CWL 2009 #5 - Ride Right

There is a pretty standard portion of the Uniform Vehicle Code that DC, Maryland and Virginia all use that has to do with where a cyclist must ride. Here's DC's Old Version:

1201.2 (b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall travel as closely as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, or as closely as practicable to the left-hand curb or edge of the roadway when on a one-way street.

Update: This actually isn't the law in DC. It was changed in 2006 to this

1201.2 A person shall operate a bicycle, sidewalk bicycle or personal mobility device in a safe and non-hazardous manner so as not to endanger himself or herself or any other person

But in Maryland and Virginia it is still written as above.

And they all include the same exceptions, though DC spells them out more:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or other vehicle proceeding in the same direction;
(2) When preparing for a turn;
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parking or moving vehicles, vehicle doors that are or may open, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to remain near the curb or edge of the roadway. For purposes of this section, a "a substandard width "lane" means a lane or other area on the roadway that is too narrow for a bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. Any lane that is eleven 11 feet wide or less shall be presumed be a substandard width lane for purposes of this subsection;
(4) When necessary to comply with lane use restrictions; or
(5) When necessary for the bicyclist's safety.

The exceptions mean that on pretty much any street a cyclist can take the lane. So why even have the law? Denver rewrote this section to highlight the fact that cyclists should be the one to judge when it is safe to move over to allow a car to pass.

Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right-hand side of the roadway as judged safe by the bicyclist to facilitate the movement of such overtaking vehicles unless other conditions make it unsafe to do so.

But again, the law is so wishy-washy that it serves no purpose. It might as well read, "unless you think you shouldn't move over, you must move over." Why even bother?

Like the law prohibiting riding two abreast, this law exists to get cyclists out of the way of cars. Is that something we need to put into law?

Again, I don't think cyclists should impede faster moving traffic without cause. Moving over to let faster moving traffic pass is the courteous, and right, thing to do. But a cyclist's first obligation should be to safety, and this law may encourage cyclists to move out of the way when it's not safe, it puts cyclists into or closer to the door zone and it increases the chances of a collision between cyclists, and pedestrians who are crossing mid-block. It also contributes to the erroneous idea among some driver's that cyclists are not allowed to impede traffic. The whole law should just be stricken. Cyclists would still be obligated to ride in the right hand lane when moving slower than other traffic, just like slower moving drivers are.

Update: I actually like Contrarian's point from the comments. That it is not unreasonable to decide that when a lane is wide enough to allow safe passing and there is only one traffic lane in that direction, cyclists should move over, barring other hazards.  Those cases are rare and so, in DC at least, those routes where cyclists must move over to allow passing should be signed.

Worse than this law is Maryland's prohibition on riding in the roadway if a bike lane or shoulder is present.

21-1205.1 (b) Where there is a bike lane paved to a smooth surface or a shoulder paved to a smooth surface [COMAR October 29, 1979 defines smooth surface as a surface that has a texture equal to or better than the adjacent roadway and if the surface contains undulations which are no longer than the adjacent roadway.], a person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter shall use the bike lane or shoulder and may not ride on the roadway, except in the following situations:
(i) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, motor scooter, pedestrian, or other vehicle within the bike lane or shoulder;
(ii) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into an alley, private road, or driveway;
(iii) When reasonably necessary to leave the bike lane or shoulder to avoid debris or other hazardous condition; or
(iv) When reasonably necessary to leave the bike lane or shoulder because the bike lane or shoulder is overlaid with a right turn lane, merge lane, or other marking that breaks the continuity of the bike lane or shoulder.

Maryland bicycle advocates have been trying to get this law removed for years, and LAB counts it against them in their Bicycle Friendly States program. In the recent death of cyclist Curtis Leymeister, this law was used as a reason to blame Mr. Leymeister for being hit from behind. This law should be changed.

Comments

[Foo]

Gah. A vehicularist.

As long as people like you insist that bikes should take up whole lanes, the law's going to use that as an excuse for not giving us bike paths and rights of way. Vehicularists have screwed up progressive movements for bicyclists for decades

[Brendan]

If you admit there are some conditions where it's right for a cyclist to take the lane, I'll admit there are some conditions where a cyclist should use the sidewalk.

A system of bike paths and ROW's will NEVER be built that can get me to the hundreds of places I go, or the millions of places we all go. Roadway cycling will always be necessary.

[Wayne Phyillaier]

I live in Silver Spring, and in my neighborhood only about half the streets even have sidewalks even though I am inside the beltway. In my last neighborhood, north west of Gaithersburg, sidewalks are still the exception.

I will ride on a sidewalk when it exists and the roadway conditions are intolerable for biking. But if bicycling is going to work for the many of us who do not live in the city, then we must ride in the road. Our laws need to reflect that reality.

[guez]

Without "ride right" laws, I envision the potential (albeit rare) for situations in which cyclists deliberately stall traffic, either as a form of protest over something else ("until they build us the trails we need, let's take the lane") or after an altercation ("that bastard cut me off: I'll show him"). What the law recognizes is that cyclists have an obligation to apply *judgment* (as opposed, let's say, to *spite*).

[Washcycle]

I wouldn't say I'm a vehicularist. I think my position is similar to Brendan's. So you'll have to get in the road at times. And once in the road I do think your often better off using the whole lane. I have never seen anyone (neither advocates nor decision-makers) realistically assert that because cyclists can ride in the road we shouldn't build bike lanes or trails.

[Contrarian]

What both the ride right law and the abreast law try to do is deal with the situation where the lane is wide enough for a bicycle and another vehicle to share the lane side by side. It's a reasonable idea that when that's possible people should be required to facilitate it.

The problem is that it's really, really difficult to draw up a set of guidelines for when it is both possible to share the lane, and also necessary for cyclists to do something to accomodate it. For instance, should cyclists be required to share the lane if there is more than one same direction lane?

The current law, particularly the DC version, is pretty good. I'd prefer to see it reworded to put the exceptions out front; as currently worded it's too easy for a casual reader to think it says the opposite of what it really says. And the Maryland shoulder law makes no sense at all.

But the real problem with the current law is that it requires cyclists to make a judgment call, and then holds them responsible if an officer or a judge disagrees with their judgment. In DC at least it would be practical to require DDOT to sign roads where lane sharing is both possible and necessary -- roads where the lane is wide enough to share, and there is only one lane in each direction. We can argue about whether it should be limited to roads where passing is permitted. The law should then be modified to apply only to roads signed as sharable. I think people will be surprised at how few roads meet these criteria.

Of course, I'd like to see the law say that when conditions are such that bicycles can go faster than cars that drivers have to keep right and let cyclists pass!