Police and Witness Respond

Pulling this up from the comments. Here is a response from Montgomery County Chief of Police J. Thomas Manger about the cyclists stopped on MacArthur Avenue for "being annoying."

Mr. Douglas,

After receiving the e-mail that you sent to the County Executive regarding your encounter with Officer Dee Jordan on January 18, 2010, I directed 1st District Acting Commander, Lieutenant John Hack, to gain more information regarding this complaint.

According to Lieutenant Hack, Officer Jordan was assigned to the area on a burglary-prevention detail when she noticed a group of bicycle riders on Macarthur Boulevard. Officer Jordan observed the bicyclists riding two abreast and impeding a vehicle whose driver was attempting to pass. Officer Jordan consequently pulled the group of riders over in a safe area for the purpose of informing them about Maryland traffic laws. Specifically, Article 21, §1205 of the Annotated Code of Maryland states that, "Each person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter on a roadway may ride two abreast only if the flow of traffic is unimpeded." We have received complaints, for years, in that area from cyclists, runners and drivers about unsafe actions on the part of all. Officer Jordan's experience from working there confirms that sharing the roadway in that area between motorists and cyclists is a common problem, especially during the weekends and holidays. As an avid cyclist myself, I am fully aware of the "competition" that often exists between the bikes and the cars. Often, my fellow cyclists are our own worst enemy by not obeying the traffic laws that apply to everyone. I am also keenly aware that many drivers don't like sharing the road with cyclists. Use of the roadway is a privilege, not a right, and we all must obey the law.

I can assure you the intention of Officer Jordan and the police department is not to discourage anyone's privilege of using our roadways but to promote safety and cooperation among the many users. She was doing her job. And while she may not have cited the exact Code section, she did attempt to ensure that your group was aware of the law. Your portrayal of the interaction is, I believe, a disservice to Officer Jordan. But that is certainly your choice. The bottom line is that she observed what she believed was a traffic infraction and chose to give a verbal warning, not a written citation.

Please rest assured that traffic safety for everyone on our roadways remains a priority for the Department of Police. In the meantime, please feel free to contact Lieutenant John Hack directly at 240-773-6070 should you have any additional concern or questions on this issue.

J. Thomas Manger

Chief of Police

And an anonymous witness replied.

I was sitting on the back of this group (10-20 feet behind the last rider) testing out a new bike and not pulling through in the paceline, basically the whole way down McArthur Blvd. So, I had a clear view of the paceline of 8-9 riders the whole time. I can confirm it was never more wide than a tight 2-person paceline doing around 20-25 mph all the way down McArthur Blvd. At times, it was single file, where necessary, due to traffic, road width, etc.

As we came into the base of Angler's hill below the entrance to Great Falls park (doing around 20mph and slowing down to around 15 mph), the police car came up really quickly from behind onto my back wheel with lights flashing. So, we obviously weren't impeding traffic, since the officer came right up behind me. At that time, we were still double-file, with me hanging slightly off the back. I was totally confused when the officer pulled us over, since we were doing nothing wrong.After the female officer told us to pull over into a parking lot on the right-side of the road, she asked if we knew what the rules were. One person in our group said it was 2 abreast (the right answer). Apparently caught off guard by the fact that we knew the right answer, the officer then said we were way wider than that and we were all over the road. This was a TOTALLY FALSE DESCRIPTION by the officer. I appreciate the fact that police have a tough job and sometimes have to make split-second descisions, but that description was just totally inaccurate. However, I didn't protest (and no one else did either) since the officer seemed to be acting rather arbitrarily and intent on intimidating us by collecting our names for a list / database and saying if she ever came across us again (for some prospective, yet-to-be determined infraction) she would fine us. She said she was tired of getting complaints about cyclists in the area and on narrow roads like Glen road. However, complaints about other cyclists (whether justified or simply called in by drivers who don't like bikes) is no reason to treat us this way. You can't just pull someone over and make things up that never happened (like us being all over the road) and resort to "guilt by association" in regard to some unspecified people we have never even met and alleged events which we don't even know really happened. Despite the absurdity of the situation, we all just stood there and politely gave our full names and states of residence (since we didn't have drivers' licenses on us). But, I have to say, the fact that she collected our names for a list / database of cyclists is rather heavy-handed and, frankly, a little bit Orwellian.Part of me would like to write this off as just mis-perception or over over-eagerness by the police officer. However, when I was riding back by myself on McArthur around noon I came across another small group of a few cyclists who said they also had been pulled-over for no good reason. So, given a report of a similar occurence in the same area on the same day, it's rather hard to write-off what happened to us as simply a mistake or a misunderstanding.Rather, it seems that some decision has been made (either by the individual officer or at the direction of management) to scrutinize cyclists in particular. Maybe it's in response to complaints (valid or not) by motorists, as self-stated by the officer herself. Whatever the case, I can say that there was no justification to pull us over since we were doing absolutely nothing wrong. And it seemed to have happened more than one time that day, according to others.If others had (or have in the future) similar experiences in the MD area, I hope they post their experiences here and contact the police to complain about this kind of arbitrary mistreatment and rather blatant intimidation.

If this becomes a pattern, cyclists in the area will have to document this kind of behavior and make sure it is stopped by the police department's management. In particular, I am concerned that the officer self-stated that she is compiling a list of names for a database. Frankly, I'd like to know what, exactly, she (and her department) plan to do with this information

Again, I appreciate the fact that police have a tough job and deal with a lot of valid, difficult problems. But this incident was not one of them. This officer was just totally out of bounds.

Comments

[Casey Anderson]

I think there may be some misunderstanding about the collection of names for a database -- when police in Montgomery County (and probably many other places) stop someone they think has broken the law (even a very minor offense) they usually run a computer check on the person's name to see if they have an outstanding warrants, if they have a criminal background that might make them a threat to the officer's safety, etc.

When the police issue a "warning," sometimes this means that they just tell the person not to do whatever they did again. Other times, they will write out a warning like they would write out a ticket. This gives the police a record that the person has been warned previously if another officer encounters the same person doing the same thing again. Then, when the second officer checks the records, he or she sees that the person has previously been warned and so it may be appropriate to issue a citation.

I cannot say for sure this is what happened, but I would be careful about jumping to conclusions about collections of databases designed to single out bicyclists.

[freewheel]

"As an avid cyclist myself..."

No letter putting cyclists in their place is ever complete unless it includes those words.

[SJE]

Does the Chief consider that a large number of people have a view of the facts completely different from his officer? How does he explain this discrepancy?

It is one thing to stand by your officers. At the same time, perceptions matter.

[Contrarian]

"As an avid cyclist myself..."

No letter putting cyclists in their place is ever complete unless it includes those words.

Or these words:
"Often, my fellow cyclists are our own worst enemy by not obeying the traffic laws that apply to everyone."

[Eric_W.]

I don't really care whether he even knows how to ride a bike. It does not matter. The fact is that the behavior by the police officer was highly questionable and most likely wrong. Address that instead of hiding behind commonplaces and excuses.

[Anonymous Cyclist]

re Casey Anderson's comment: My full name (first, middle, and last) and state of residence was taken by the officer and written down on a notebook pad. I was told my name would be entered into a computer system (i.e. database) to check against my license. I was told by the officer that if I was ever pulled over again on my bike for some similar (alleged) incident my name would be on record in the computer system and I would be cited / fined.

My complaint is that my name never should have been taken down on some list written on a notepad in the first place, much run through any computer / database.

This whole incident was very strange. I note that other cyclists told me later in the day that they also were scrutinized without, according to them, any valid reason.

[Anonymous Cyclist]

Also, in the interest of expressing appreciation for the hard work that police officers do to keep us all safe, I would like to note one nice thing that the officer did. One cyclist had a bloody, cut finger after fixing a mechanical. Upon request, the officer was kind enough to provide a band-aid to that individual for the finger. Perhaps that fact also should be noted, for the sake completeness / context.

[Tom]

Hey anonymous cyclist,

The horse is out of the barn. You can use your name because your not anonymous anymore. You're in the database.

[Kevin]

Looking at the Mont. Co PD Mission Statement:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/poltmpl.asp?url=/Content/POL/about/index.asp

It is pretty obvious this officer fails quite badly with regard to the "Respect" and "Integrity" sections.

I wonder if the PD having a point person for bicycling-related issues/complaints would improve relations?

[mike]

contratrian and freewheel deserve an award! right on! the response of the well-meaning, but moronic, police is so predictable!

thanks for a good laugh.

the cop who wrote that letter is either an ignorant, arrogant fool(who is proabably a good person trying to do good) or a jackass.

[MLD]

The one thing that really strikes me about the two descriptions posted here is that the one made by the Chief of Police outlines the facts according to the story he has heard. The story may be one-sided, but he outlines it in a straightforward manner and THEN goes on to offer sympathy for both parties.

The witness' statement, on the other hand, is a wall-o-text that takes the facts (also one-sided) BUT the main difference is that interspersed in there is bloviating about civil liberties and "Orwellian databases" and emotional responses to the officer's accusations.

I'm not saying the officer is right - in fact, I think that they were in the wrong here - but you don't help your case at all when you can't provide a concise version of what you think happened in the situation. You confuse the situation by interrupting your story to explain how you felt about the situation, which really should be in a separate section from the WHAT HAPPENED part.

[SJE]

MLD: I agree that one should try to present the facts, but I think that you do an injustice to the witnesses concerns about civil liberties by describing them as "bloviating." Law enforcement needs and has great discretion in performing their duties, but have managed to make themselves largely immune from oversight when they over-reach. In such a situation, the average citizen has little that they can do but complain. Is it any wonder that emotive language is used?

[guez]

I'm going to agree with MLD, and go one step farther. The witness account is not only full of distracting bloviating, it also borders on the incoherent. One example:

As we came into the base of Angler's hill below the entrance to Great Falls park (doing around 20mph and slowing down to around 15 mph), the police car came up really quickly from behind onto my back wheel with lights flashing. So, we obviously weren't impeding traffic, since the officer came right up behind me.

The argument seems to be that if the police car could actually reach the pace line, then traffic couldn't be backed up. But of course cars may well have pulled over (as they often do) for the police vehicle, which was flashing its lights, after all.

[some guy]

Pretty obvious solution here, we get about 10-15 people out there and ride a double paceline with a helmet or handlebar cam trailing. When officer Fife pulls us over we offer her the opportunity to review the footage. About 3 weekends of this with judicious switching up of kit should take care of the problem.

[SJE]

Some guy, I note that Maryland is a "two party consent" recording state, which means that both parties must consent to being recorded. Therefore, while there is evidentiary value to recording any interaction with law enforcement, be careful that your recording is not used as a basis for separate prosecution.

[some guy]

Right, but I'm only suggesting recording the paceline, not the LEO interaction. When they pull you over, show them the tape of what the cyclists were doing and ask them to point out the violation.

Cops play the odds when it comes to evidence, if they know their hand is bad they fold. They have better things to do, even if is patrolling Western MoCo looking for weekend broad daylight burglaries.

[O2]

McArthur Boulevard is a two lane road with 30 mph posted speed limits. Anonymous Witness states they were riding two abreast at around 20-25 mph when the patrol car pulled up behind them.

Mr. Manger stated "Specifically, Article 21, §1205 of the Annotated Code of Maryland states that, "Each person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter on a roadway may ride two abreast only if the flow of traffic is unimpeded.""

If the legal speed limit is 30 mph and you are riding 2 abreast doing 20-25 mph and there is a car behind you, how is this not considered impeding traffic? Just curious why that isn't so.

[Joe]

How FAST was the officer going when they came up on the group 30mph? Doesn't sound like it.

If a driver is speeding then then the DRIVER is breaking the law and it can not be stated that the cyclists are blocking the way.

[Joe]

What is disturbing is that the cyclists have been threatened with being ticketed next time as there names have been recorded yet they can not defend themselves for this incident? That has got to be illegal.

This really sounds like a threat to attempt to keep people from riding bicycles on MacArthur and one that they are not giving the riders the opportunity to devend themselves.

Also, if there is no oncoming traffic then 2 breast is not impeading traffic.

[washcycle]

So here are my thoughts.

This is not that big of a deal. If this were a crackdown on cyclist who were "annoying" drivers on MacArthur, a crackdown that came from the top, that would be a very big deal. That is not what this is.

This is one officer, who was assigned to do burglary prevention, and decided, on her own, to pull over a group of cyclists for what was, IMO, a misreading of the law (which she didn't appear to be able to cite). I suspect that now that it has gotten the attention of the Chief of Police, it won't happen again. If it does, then it may be elevated to "big deal". But as it stands, we have one officer who used poor judgment that resulted in some inconvenienced and rightfully angry cyclists. Police officers, like everyone else, are bound to make the occasional mistake and since this one resulted in just an inconvenience it's not worth getting too fired up about. She didn't do anything unethical or unprofessional, she just made a bad call.

I think it is telling that the Chief, while backing her up, never states that he thinks that the cyclists were breaking the law or that pulling them over was a good idea. "The bottom line is that she observed what she believed was a traffic infraction..."

I would hope that someone is talking to her about only pulling cyclists over when they're doing something unsafe or, at the least, when they're clearly breaking the law. In this case I think neither was true. That they were riding in safe manner has never been in question. That they were impeding traffic is the only fact on which the officer and the cyclist disagree. Even if there were a car behind them, I don't believe they were impeding traffic.
As the lane is too narrow to allow a bicycle and a car to safely travel side by side (which is the standard that requires riding right), and there is a double yellow line on that stretch of MacArthur making crossing into the other lane illegal - the only way to pass a cyclist is to do so illegally. So the only traffic impeded were cars willing to break the law to pass. So, as I see it, traffic was not impeded and 21-1205 (b) does not apply.

[Contrarian]

there is a double yellow line on that stretch of MacArthur making crossing into the other lane illegal

Because WashCycle readers want to know, I want to clarify this a little bit. The meaning of a solid yellow line is not the same in every state. There are at least four subtly different meanings that various states have adopted:
1. All passing is prohibited.
2. Passing of motor vehicles is prohibited, but not non-motorized vehicles (or in some states, specifically bicycles).
3. Crossing the yellow line is prohibited, passing is not.
4. The line is merely advisory that visibility is reduced; drivers are responsible for passing safely.

I had to look it up, but Maryland takes approach #3 (see 21-307). (DC takes #4, not sure about Virginia). So technically Wash is correct.

But -- I think this is a bad tack to take. In that situation, I want drivers to pass me, legal or not. Every now and then I'll be on MacArthur and I'll get someone behind me who absolutely refuses to cross the double yellow to pass. Traffic backs up, tempers get heated. And who do people blame? Me.

The original position of the cyclists is much stronger: when the cop saw them, there was no one behind them. When a car came up behind they would single up. That's the only defense they need to take.

[washcycle]

I agree that their defense is perfectly adequate, but I guess either defense is good and mine has the advantage that the police officer can't contradict it.

[Contrarian]

There's also the question of when two riders are riding abreast whether both can be ticketed, or just the leftmost.

If you take the position that only the leftmost is in violation, she had no business detaining the rightmost riders.

[A cyclist]

Re WashCycle's point: although the whole incident was rather strange (especially the taking of names), now that it has been duly noted, I'd also prefer to just "move on" and hope it doesn't happen again, as you suggest. Hopefully, this will be the case.

Also, I want to note that my account was NOT meant as any kind of "response" to the official statement that was posted. I simply posted my text in the textbox on the 1st page of the original story without realizing that the tiny brown >> symbol on the bottom of the page was a link to a 2nd page of posts containing the official response. I was just posting a personal account of what happened for other cyclists to CORROBORATE what earlier witness posts on the 1st page also had said.

Re MLD's point on a "wall-o-text," some of the line breaks didn't come through, for some reason, when posted. So, I can understand that it's a bit dense and hard to read the way it's presented. It's not easy to write / edit in these tiny textboxes.

Re O2's question: around the time we were pulled over, there was no traffic behind us for at least a few hundred feet. The officer never really specified what traffic we were supposedly impeding or where. When we were pulled over there was no back-log of traffic that then suddenly then came by. So, what we were supposedly "impeding" is still a mystery to me. I was just told it was back there, somewhere.

Re Joe's question: the officer's car came up significantly faster than we were riding. I don't want to try to guess about the exact speed, though

[Barry]

I'll note that impeding traffic has some sort of legal definition of 4-5 cars being backed up, so cyclists cannot impede "A vehicle" (check Bob Mionske's blog for details.)

While IANAL a possible relevant point is that cyclists have to follow the same laws as motor vehicles. And motor vehicles cannot be ticketed for impeding traffic unless they are doing more then 10mph below the speed limit. Which it sounds like these cyclists do not qualify.

I also think it is an interesting point do cyclists have to facilitate passing when safe and legal passing cannot be done.

[O2]

So you acknowledge that they were impeding traffic, and thus, whether or not the officer cited the correct section of the law and whether or not YOU see it as otherwise, the officer had a legitimate reason to pull them over.

That is all.

Thanks.

[guez]

Joe writes:

Also, if there is no oncoming traffic then 2 breast is not impeading traffic.

washcycle writes:

As the lane is too narrow to allow a bicycle and a car to safely travel side by side (which is the standard that requires riding right), and there is a double yellow line on that stretch of MacArthur making crossing into the other lane illegal - the only way to pass a cyclist is to do so illegally.

One of you is arguing that the cyclists weren't impeding traffic because cars *could* pass. The other that they weren't impeding traffic because cars *couldn't* (legally) pass. Obviously you can't both be correct. My sense is that Washcycle has it right, here, and that indeed the police officer was simply wrong (not unethical or unprofessional). What this example shows is that a cyclist who believes that he/she is not impeding traffic simply because the oncoming lane is clear is wrong too.

[Joe]

Nice try Guez. Yes it's illegal to pass a car taking the full lane in a double yellow line but 2 bicycles where the driver only has to go across half way across the line? It can not be illegal to pass a bicycle because a car's tyres touch or cross the line. That would suggest that no cars could ever pass a bicycle on MacArthur. Has anyone ever been charged with crossing the yellow line to pass a bicycle?

[guez]

Joe,

You're wrong about the law. Please read Contrarian's post, above. His point is that motorists crossing double yellow lines to pass cyclists is technically illegal, but nonetheless desirable, as it prevents traffic from getting backed up and motorists getting angry.

My point is that cyclists can't have it both ways: in a given situation, we can't both argue that cyclists aren't impeding traffic because motorists wouldn't be able to safely and legally pass them in any case AND that cyclists aren't impeding traffic because motorists *are* able to pass them.

[washcycle]

Well, an individual cyclist can't argue both ways, but it's not unreasonable that two cyclists might believe the same action is legal, but for two different reasons. Supreme Court justices, for example, often write concurring decisions that come to the same conclusion for different reasons. But in general I agree with Contrarian - it is technically illegal but desirable.

@O2, who acknowledges they were impeding traffic?

[Joe]

I agree Guez you can't have it both ways being that you can't choose which laws to obey and which to egnore. If you expect the double yellow line law to be in forced to the letter of the law then at the same time drivers and cyclists MUST be stopped and ticketed for exceeding the speed limit by just 1mph and for not coming to a complete stop at stops signs and right turns on red. In reality if the road is clear a driver can safely pass two cyclists 2 abreast and traffic is not impeaded.

Guez, no matter what you agrue cyclists will contiune to ride on MacArthur and other roads in the area. Attempting to pit us against each other on this forum won't stop that.

[guez]

Washcycle writes: Well, an individual cyclist can't argue both ways, but it's not unreasonable that two cyclists might believe the same action is legal, but for two different reasons.

But sure if the reasons are *contradictory*, they both can't be *right*, can they?

Joe writes: If you expect the double yellow line law to be in forced to the letter of the law then at the same time drivers and cyclists MUST be stopped and ticketed for exceeding the speed limit by just 1mph and for not coming to a complete stop at stops signs and right turns on red. In reality if the road is clear a driver can safely pass two cyclists 2 abreast and traffic is not impeaded.

Huh?

[washcycle]

Guez, no both reasons can't be right. But I don't think anyone is trying to have it both ways. Joe is trying to have it one way, and I'm trying to have it another. By coincidence, these two ways have the same result.

[Joe]

Ya know, I normally don't ride MacArthur but I think I'll have to add it to my regular loop. See ya all on the road. :)

[guez]

Washcycle,

Yes, both ways have the same result, in the sense that both arguments exculpate the cyclists on MacArthur boulevard. But in another sense, they work against each other, in that they have different consequences for cyclist and motorist behavior.

Joe's argument is that as long as there in no oncoming traffic that would make it unsafe to pass, cyclists have no obligation to stay right or ride in single file: motorists will pass them by breaching the yellow lines. I know that motorists do this anyway, but isn't it is dangerous to encourage motorists to go any further into the opposite lane, or to pass cyclist any closer, than necessary, isn't it? The matter is further complicated by the fact that the motorist will presumably know that it illegal to cross the yellow lines and thus will be tempted to pass the cyclists as closely as possible.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that cyclists can take the lane when cars wouldn't be able to pass them safely if they were riding in single file and on the right. In such a situation, surely it would be *even more* unsafe for a motorist to try to pass a pace line that is riding in the middle of the lane, wouldn't it? But that is exactly where Joe's argument leads.

This thread goes to the heart of my reservations about a certain kind of bike advocacy. I am myself a recreational cyclist, and it sounds like the cop was probably wrong here. It is one thing, however, to argue (for reasons that we all agree upon) that cyclists should have a right to use the roads with a reasonable expectation of safety. At the same, we should consider that pace lines, which are *recreational* present certain challenges for road safety. It is not enough for us to "fight the man." We have to have a coherent message that involves educated responsibility for both cyclists and motorists.

So do you really want make common cause with someone who argues IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH that you can't choose which laws to obey and ignore AND that "in reality" motorists should be expected to ignore double yellow lines?

[washcycle]

Maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you were arguing that we were trying to have it both ways. If your argument is instead that Joe has misread the law, then that is a different point. I would agree.

But the law is clearly confusing since none of us is particularly confident that we understand what it says. If there is a lack of coherency to our message it stems from that. We do largely agree to what we would like it to say. Something along the lines of "Cyclists need not ride right or single file unless a car is waiting to pass, passing can be done safely and there is no other lane that passing can be done in."

Do I want to make common cause with Joe, even though we disagree on what the law says? Absolutely. I believe in a big tent.

[guez]

I'm not sure whether you misunderstood me or not. I do think that as a group, cyclists (like many other groups) are often less concerned about providing a credible message than some vague sense of being "on the same side."

Thus, when I disagree with Joe about the law, he accuses me (in a post that I'm still struggling to make sense of) of somehow denying cyclists the right to use the roads and you respond that you agree with Joe on a statement that we all support, but which has very little practical import because it provides no guidance to what it means to "pass safely" and isn't particularly useful for analyzing the MacArthur boulevard incident. I agree that the law is confusing, but shouldn't that give everyone a little pause before declaring that the police are wrong and the cyclists are right?

To go back to your previous analogy, it's true that judges could agree on the outcome of the legal case even though they fundamentally disagree regarding basic legal principles. But surely those basic principles are as important if not more important than the individual case.

[washcycle]

guez, I think you confuse what goes on in the comments of this blog as advocacy. Criticizing the comments here for being less than coherent or for not creating a credible message is a like pointing to the comments of the Washington Post and saying that Americans are in a Civil War. If you want to criticize advocacy point to what is actually said to policy makers. I think you hold the comment section here to too high a standard.

Yes. I just said pass safely, because I didn't want to spend the time necessary to lay out the definition of each and every term I used. Again, comment section.

As for whether it had any import on the MacArthur boulevard incident, I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to wander into a larger conversation of what policy should be or whether or not Joe and I can work together despite different opinions. I mean are we supposed to work together to form a coherent and credible message or do we need to fight out every single petty disagreement to the bitter end before we approach those who write laws with ideas for change?

How do you know that people didn't pause before declaring the police wrong? I certainly paused and thought about it and laid out my reasons.

[guez]

How do you know that people didn't pause before declaring the police wrong? I certainly paused and thought about it and laid out my reasons.

I don't know that people didn't pause. What I do know is that there is a disconnect between the fact we all find the law confusing and yet people seem to quite confident that the cops screwed up again.

As for this being the comments section and not advocacy, your point is well taken. But a vibrant discussion is different from an echo chamber or a flame war. Sure a comments section is a great place to come together, but it's also a place to challenge each other in a vigorous discussion. That means challenging those with whom we may agree as well as those with whom we don't. In the end, I think, this makes for better advocacy. So I, for one, hope that you will continue to challenge me.

[Joe]

Nice spin there Guez. Manipulate what people say to you desired goal.

- As I stated in the begining, this is not about the police being the bad guys but the people who have pestered the police and politicans to use the police as their tool to bully cyclists off the road.

As for the crossing of the double yellow line, yes the rule is that a car should never cross it. As MacArthur is narrow a car most likely will cross the lines passing a single cyclist therefore one could argue that cyclists should be on the road because they are forcing the car to cross the lines.In reality crossing the double yellow line is common, even with no cyclists present therefore while one can argue the theory of the law the reality of the law is quite different. Hence my argument that crossing the double yellow when it is clear to pass 2-breast cyclists is no more dangerous than crossing the double yellow when cyclists are single file.

Now, if we take things to the letter of the law and state that cyclists should never ride in a manor that forces a car to cross the double yellow, then we can not be bias and only inforce rules which go against the cyclists.

A less dicriminating way to inforcing the rules of the road is to inforce rules that affect both parties. Therefore inforcing the 30 mph speed limit and the FULL stop at stop signs and lights is a much better way to deal with the saftey issues on MacArthur that just focusing on the cyclist. Of course drivers would go balistic if the speed limit and stops where inforced to the letter of the law. Again, theory of the law and reality is quite different.

As for the concept of what people think of the police. I have allways said that the police (both Parks and County) are the saving grace of Montgomery County and I know I'm not the only cyclist who feels that way. This is not an issue of police vs cyclist but some people who do not want to share the road with bicyles attempting to use the police as their tool to bully the cyclists off the road.

[guez]

Joe,

Thank you for a more detailed explanation of your position. One question: aren't cars forced to either go *further* over the yellow line or give the cyclists less room if they have to pass two cyclists rather than one? And wouldn't that be less safe?

[Joe]

Yes they do go farther over the line but it also stops drivers from passing when there is oncoming traffic (making it 3 abreast 2 cars and 1 bike)which is very dangerous (and common) leaving usually less than a foot between the passing car and bicycle.

At the same time it's just polite for cyclists to switch from 2 abreast to single file when they realize there is traffic back.