Here's a bill that recently passed in South Carolina, sent to me by reader Zeke (not Zack!).
To define “bicycle lane” and provide, among other things, that motor vehicles may not block bicycle lanes and must yield to bicyclists in such lanes; to provide that bicyclists may, but are not required to ride on the shoulder of a roadway; to delete the provision requiring a bicyclist to use a bike
lanepath when provided, rather than the roadway; to require motorist to maintain a safe distance between the motor vehicle and a bicycle; to create a misdemeanor offense for harassing, taunting or maliciously throwing an object at a bicyclist; to delete provisions requiring bicycles to have a bell or other audible device; to specify the form and extent of arm signals that bicyclists must use; to provide a fine for failing to have a brake on a bicycle; and to provide civil fines for violation of this article, including fines when a person driving a motor vehicles causes injury to a bicyclist.
The hand signal rule allows cyclists to signal with the left or right arm, but does not require it if the cyclists needs both hands on the handlebars. There is a lot of good stuff in this law - much of it already true in DC and the area. Notable differences are: in Maryland you have to use the bike lane in most cases, in DC you need a bell or other audible device, and I think (Sec 2205) in DC you still have to signal with your left hand - not sure about MD and VA. In VA and MD, it's either hand.
VA allows signaling with either hand.
Posted by: mrussell` | July 23, 2008 at 01:27 PM
From the MD vehicle code...
§ 21-606. Method of giving hand and arm signals.
(c) Right turn.- A right turn signal is given by the hand and arm extended upward; except that a bicyclist may extend the right hand and arm horizontally to the right.
Posted by: Grendel | July 23, 2008 at 03:24 PM
Maryland legislators from more rural counties typically oppose removing the restriction that cyclists use the shoulder/bike lane. Maybe we should tell them that South Carolina is leaving them behind.
Posted by: Jack | July 23, 2008 at 07:03 PM
Actually, the real bill doesn't match what Zeke said. Zeke wrote, "...to delete the provision requiring a bicyclist to use a bike lane when provided, rather than the roadway..."
This bill here says bike PATH, not bike LANE. So cyclists are still required to use bike lanes, and furthermore the definition of bike lane includes those that are "separated from the roadway", which might mean bicycle tracks, I don't know.
Posted by: Jack | July 23, 2008 at 10:50 PM
I read somewhere that objects thrown from vehicles (motor vehicles?) can be considered "part of the vehicle" such that vehicular assault, etc., laws can be applied to motorists who throw objects at bicyclists or peds, or anyone else I suppose. I looked for statutes but came up empty-handed. Can anyone confirm or deny?
Posted by: David | July 24, 2008 at 01:21 AM
David, the legal term you are searching for is "missile". A few years ago I remember a VA driver was thrown in jail and fined for throwing a cup of coke out her window into a nearby car (road rage). The case against her was that it is illegal to launch a "missile" from a motor vehicle. What I don't know is if this would also apply if it hit a cyclist.
Posted by: Lee Watkins | July 24, 2008 at 06:26 AM
Speaking of rude motorist behavior, how about the people who suddenly scream at you out the window of a passing car, presumably to see if you flinch? I've never so much as swerved because of anything like that, but it is momentarily disconcerting.
I doubt such people mean any harm -- they're probably just trying to have a little fun -- but it's borderline harassment that could result in an accident in rare cases. I've read in stories about road rage that people in cars behave less civilly because they feel a greater degree of anonymity and impunity in their vehicles. Seems like the same phenomenon is at work here.
Posted by: Drew | July 25, 2008 at 11:32 AM