CWL 2009 #4 - Abreast

A common law among all DC, VA and MD is the following :

DC 1201.7 Persons riding upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or part of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane.

MD 21-1205 (b) Riding two abreast. – Each person operating a bicycle on a roadway may ride two abreast only if the flow of traffic is unimpeded.

VA 46.2-905 (5) Persons riding bicycles on a highway shall not ride more than two abreast. Persons riding two abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, shall move into a single file formation as quickly as is practicable when being overtaken from the rear by a faster moving vehicle, and, on a laned roadway, shall ride in a single lane.

This law (the differences are trivial) is not about safety. It is about getting cyclists out of the way of drivers. This is the kind of law that gets drivers to say that cyclists have to move out of the way of faster moving traffic, and that not to do so is to illegally impede traffic. It is not a good law.

I'm not saying that cyclists should impede traffic. If a cyclist, or a group of cyclists, can safely move out of the way of faster traffic, then it is courteous - and right - to do so. But should they be legally required to move? Frankly it sounds like back-of-the-bus type treatment. And such a legal requirement might encourage cyclists to move "out of the way" when it isn't safe. If a lane is too narrow to accommodate safe passing then two cyclists riding abreast would merely move into two cyclists riding one in front of the other in the center of the lane. This is probably no easier, and perhaps more difficult, to pass. Two cyclists riding side by side take up no more space than one riding in the center of the lane.

Then there is the issue of what this means for group rides. What is seen in the photo with this post is technically illegal as there are more than two riders abreast on a road that is not set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Is this what we want to outlaw? From the ride down to the Mall for 4th of July fireworks, to the 50 States Ride to organized bike team rides, most of us probably find ourselves in group rides from time to time.  The law as written means that you can only ride two by two and only if there are no motor vehicles waiting to pass - at which point you must move to single file. Can you imagine the traffic jam the Tweed Ride would cause if it followed such rules?

Perhaps a better law might be stated as:

Cyclists riding in a group of two or more shall remain in one lane when traffic is trying to pass, except when changing lanes to overpass a slower vehicle or avoid a hazard. The group shall move to the right when judged safe by the bicyclists to facilitate the movement of overtaking vehicles.

[That may not be perfect wording, but you get the idea. I'm open to a better wording.] This would allow a group of cyclists to behave as one car, kind of like a school of fish. It would make cyclists safer and bring group rides into compliance with the law. The law as written - if followed - would actually cause more hardship on drivers, and so a change would benefit them as well.

Photo by Jim Fulmer

Comments

[think a little]

Ummmm...

Law with cars is keep right unless passing.

Also of note, how do you feel about people walking 2 and 3 abreast on the CCT and WO&D

[Scott F]

That's fine if they only walk to the right of the white line. What bugs me is people walking 4-5 abreast so that they block the whole trail (both directions). No one is suggesting cyclists do that on the roads - that would be rather insane.

[Washcycle]

think, I'm not saying cyclists shouldn't be in the right lane. If not passing or turning left, then they should be in the right lane. But cyclists shouldn't have to squeeze over to the right side of the lane if it isn't safe to be passed.

The CCT is not analogous, since no one claims the safe place for pedestrians is the center of the lane.

[think a little]

Wash-
In a situation where there bikes can be 2 abreast in the right lane and there is a left lane for cars to pass, then yes I agree with you but where there is one lane then the situation is similar to a 2 abreast pedestrian set on the CCT where you have to move into oncomming traffic to pass.

Plus arent there already safe passing laws on the books?

More unenforced laws wont cure the problem....

[Washcycle]

The situation isn't similar because the safest place for a cyclist on the road is often in the center of the lane but that isn't true of a pedestrian on a trail.

There are safe passing laws. What's your point? What unenforced law are you talking about?

[guez]

Group rides are like marathons, parades, and other similar events. They are generally scheduled when they don't severely impact traffic and are tolerated by the the police. (Critical Mass would of course be an exception.) But they shouldn't be used as a basis for traffic laws. The argument presented here seems tantamount to suggesting that laws prohibiting jogging down the middle of Connecticut Avenue would criminalize the National Marathon.

[Washcycle]

The number of group rides that are scheduled events are a significant minority of all group rides. I'm talking about all the rides that involve a group from semi-organized rides like the Tweed Ride and 50 States Rides, where roads are not closed; to bike teams training rides to neighborhood rides to a group of friends biking to the movies. Basically anytime you have more than one person riding some place.

[guez]

Washcycle,

As I read it, your proposed law would make it possible for several separate groups of cyclists to tie up a multi-lane road by blocking several lanes, unless there is some kind of "ride right" law (which you oppose). Each group would be obeying the law by riding in the same lane.

As I mention in my post about "ride right," such laws often exist so that they can be enforced against abusers. A tweed ride on a weekend is one thing (and is usually tolerated). A protest ride that creates gridlock during rush hour (by riding 3 abreast in a lane, for example) is another. Such things, I would acknowledge, don't really happen very much, but that is surely in part because there are laws that discourage them.

[Washcycle]

I suppose that's true. Groups could claim that they are not riding together, just coincidentally riding the same way. But the group in the left lane would have to prove that they were overtaking the group in the right lane or making a left or have some other valid reason for being in the left lane.

If the law is left alone, then rides like the Tweed Ride are technically illegal. I don't think we're well served by having laws that everyone agrees can be ignored.

The wording of the law as I wrote it may be flawed. How would you write it to 1) make your garden variety ride with multiple riders (organized or otherwise) legal and 2) prevent the law from being abused to create a punitive protest?

[guez]

Washcycle,

This is where things become tricky. I'm not as concerned as you are about laws that are not always enforced. There are some laws that are necessary, but that it not realistic (or prudent) to enforce all of the time. (I'm thinking about the laws regarding protest permits in DC, for example.)

Regarding a group cycling law, here is what I would propose:

"A group of cyclists shall ride in single file and move as far to the right as they judge to be safe in order to facilitate the movement of overtaking vehicles."

[guez]

Followup on previous post: perhaps it should begin with "As necessary," to make it clear that cyclists can ride abreast when it does not impede traffic.

[Washcycle]

I would note that there is nothing in the law preventing drivers from executing the exact same kind of protest.

[Froggie]

In some states, yes there is something in the law. In a nutshell, it'd be a combination of impeding traffic plus "keep right except to pass". Not every state has the latter coded. But some do.

[guez]

Indeed, the following are from the Uniform Vehicle Code:

Minimum Speed Rule: I. No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic. §11-805(a)

A person driving at less than the normal speed of traffic shall drive in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. §11-301(b)

[Washcycle]

True in DC there is:

2200.10 No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to be in compliance with the law.

Which does not apply to cyclists, but there is also

2201.2 Upon all roadways, any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing 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, except when overtaking and
passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road, driveway, or alley.

Which does. So, I guess it's more accurate to say that the same law that prevents drivers from carrying out this kind of protest also prevents cyclists from doing so (except on a one-lane road).

[washcycle]

Guez, rereading this, I don't think we're too far apart.