42:33 -0400, wvantwiller
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Paul Hobson <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2006-10-10, Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> I would caution Florida riders to increase their vigilance and perhaps
>>>>> add a rear-view mirror to their gear at this point. In my opinion, if
>>>>> the reaction to the new law can be predicted in any manner, it is that
>>>>> there will be assholes around who will *intentionally* see just how
>>>>> close they can come to cyclists when they perceive that there is no
>>>>> enforcement possible.
>>>
>>> John Thompson wrote:
>>>> Maybe a 3' long fiberglass pole with bright orange flag and a carbide
>>>> tip might be in order?
>>>
>>> How about a spring loaded paint roller to give cars a good, hot pink
>>> stripe when they pass to close? It'll be a scarlet letter of sorts
>>
>> For that, it would have to paint an 'A'.
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>> Tom
>>
>
>Could just be an I or lower case L.
>
>I really don't see where the car is committing adultry if you can get a
>paint roller between it and the bicycle (like between an Irish Wolfhound
>and a toy Poodle).

"A", in this case, does not mean Adultery.

Consider: RTFMA is reported as the acronymic representation of "Read
The Furnished Materials, Sir" when the admonition must be addressed to
a superior officer.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Wayne Pein]

gds wrote:

>BTW the laws here clearly state that a cyclist can take the lane
> to avoid debris in a bike lane or on a shoulder.
>

Yes, that is typical when there is a mandatory bike lane/shoulder law,
though I think you mean "use" the lane rather than "take" the lane. You
have to wonder to what extent bike lanes are really for the benefit of
bicyclists when they are mandatory and when you have to have
justification in order to leave them. Imagine, for example, needing
justification to leave the minivan lane.

Wayne
"Thank you sir! May I have another?"

 

[gds]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> gds wrote:
>
> >BTW the laws here clearly state that a cyclist can take the lane
> > to avoid debris in a bike lane or on a shoulder.
> >
>
> Yes, that is typical when there is a mandatory bike lane/shoulder law,
> though I think you mean "use" the lane rather than "take" the lane. You
> have to wonder to what extent bike lanes are really for the benefit of
> bicyclists when they are mandatory and when you have to have
> justification in order to leave them. Imagine, for example, needing
> justification to leave the minivan lane.
>
> Wayne
> "Thank you sir! May I have another?"

I think the up and back will go on forever. We must just have very
different expereinces with rad conditions as they impact cyclists.

Tell you what. You are invited to come out here to Tucson and ride
with me. I'll bet that you will love it and will see that the issues
that concern you just don't have much standing out here. The bike
lanes, really just wide shoulders, are reallly great for riding. They
are in good condition, are regularly swept, and there are virtually no
hazards such as strom drains,posts, etc. Out here in the SW motor
traffic is quite fast. So even in the city major streets have speed
limits of 45 and cars regularly travel at 45-50 mph. Many of the nicer
riding roads out in the country have speed limits of 55 or even 65. So,
I and most cyslists are quite happy and satisfied having a nice wide,
clean shoulder on which we can ride comfortably, often two abreast
without having to worry about the cars at all. On smaller raods without
shoulders we also havelittle trouble and drivers are generally polite
and pass us with ample clearance.

Local officials are very interested in the cycling community and in
virtually every instance I can remember when roads are repaved or
otherwise improved wide shoulders without obstructions are part of the
design expressly for the use of cyclists. This has added quite a bit
of cost to these projects and to my mind demonstrates that local
officials put a high priority on serving the needs of the cycling
community.