work4bike

john m flores 

I appreciate his advocacy.

WaveyGravey

Such good points. What about jogging in the street?

Rick

I watched this video on YouTube yesterday. The officer not showing up to court is a sign of guilt on his part. The officer will continue to behave this way unless he is caught and put in the spotlight. My brother was ticketed over a dozen times for not riding in the bike lane. The bike lane had a fence between it and the rode. There was no exit or entrance from the bike path near my brothers work. We went to court with my brother. The look on the officers face when the judge realized what he had done was priceless. My brothers record was cleared and we went home.

Korina

I gather it's pretty common for traffic tickets; they just can't be bothered.

Chuck M 

I got a ticket when I was 16, but not for a bicycle related issue. The cop showed up to court and told the judge that he had to follow me for 12 blocks with his lights on before I would pull over. It was a small town and the judge knew 4th street was not even 12 blocks long. Case dismissed and I left there feeling like I was Perry Mason.

Similar to the code in the video, bicyclists are supposed to ride as far to the right as possible. But the law in Oklahoma states that bicycles cannot ride more than two abreast so that is clearer than what the cop in the video cited. We do have a cop in town though that tackled a 53 year old grandmother that was taking her grandchild to the ER and I hope he doesn't see me do an Idaho stop and take me down. My shoulders won't handle that.

Paul Barnard

Good for that cyclist, even though I would have expected him to be better versed in the exceptions to far right.

Things will never change until bicycle law becomes a part of police training and driver's education.

Iride01 

Most places it's not as far to the right as possible. That will be unsafe. Can you ride safely for the entire trip on the edge of the road? Here in my state and other's it is as far to the right as is practicable. Which in legalese means that one can consider their safety and others things to establish a distance from the edge of the road. And in my case that is three to six feet from the edge.


California doesn't require cyclists to always ride single file. Essentially it appears their laws concerning such boil down to this in normal speak.

I don't think the speed limit of the road really applies here as normal traffic may always drive slower. So any road that doesn't have a minimum speed posted, the normal speed is any moving speed to the posted limit.

RCMoeur 

The Uniform Vehicle Code and all state laws (to my knowledge) use "practicable", defined as: "reasonably feasible given the conditions existing at a location and time." "Possible" commonly means "as can be achieved" but not necessarily taking in practicality; e.g. it is possible for a bicyclist to ride on the outer inch of a paved surface, but it isn't really practicable. Black's Law Dictionary states that "possible" can be interpreted as "practicable" depending on context, but my experience has been that too many in the enforcement and judicial system take a strict interpretation of "possible" - hence the term "practicable" is preferred for clarity.

Chuck M 

The Oklahoma law says Bicyclists should remain as far to the right as practical unless passing or turning. A bicyclist shall not ride beside more than one other bicyclist on a roadway, except in those areas designated as exclusive for bicycle use.

Looking up the site and copy and pasting the exact working for BF wasn't as important to me as it would be were I in court fighting a ticket.

Kontact

I'm an advocate for cycling and the rights of cyclists. But the video seems foolish.

You're supposed to ride right, within whatever you consider safe and practical. Riding to the left of another cyclist is clearly not in compliance with the law. And the law doesn't have a provision for riding abreast. So why claim it is protected activity? It isn't.

Talking about riding right and the 3 foot passing law also misunderstands the requirement: Cars must pass you by 3 feet, but they can do that by entering the oncoming lane. So it doesn't matter if you need to cycle in the middle of the lane - that still gives more room for cars to safely pass than two riders abreast leaves.

Riding outboard of another rider in no way embraces riding 'as far right as practicable', since that would be riding in front or behind the other cyclist.


The thing is, the US is a permissive place. Riding abreast is not a violation of any law if the road is not busy. Just like driving slow isn't an issue if there is no traffic. So pulling cyclists over for using a road in a slightly non-standard way is just tiresome and unnecessary. The judge would likely have dismissed the ticket simply for that reason - but would not have dismissed it over a legal argument.


The guy in the video wasted the cop's time, the court's time, didn't do anything to advocate for cycling and only cemented the cop's negative opinion about cyclists. Just a waste.

Chuck M 

I'm not a lawyer, but I watch Perry Mason once in a while. Riding to the left of another cyclist is in compliance with the law if the law states that more than two abreast is illegal and you are not the rider on the far left. It would seem the cyclist was probably in the right depending on state and local laws so disputing the ticket was likely correct. However he probably was only ticketed because he challenged the cop and recorded him with his phone.

As far as the video being foolish... Yeah, he likely made it more to support his ego than to support advocacy.

Rick

I live in California and know the law.The bicyclists werent violating the law in any way. Most police don't act the way this clown did. I call miscreant individuals wearing a badge porkalites. This porkalite showed less manners than dogs dominating dogs at the dog park. The ticket was used as revenge for not seeing his made up interpretation of the law. Some people might call it first amendment retaliation.

bruce19

Very interesting. Especially the court system.

Iride01 

If the state laws don't specifically say that bikes can't ride two abreast, then you can ride two abreast. IMO. There can also be local ordinances too that might apply which will make defending either position hard to do for any of us. However what I've found in California's laws suggest that one does not have to be single file. Especially in a lane not wide enough for the motor vehicle to pass safely.

The national uniform code can be used by prosecution and defense when state laws don't specify. But that is a case by case basis and only when taken before a court.

There is also supposed to have been a law passed in California in 2023, requiring a motorist to move over to the next lane when passing a bicycle. So the usual three or four feet isn't even needed. If this successfully made it into the California statutes, then that will be great.

Paul Barnard

When a car has to enter the oncoming lane to pass, they have to spend less time in the oncoming lane when riders are two abreast than they do when they are in single file.


When motorists crash into bicyclists from behind, how often do you think they saw the cyclist? Increasing visual conspicuity is an important part of any rider's safety strategy. Safety is a large component of practicability. Riding two abreast increases conspicuity, and therefore does factor into what riders perceive as practicable.

The cop in the video wasted the bicyclists time, the court's time, didn't do anything to advocate for safety and only cemented the cyclist's negative opinion about cops. Just a waste.

Kontact

As someone who drives a car in the real world, I completely disagree. The further left the car must go, the longer and riskier the pass becomes because of the amount of time the car has to spend with some or all of it in the oncoming lane. Passing two single file riders adds virtually no time than one.

This isn't up for debate using geometry. Anyone who has biked around cars or driven around bikes understands this implicitly.



As far as being seen - a rider in the left part of the lane is no more visible, but they are on the left where the car is going to swerve when they finally get noticed. The right side rider is much easier to swerve around if seen late.

work4bike

I do remember when the State of Florida did a major revamp of the bike laws and it seemed to me that many other States were doing the same thing, this was probably around 2012, give or take. I've noticed that since then most State bike laws are fairly uniform.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

cranky old road 

I guess my thinking is if it isn't safe to pass all the way into the opposite lane it isn't safe to pass. Motorists thinking otherwise are encouraged to make close passes with the implicit supposition that they will squeeze the cyclist if threatened with a head on collision.

Kontact

"Safe to pass" isn't binary. If it is is quick and easy to pass, it is safer to pass. Passing will occur whether it is ideal or not, so making it harder to pass only puts the cyclists in greater danger.

Kontact

All of this is about judgement, and you will not be able to teach all drivers to make the same judgements in the same situation. Nor is it helpful to look at this stuff as a driver problem to figure out. The blame game doesn't keep cyclists alive. "Share the road" cuts both ways.

Iride01 

I don't know that I agree with your reasoning on all of this.

However you do make a good argument why cars and trucks and other large motor vehicles should always be required to change lanes when passing.

I think there should be a push for this everywhere.

Kontact

If they have to fully change lanes, many drivers won't ever pass. And that means the slow moving vehicle (bike) will have to pull over frequently to allow cars by.

Do you want to ride like that?

Iride01 

I don't experience that here. And though it's not required that they change lanes entirely, I have to say that for the places where I ride, most everyone uses the other lane entirely. There are a few that like to buzz by as close as possible, but they are definitely in the minority. And for some reason seem to usually be from out of state. Texas, California and even Minnesota lately.

When traffic coming the other way won't let them pass, most seem to take it okay or at least keep their senses and wait patiently to pass when it's clear. Though some seem to stay too long in the other lane and almost hit oncoming cars because they will go 500 to 1000 feet in front of me before they return to their lane. They only need to get 10 or so feet beyond since that are at least twice my speed.

Kontact

I don't think your experience is entirely typical. In more populated areas the ability for cars to pass is not that frequent, and making more barriers to that happening means that the traffic stacks up, some drivers get antsy and make less safe passes and the riding sucks.

I want cars to pass me as soon as they can so everything flows. Forcing cars to change lanes entirely is going to make some drivers feel unable to pass.