What is the law with regards to lane splitting car/bike?

[Charles M]

I'm in Illinois. There are laws against two cars or a car and motorcycle
from occupying the same lane at the same time. However, one sees cars
passing or occupying at intersections the same lane as a bicycle. I know
there is a legal definition of a sub-standard lane as being one where a
bicycle and a car will not both fit (but that is only for definition
purposes, it does not say such a situation is legal). I can find no law
that allows a car to split the lane with a bicycle. So, what is the law
with regard to this (and if anyone knows, the section of Illinois code)?
Since a bicycle is legally supposed to have the same rights as any other
vehicle, must a car pass fully in another lane to be legal?

How about intersections? What happens if a car passes a bicycle so close
to an intersection that the bicycle cannot reasonably stop before being
beside the car (when both finally stop)? Further, what, in that case, if
the car is turning right and the bicycle is going straight. Who legally
should yield to whom (I realize the car can *force* the bicycle to yield,
but I'm asking: legally who has the right of way*)?

CMM

* For instance, I would think this would amount to the car having passed
to close to an intersection and hence legally the car would be 'at fault'.
But does anyone know how this would turn out in a court of law?

 

[Arthur Harris]

"Charles M" wrote:
> I'm in Illinois. There are laws against two cars or a car and motorcycle
> from occupying the same lane at the same time. However, one sees cars
> passing or occupying at intersections the same lane as a bicycle.

> Since a bicycle is legally supposed to have the same rights as any other
> vehicle, must a car pass fully in another lane to be legal?

In New York (and I presume other states), a car can pass a bike in the same
lane if the lane is wide enough to pass safely. If the lane is not wide
enough for a car and a bike to travel safely side-by-side within the lane,
then the cyclist has the right to take the lane.

There is no specific definition of how wide is wide enough. Clearly that
would depend on factors like the width of the motor vehicle, the condition
of the road, etc.

The NY State traffic code says a bike must keep to the right EXCEPT when
preparing for a left turn, or under certain other conditions:

"Conditions to be taken into consideration include, but are not limited to,
fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface
hazards or traffic lanes too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel
safely side-by-side within the lane. " Section 1234a

http://www.dot.state.ny.us/pubtrans/share.html#1234


Art Harris

 

[Charles M]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 07:38:53 -0400, Arthur Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charles M" wrote:
>> I'm in Illinois. There are laws against two cars or a car and motorcycle
>> from occupying the same lane at the same time. However, one sees cars
>> passing or occupying at intersections the same lane as a bicycle.
>
>> Since a bicycle is legally supposed to have the same rights as any other
>> vehicle, must a car pass fully in another lane to be legal?
>
> In New York (and I presume other states), a car can pass a bike in the same
> lane if the lane is wide enough to pass safely. If the lane is not wide
> enough for a car and a bike to travel safely side-by-side within the lane,
> then the cyclist has the right to take the lane.


But is there any actual code (for New York) that actually
says this? This is how the situation is usualy viewed in Illinois, but
looking at the actual code I can find nothing to support this, except the
definition of a sub-standard lane, which one could argue is just for
definition purposes. OTOH, actual code states that a bicycle is supposed to
have the same rights as any other vehicle except where noted in the code
and, since a vehicle is not supposed to be the same lane as another vehicle,
there would have to be an exception (i.e some code that states this) for
car/bike splitting to be legal. I'm not aware of such code(I've searched
the internet for it). So, despite common interpetation, it certainly looks
like this is illegal.

>
> There is no specific definition of how wide is wide enough. Clearly that
> would depend on factors like the width of the motor vehicle, the condition
> of the road, etc.
>
> The NY State traffic code says a bike must keep to the right EXCEPT when
> preparing for a left turn, or under certain other conditions:
>
> "Conditions to be taken into consideration include, but are not limited to,
> fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface
> hazards or traffic lanes too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel
> safely side-by-side within the lane. " Section 1234a

Same as here. But "or traffic lanes too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle
to travel safely side-by-side within the lane." sounds very much like
Illinois' definition of a sub-standard lane. i.e if the roads too narrow,
a bicycle can take the whole lane to try and prevent a car from doing
something dangerous. But, the quoted text doesn't say that a
car has a right to be in the same lane as a bicycle. ('a implies b' does not
give you 'b implies a'). E.g., this seems to be a saftey thing,
if something goes wrong, the law is saying a bicycle is probably safest to
be to the right except under certain conditions(sub-standard lane, etc).
That doesn't mean it can be interpeted that a car can (legally) do this,
simply that if someone screws up and they do happen to occupy the same
lane, a bicyclist is probably least likly to be injured if he was toward
the right of the lane. In the case of a sub-standard lane, a bicyclist is
always screwed if a car is in the same lane, so he might as well take
the lane in the hopes of preventing a car form trying to split the lane.



>
> http://www.dot.state.ny.us/pubtrans/share.html#1234
>
>
> Art Harris
>
>

 

[maxo]

Laws aside, I find lane splitting at most intersections to be a great
way to gain invisibility and subsequent flatness.

 

[Leo Lichtman]

"maxo" wrote: Laws aside, I find lane splitting at most intersections to
be a great way to gain invisibility and subsequent flatness.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
OTOH, I find that, sometimes, the safest way to cross a busy intersection is
to let a car on my left shield me from oncoming traffic. I will do this if
we have both stopped for a stop sign, and I know the guy is not turning
right.

 

[Bob]

Charles M wrote:
> I'm in Illinois. There are laws against two cars or a car and motorcycle
> from occupying the same lane at the same time. However, one sees cars
> passing or occupying at intersections the same lane as a bicycle. I know
> there is a legal definition of a sub-standard lane as being one where a
> bicycle and a car will not both fit (but that is only for definition
> purposes, it does not say such a situation is legal). I can find no law
> that allows a car to split the lane with a bicycle. So, what is the law
> with regard to this (and if anyone knows, the section of Illinois code)?
> Since a bicycle is legally supposed to have the same rights as any other
> vehicle, must a car pass fully in another lane to be legal?
>
> How about intersections? What happens if a car passes a bicycle so close
> to an intersection that the bicycle cannot reasonably stop before being
> beside the car (when both finally stop)? Further, what, in that case, if
> the car is turning right and the bicycle is going straight. Who legally
> should yield to whom (I realize the car can *force* the bicycle to yield,
> but I'm asking: legally who has the right of way*)?
>
> CMM

You'll find the Illinois statutes governing overtaking on laned and
unlaned roadways under 625 ILCS 5/Chapter 11 Article VII. If you read
them carefully I think you'll realize that you are starting from a
false assumption. There is no Illinois law that forbids two vehicles of
any description from ever occupying the same lane at the same time.
What Illinois law actually says is that on a laned roadway, "A vehicle
shall be driven ***as nearly as practicable*** (my emphasis added)
entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane
until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made
***with safety***." (625 ILCS 5/11-709a) and on a roadway without lane
markings that,
"Upon all roadways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven upon
the right half of the roadway, except as follows:
1. When overtaking and passing another vehicle
proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing such
movements." (625 ILCS 5/11-701a)

You won't find a statute spelling it out but since no Illinois law
*prohibits* the action you describe (so long as it is done safely),
it's legal.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Chris Zacho The Wheelman]

Laws vary from state to state, but in the one's I've ridden in
(California, Texas, Arkansas, North and South Carolina) The bike has the
same rights and responsibilities on the road as any slow moving vehicle.

As such:

Stay in the right lane, except when turning left.

Try to stay to the right side of that lane, but not hugging the curb.

Move over to the right a little when people want to pass. This is for
safety and courtesy.

If there is insufficient room for both vehicles (you and a car) to
safely occupy the lane side by side, ride in the lane just as if you
were another car and pull over to let other's pass when it is safe for
all concerned to do so (it is not necessary to stop, just pull over,
unless the situation requires a full stop for safety's sake).

As stated earlier, by both myself and others, these laws vary from state
to state. The best bet is to go to the local department of Motor
Vehicles and pick up a driver's handbook. These usually have a section
of the rules of the road as they apply to bicycles.

- -

"May you have the winds at your back,
And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

 

[Chris Zacho The Wheelman]

"maxo" wrote:  
>Laws aside, I find lane splitting at most
>intersections to be a great way to gain
>invisibility and subsequent flatness.

The reason bicycles are supposed to stay to the right is simple: It's a
slow moving vehicle as compared to the automobile. Cars that cannot
travel at the normal flow of traffic are supposed to stay to the right
side of the right lane as well.

At an Intersection, this is moot. Everybody is stopped so noone is
moving any slower. When stopped at an intersection, stay in the middle
of the lane, just like a car. Even if it means breathing a little more
ozone for a few moments.

When the light turnes green, or it's your turn to go at a stop sign,
start out and aim for the right hand side of the road as you cross the
intersection (or make your turn, if that's your intention). This
"prevents' drivers from turning right infront of you.

- -

"May you have the winds at your back,
And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

 

[maxo]

That's pretty much the way I do it. I've got a real chip on my shoulder
about people trying to pass me in an intersection--the same people
would never try to pass a slow moving car in such a situation. Oy. My
inner bike messenger gives me the gumption to take that land when I
need it. Soon as I don't need that lane, I'm on the white stripe to let
anybody pass that's behind me, but as soon as any built up traffic has
passed, I grab a bit more of the lane. This can all vary depending on
road type and existence of a forbidden "door zone".


Leo's right, too, you can use cars as your own personal linebackers in
certain situations.

*grin*

 

[Wayne Pein]

Chris Zacho The Wheelman wrote:
>
> The reason bicycles are supposed to stay to the right is simple: It's a
> slow moving vehicle as compared to the automobile. Cars that cannot
> travel at the normal flow of traffic are supposed to stay to the right
> side of the right lane as well.

Depending upon the specific state, you may be wrong. At least in NC you
would be.

Here, our "as far right as practicable rule" (§20-146(b))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..."

Notice the "OR." There is no indication to stay right within a lane.

If your state tries to single out bicycles as staying to the right of a
lane, it is doubly discriminatory. First, by merely singling out
bicycles. Second, if the "slower than the speed limit" qualifier is not
specified. Sometimes, bicyclists are not slower than the speed limit or
other traffic.

Wayne

 

[[email protected]]

Bob wrote:
>
> You'll find the Illinois statutes governing overtaking on laned and
> unlaned roadways under 625 ILCS 5/Chapter 11 Article VII. ...
> What Illinois law actually says is that on a laned roadway, "A vehicle
> shall be driven ***as nearly as practicable*** (my emphasis added)
> entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane
> until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made
> ***with safety***." (625 ILCS 5/11-709a) and on a roadway without lane
> markings that,
> "Upon all roadways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven upon
> the right half of the roadway, except as follows:
> 1. When overtaking and passing another vehicle
> proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing such
> movements." (625 ILCS 5/11-701a)

Bob, since you're much better than I am at looking this stuff up (and
understanding it):

A common question is, if I'm taking a narrow lane on a road with a
double yellow, and if there's adequate visibility that shows that it's
safe to pass me, is a motorist allowed to cross that double yellow or
not?

My answer, for myself the cyclist, is "I don't care." That is, I need
to take the lane, I have no alternative, and the legal consequences of
his action are his to deal with. But a) what's the letter of the law?
And b) how should a cop react when he sees this done?

In the case I'm visualizing, the road is a residential collector with
frequent cross streets. Most of it is 24 feet wide, which (due to low
speeds and good pavement) I'm willing to share. But about three
(short) blocks drop down to about 20 feet wide - so, two 10 foot lanes
where I have to take the lane.

Comments? (BTW, I'm assuming Illinois & Ohio are similar.)

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Charles M]

On 24 Sep 2005 10:40:22 -0700, Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charles M wrote:
>> I'm in Illinois. There are laws against two cars or a car and motorcycle
>> from occupying the same lane at the same time. However, one sees cars
>> passing or occupying at intersections the same lane as a bicycle. I know
>> there is a legal definition of a sub-standard lane as being one where a
>> bicycle and a car will not both fit (but that is only for definition
>> purposes, it does not say such a situation is legal). I can find no law
>> that allows a car to split the lane with a bicycle. So, what is the law
>> with regard to this (and if anyone knows, the section of Illinois code)?
>> Since a bicycle is legally supposed to have the same rights as any other
>> vehicle, must a car pass fully in another lane to be legal?
>>
>> How about intersections? What happens if a car passes a bicycle so close
>> to an intersection that the bicycle cannot reasonably stop before being
>> beside the car (when both finally stop)? Further, what, in that case, if
>> the car is turning right and the bicycle is going straight. Who legally
>> should yield to whom (I realize the car can *force* the bicycle to yield,
>> but I'm asking: legally who has the right of way*)?
>>
>> CMM
>
> You'll find the Illinois statutes governing overtaking on laned and
> unlaned roadways under 625 ILCS 5/Chapter 11 Article VII. If you read
> them carefully I think you'll realize that you are starting from a
> false assumption. There is no Illinois law that forbids two vehicles of
> any description from ever occupying the same lane at the same time.
> What Illinois law actually says is that on a laned roadway, "A vehicle
> shall be driven ***as nearly as practicable*** (my emphasis added)
> entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane
> until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made
> ***with safety***." (625 ILCS 5/11-709a) and on a roadway without lane
> markings that,
> "Upon all roadways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven upon
> the right half of the roadway, except as follows:
> 1. When overtaking and passing another vehicle
> proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing such
> movements." (625 ILCS 5/11-701a)
>
> You won't find a statute spelling it out but since no Illinois law
> *prohibits* the action you describe (so long as it is done safely),
> it's legal.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt
>

Odd, but upon looking, you're correct. There seems to be no law against
two vehicles occupying the same lane (as long as they both fit within it).
I say odd because I know the motorcycle (a different kind of bike from what
we're talking about) rules of the road says "Cars and motorcycles need a full
lane to operate safely. Lane sharing is usually prohibited". That, and I recall
it being mentioned on the news that lane splitting was illegal in Illinois.



CMM

 

[Bob]

[email protected] wrote:

> A common question is, if I'm taking a narrow lane on a road with a
> double yellow, and if there's adequate visibility that shows that it's
> safe to pass me, is a motorist allowed to cross that double yellow or
> not?
>
> My answer, for myself the cyclist, is "I don't care." That is, I need
> to take the lane, I have no alternative, and the legal consequences of
> his action are his to deal with. But a) what's the letter of the law?
> And b) how should a cop react when he sees this done?
>
> In the case I'm visualizing, the road is a residential collector with
> frequent cross streets. Most of it is 24 feet wide, which (due to low
> speeds and good pavement) I'm willing to share. But about three
> (short) blocks drop down to about 20 feet wide - so, two 10 foot lanes
> where I have to take the lane.
>
> Comments? (BTW, I'm assuming Illinois & Ohio are similar.)
>
> - Frank Krygowski

I'm sure both Ohio and Illinois law on this one is the same since an
unbroken double yellow line is the USDOT standard lane marking for
designating no passing zones. Letter of the law- no passing means no
passing.
As to B, it's only three short blocks and the driver would be delayed
for what, an additional 30 to 60 seconds? Speaking only for myself I
wouldn't hesitate to stop that driver, explain that the bike has as
much right to the road as they do, and give him or her at least a
warning. If I thought the warning would be disregarded I'd be reaching
for a ticket book.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Bob]

Charles M wrote:
> Odd, but upon looking, you're correct. There seems to be no law against
> two vehicles occupying the same lane (as long as they both fit within it).
> I say odd because I know the motorcycle (a different kind of bike from what
> we're talking about) rules of the road says "Cars and motorcycles need a full
> lane to operate safely. Lane sharing is usually prohibited". That, and I recall
> it being mentioned on the news that lane splitting was illegal in Illinois.
>
>
>
> CMM

In motorcycle terms "lane splitting" usually means riding on the line
separating two traffic lanes and if a motorcycle rider is straddling a
lane line then he isn't riding as much as practicable within one lane,
right? <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[The Wogster]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Chris Zacho The Wheelman wrote:
>
>>
>> The reason bicycles are supposed to stay to the right is simple: It's a
>> slow moving vehicle as compared to the automobile. Cars that cannot
>> travel at the normal flow of traffic are supposed to stay to the right
>> side of the right lane as well.
>
>
> Depending upon the specific state, you may be wrong. At least in NC you
> would be.
>
> Here, our "as far right as practicable rule" (§20-146(b))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..."
>
> Notice the "OR." There is no indication to stay right within a lane.
>

So if the speed limit is 55MP/H and your going 54.99999 MP/H your also
supposed to stay in the right lane, and if your going 55.00001 your
technically breaking the law. There is no indication to stay right
within a lane, but there is also no indication that your supposed to be
out of a lane either. The key word is practicable, that means it's the
vehicle operators call, and if your judgement is that the closest to the
curb you can be is 4', because of broken glass, garbage, drainage grates
and maintenance hole covers, then you don't need a high priced lawyer to
figure your within the law.

W

 

[Arthur Harris]

"Charles M" wrote:
> Odd, but upon looking, you're correct. There seems to be no law against
> two vehicles occupying the same lane (as long as they both fit within it).
> I say odd because I know the motorcycle (a different kind of bike from
> what
> we're talking about) rules of the road says "Cars and motorcycles need a
> full
> lane to operate safely. Lane sharing is usually prohibited". That, and I
> recall
> it being mentioned on the news that lane splitting was illegal in
> Illinois.

In New York, motorcycles are permitted to ride two abreast in the same lane,
but a single motorcyclist can not share a lane witha car, or be passed by a
car in the same lane.. The Driver's Manual states:

"A motorcyclist has the right to the full use of a lane, and motorcyclists
are allowed to ride two abreast in a single lane. An experienced
motorcyclist will often change position within a lane to get a clearer view
of traffic, avoid hazards and be more visible to drivers. You may not pass
or drive alongside a motorcycle in the same lane, and a motorcyclist may not
share a lane with you."

http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/chapter11-manual.htm#the-mot

Of course, the reason motorcyclists can ride two abreast is because they are
travelling at the same speed as other motor traffic.

Art Harris

 

[Charles M]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 08:29:14 -0400, Arthur Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charles M" wrote:
>> Odd, but upon looking, you're correct. There seems to be no law against
>> two vehicles occupying the same lane (as long as they both fit within it).
>> I say odd because I know the motorcycle (a different kind of bike from
>> what
>> we're talking about) rules of the road says "Cars and motorcycles need a
>> full
>> lane to operate safely. Lane sharing is usually prohibited". That, and I
>> recall
>> it being mentioned on the news that lane splitting was illegal in
>> Illinois.
>
> In New York, motorcycles are permitted to ride two abreast in the same lane,
> but a single motorcyclist can not share a lane witha car, or be passed by a
> car in the same lane.. The Driver's Manual states:
>
> "A motorcyclist has the right to the full use of a lane, and motorcyclists
> are allowed to ride two abreast in a single lane. An experienced
> motorcyclist will often change position within a lane to get a clearer view
> of traffic, avoid hazards and be more visible to drivers. You may not pass
> or drive alongside a motorcycle in the same lane, and a motorcyclist may not
> share a lane with you."
>
> http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/chapter11-manual.htm#the-mot
>
> Of course, the reason motorcyclists can ride two abreast is because they are
> travelling at the same speed as other motor traffic.
>
> Art Harris
>
>

Hmmmm, well then I must ask, if a motorcycle can not share a lane with a car,
or be passed by a care in the same lane, then why is OK for a bicycle? From
the wording, this does not have anything to do with their speed but rather
avoiding hazards and being visible. I mean, you could make a speed argument,
but that's not the argument the rules of the road is giving. (admitedly thr
rules of the road is not the law and probably would not be considered such
in a court of law, but if that's what it says it's seems to imply bicycle are
second class citizens).

 

[Paul Turner]

Leo Lichtman wrote:

> OTOH, I find that, sometimes, the safest way to cross a busy intersection
> is to let a car on my left shield me from oncoming traffic. I will do
> this if we have both stopped for a stop sign, and I know the guy is not
> turning right.

I used to do that -- I thought of it kind of like a moving pick in
basketball -- but I've stopped. It worries me that the car on my left was
shielding me from visibility, so if the driver hit the gas and took off
fast, leaving me behind, I might be vulnerable to someone who hadn't noticed
me. My biggest concern was someone going the opposite direction and turning
left, who might time his turn to just miss the car going straight. A
secondary concern was someone approaching in the cross street from the left
who might decide he didn't actually need to stop since the car crossing his
path was about to clear the intersection. I should add that neither of these
things ever happened to me, not even a close call, so my choice might be
wrong, but for a long time now I've preferred getting in the middle of the
lane and crossing by myself, choosing visibility over a moving shield that
might move faster than I do.

--
Paul Turner

 

[Claire Petersky]

"Paul Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leo Lichtman wrote:
>
>> OTOH, I find that, sometimes, the safest way to cross a busy intersection
>> is to let a car on my left shield me from oncoming traffic. I will do
>> this if we have both stopped for a stop sign, and I know the guy is not
>> turning right.
>
> I used to do that -- I thought of it kind of like a moving pick in
> basketball -- but I've stopped. It worries me that the car on my left was
> shielding me from visibility, so if the driver hit the gas and took off
> fast, leaving me behind, I might be vulnerable to someone who hadn't
> noticed me. My biggest concern was someone going the opposite direction
> and turning left, who might time his turn to just miss the car going
> straight. A secondary concern was someone approaching in the cross street
> from the left who might decide he didn't actually need to stop since the
> car crossing his path was about to clear the intersection.

I had a very close call one time in this exact situation. The intersection
was of two minor streets: one with yield signs; the other with no control,
so it had the right of way. I was on the street with the ROW. I made the
mistake of going straight, through the intersection with the car. Someone on
the cross street did not see me as I was hidden behind the car, and went
through, nearly striking me as I was a bit slower than the car that was
shielding me at first.

I rode maybe one more block, then sat down on the curb for a good cry from
the adrenaline. That was one of the scariest close calls I've ever had. I
will never do that again.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"maxo" <[email protected]> wrote:

> That's pretty much the way I do it. I've got a real chip on my shoulder
> about people trying to pass me in an intersection--the same people
> would never try to pass a slow moving car in such a situation. Oy. My
> inner bike messenger gives me the gumption to take that land when I
> need it. Soon as I don't need that lane, I'm on the white stripe to let
> anybody pass that's behind me, but as soon as any built up traffic has
> passed, I grab a bit more of the lane. This can all vary depending on
> road type and existence of a forbidden "door zone".
>
>
> Leo's right, too, you can use cars as your own personal linebackers in
> certain situations.

Pulling guard, to sharpen the metaphor.

Around here a right turn with a red light is legal. I
always clear the right turn lane and take the middle of
the next lane over at the front of the queue. When the
light turns green I am usually half way into the
intersection and on the right for cars to pass me.

--
Michael Press