Question about law concerning two cyclists riding abreast
Our Community › Forums › General Discussion › Question about law concerning two cyclists riding abreast
- This topic has 49 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 7 months ago by
lordofthemark.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 27, 2021 at 11:01 pm #922296
Mark
ParticipantLet me preface this comment by noting that I generally do my best to let cars pass me – both because I try to be considerate when I’m on my bike and because I would prefer having aggressive drivers in front of me rather than behind me. Let me also note that the encounter with the Park Police officer I describe was friendly and I am by no means angry.
This afternoon, I was riding side by side with a friend on Sligo Parkway in Maryland. He was in the shoulder and I was next to him. Several cars ended up behind us, one of which was Park Police, who told us that we were not allowed to ride side by side.
We had thought two cyclists could ride side by side and queried the officer upon catching up to him at the light. He looked up the rule on his laptop and read it to us: Cyclists cannot ride side by side if they are impeding traffic.
Question 1: This law was a surprise to us. Upon coming home, I looked up the rules in DC, and apparently the same rule applies. Is this a rule in most states?
Question 2: The officer told us that we were impeding traffic because the cars behind us had to go across the double yellow line to pass us. I responded that even if we were riding single file, cars would need to go across the double yellow line to safely pass, especially if they were to give us the required three feet. However, he did not agree. I am perplexed by the rule. As a cyclist, I have a right to ride in the lane. To pass me safely, cars will always need to cross the double line. Whether I am riding single or double file is irrelevant. In fact, I might add that riding double file can be safer because it prevents cars from trying to squeeze by in the same lane. The rule just seems to be wrong headed. Has it ever been challenged?
April 28, 2021 at 2:14 am #1114218dbehrend
ParticipantThis article’s a bit dated, but in 2016, 21 states had laws saying cyclists may ride two abreast only if they are not impeding traffic.
https://www.bicycling.com/rides/a20026266/bicycle-safety-do-you-legally-have-to-ride-single-file/Advocates have worked to change the laws on riding two abreast in some states. A new law in Virginia, which I don’t think is one of the 21 states mentioned in the Bicycling article, goes into effect on July 1st allowing cyclists to ride two abreast at all times.
April 28, 2021 at 1:36 pm #1114217mstone
Participantyes such rules are stupid, but changing them requires giving cyclists something and most legislatures don’t want to be seen giving in to the all powerful bike lobby. the best thing to do would have been to simply take the lane in single file and not gotten into an argument about the stupid riding abreast rules (which are generally misunderstood by police, to the point of people actually having been cited for riding by themselves with cars passing them…) let the idiocy of the rule speak for itself as they fume about you still being on the road preventing them from driving like maniacs as god granted in the constitution.
April 28, 2021 at 3:53 pm #1114221ImaCynic
ParticipantBasic road cycling etiquette calls for switching to a single line whenever there are cars back. Insisting on riding two abreast while holding up traffic sends the wrong message and perpetuates the “cyclists do not care” stigma.
Double yellow means no passing when I last checked the traffic laws, so the notion that a car has to completely cross the double yellow to overtake a cyclist makes no sense. When put in this situation, a driver has two choices; 1) wait, or 2) squeeze around the cyclist without infringing on traffic violation, and I suspect the driver will most likely choose the latter as I would do the same. Three feet? Are you kidding me? Expecting a typical driver to know what three feet looks like is akin to a three-year old understanding the meaning of life. As I like to say, relying on traffic laws will kill you, every time.
The sense of road entitlement is pervasive among both drivers and cyclists, and to me this is so woven into the cultural fabric here that I don’t expect any real changes, regardless of what the law says.
April 28, 2021 at 5:02 pm #1114222lordofthemarkParticipant@ImaCynic 210611 wrote:
Basic road cycling etiquette calls for switching to a single line whenever there are cars back. Insisting on riding two abreast while holding up traffic sends the wrong message and perpetuates the “cyclists do not care” stigma.
Double yellow means no passing when I last checked the traffic laws, so the notion that a car has to completely cross the double yellow to overtake a cyclist makes no sense. When put in this situation, a driver has two choices; 1) wait, or 2) squeeze around the cyclist without infringing on traffic violation, and I suspect the driver will most likely choose the latter as I would do the same. Three feet? Are you kidding me? Expecting a typical driver to know what three feet looks like is akin to a three-year old understanding the meaning of life. As I like to say, relying on traffic laws will kill you, every time.
The sense of road entitlement is pervasive among both drivers and cyclists, and to me this is so woven into the cultural fabric here that I don’t expect any real changes, regardless of what the law says.
The new law passed in Virginia requires drivers to change lanes to pass bikes if they cannot give 3 feet otherwise (and on a standard width lane, they cannot, even if cyclists go single file to the right). They have the right to cross a double yellow line when passing a human powered device such as a bicycle.
This is the law in Virginia.
And yes, I don’t expect drivers to be good at estimating distance. That is why I usually take the center of the lane, and why riding two abreast is good.
Will that create issues on two lane roads in rural areas? I dunno. Personally I almost never ride on two lane roads in rural areas except for the Great Pumpkin Ride.
Where I am much more likely to ride two abreast is on a street where we will be ahead of any given car for only a block or two, before reaching a bike lane or a turn – or on a road with two lanes in each direction, where cars can pass crossing the white striped line.
Note if OP was riding on Sligo Parkway in Chillum, that road has no center line per google street view.
April 28, 2021 at 5:37 pm #1114224Participant@lordofthemark 210612 wrote:
They have the right to cross a double yellow line when passing a human powered device such as a bicycle.
This is the law in Virginia.
Again, why is there a double yellow? It usually means that there is insufficient line-of-sight for safe overtake. By passing this law, a driver may legally be able to cross it, but it does not reduce the danger involved in doing so. If an oncoming car appears during the overtake, the driver will likely swerve back into its own lane, right where the cyclist is. This kinda sucks for the cyclist, but hey, it is legal!
This is yet another unintended consequence of passing something that they believe it is safer for all. It is not.
April 28, 2021 at 6:39 pm #1114225lordofthemarkParticipant@ImaCynic 210614 wrote:
Again, why is there a double yellow? It usually means that there is insufficient line-of-sight for safe overtake. By passing this law, a driver may legally be able to cross it, but it does not reduce the danger involved in doing so. If an oncoming car appears during the overtake, the driver will likely swerve back into its own lane, right where the cyclist is. This kinda sucks for the cyclist, but hey, it is legal!
This is yet another unintended consequence of passing something that they believe it is safer for all. It is not.
Double yellows are striped based on space needed to pass motor vehicles, often large, generally fast. The amount of space needed to pass a cyclist is much less, and often the double yellows are striped conservatively.
Note Illinois passed a law similar to Virginia’s in 2017. If it has created major problems, I have been unable to find that in quick googling.
April 29, 2021 at 12:30 am #1114227baiskeli
Participant@lordofthemark 210612 wrote:
The new law passed in Virginia requires drivers to change lanes to pass bikes if they cannot give 3 feet otherwise (and on a standard width lane, they cannot, even if cyclists go single file to the right). They have the right to cross a double yellow line when passing a human powered device such as a bicycle.
This is the law in Virginia.
And yes, I don’t expect drivers to be good at estimating distance. That is why I usually take the center of the lane, and why riding two abreast is good.
New question – Virginia law still requires a single rider to stay to the right unless necessary for, say turning left, or when it is unsafe not to take the lane. That would still apply, I think. Only riding with a buddy next to you gives you the right to take the lane at any time. Do you think I’m reading this right?
April 29, 2021 at 2:02 am #1114228ParticipantSomehow an earlier response by me did not show up, so I will try again.
I was biking on Sligo Parkway between New Hampshire and University. This is a two lane road. Some sections have a double yellow line and visibility is not great, so drivers simply need to be a little patient. It is their responsibility to wait for a safe place to pass. If visibility is good enough and it is safe to pass, I will move to the right to give them more space. If I were to hug the right throughout, some drivers would try to squeeze by.
Lest I give the wrong impression, this is a pretty good road to bike on. Especially now, there are a fair number of cyclists using the road, so drivers are used to seeing bikes. Most drivers are courteous and respectful, and I try to be the same, as do most other cyclists I see on this road. One sometimes encountered aggressive drivers during pre-pandemic rush hour, but that seems to have improved significantly over the years. And occasionally a driver will yell at a cyclist to get on the winding multi-user path even though signage clearly indicates that the road is to be shared with cyclists.
Calling a cyclist an impediment in the situation I described seems inappropriate and conveys the wrong message to drivers. I am entitled to take the center of the lane (and I am a reasonably fast cyclist). By the same token, any car driving slower than the maximum speed would be an impediment whenever faster cars pulled up behind him.
April 29, 2021 at 1:39 pm #1114231lordofthemarkParticipant@baiskeli 210617 wrote:
New question – Virginia law still requires a single rider to stay to the right unless necessary for, say turning left, or when it is unsafe not to take the lane. That would still apply, I think. Only riding with a buddy next to you gives you the right to take the lane at any time. Do you think I’m reading this right?
Not sure.
April 29, 2021 at 3:13 pm #1114229ParticipantThe postings here so far clearly demonstrated the problem with the current bicycle laws – vague, inconsistent, and open to interpretation. The only consistency is that these are guaranteed to change whenever one pedals into another jurisdiction. These laws are confusing enough for a cyclist, so can one really expect a driver to know AND follow? I think not. An average cyclist/driver simply do not have the bandwidth or a law degree to parse all these while on the road.
Rules of the road need to be the same, for two wheels or four. I much rather see some real effort in creating a uniform set of traffic laws that span across jurisdictions and vehicle types than having to deal with these esoteric bike laws conjured up by those that likely have never pedaled an inch in their adult life.
April 29, 2021 at 3:14 pm #1114223
Steve OParticipantIf the lane is not wide enough to allow me to ride on the right–and allow room for the driver to pass me with three feet of clearance without partially crossing into the oncoming lane–then I will ride in the center anytime there is oncoming traffic (if the road is clear ahead, then I’ll ride on the right-ish side). I do not want to give a driver room to make her believe she can squeeze by. This is, IMO, common sense and makes me safer, regardless of what the law says. In some places laws are starting to acknowledge this, such as the two-abreast law in Virginia.
@ImaCynic 210614 wrote:Again, why is there a double yellow? It usually means that there is insufficient line-of-sight for safe overtake. By passing this law, a driver may legally be able to cross it, but it does not reduce the danger involved in doing so.
This is yet another unintended consequence of passing something that they believe it is safer for all. It is not.I disagree with this. If cars are never allowed to cross the double yellow and are also required to allow three feet to pass, then they could end up being stuck behind a cyclist for many miles, much of that unnecessarily. The law states that they may cross the line and pass, but only when safe to do so. I personally have experienced hundreds of cases of cars moving over to the oncoming lane and passing me with lots of clearance in a completely safe manner. In the absence of a law like this, I believe we cyclists would be more endangered, not less.
April 29, 2021 at 3:37 pm #1114234lordofthemarkParticipant@ImaCynic 210627 wrote:
The postings here so far clearly demonstrated the problem with the current bicycle laws – vague, inconsistent, and open to interpretation. The only consistency is that these are guaranteed to change whenever one pedals into another jurisdiction. These laws are confusing enough for a cyclist, so can one really expect a driver to know AND follow? I think not. An average cyclist/driver simply do not have the bandwidth or a law degree to parse all these while on the road.
Rules of the road need to be the same, for two wheels or four. I much rather see some real effort in creating a uniform set of traffic laws that span across jurisdictions and vehicle types than having to deal with these esoteric bike laws conjured up by those that likely have never pedaled an inch in their adult life.
1. Laws always require interpretation and that applies to all traffic laws. We can of course (and are) working to get clarification where needed in Virginia
2. Consistency across states is a good thing. That does not mean we should never change
3. Of course I do not count on others to follow the law. That applies whether I am riding, walking, or driving. I adjust my riding for my own safety, of course.
4. The new laws in Va were pushed by the Virginia Bicycle Federation. I can assure you they have pedaled, and also thought throug the implications of change.
If you want uniform laws, does that mean you want bikes to not be required to ride as far to the right as practicable, to be banned from all sidewalks and trails, and to be allowed on all interstate highways? The fact is we do make different laws for different classes of vehicles. There are good reasons for that, and it does not have to be confusing. We can improve driver education on such laws – and of course drivers will learn them better when we have more people on bikes.
April 29, 2021 at 3:57 pm #1114235
JuddParticipant@baiskeli 210617 wrote:
New question – Virginia law still requires a single rider to stay to the right unless necessary for, say turning left, or when it is unsafe not to take the lane. That would still apply, I think. Only riding with a buddy next to you gives you the right to take the lane at any time. Do you think I’m reading this right?
This is in Virginia Code 46.2-905
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-905/
ยง 46.2-905. Riding bicycles, electric personal assistive mobility devices, electric power-assisted bicycles, motorized skateboards or scooters, and mopeds on roadways and bicycle paths.
Any person operating a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electric power-assisted bicycle, motorized skateboard or scooter, or moped on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place under conditions then existing shall ride as close as safely practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following circumstances:1. When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;
2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway;
3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right curb or edge;
4. When avoiding riding in a lane that must turn or diverge to the right; and
5. When riding upon a one-way road or highway, a person may also ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as safely practicable.
For purposes of this section, a “substandard width lane” is a lane too narrow for a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electric power-assisted bicycle, motorized skateboard or scooter, or moped and another vehicle to pass safely side by side within the lane.
Persons riding bicycles, electric personal assistive mobility devices, electric power-assisted bicycles, or motorized skateboards or scooters 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.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the Department of Conservation and Recreation shall permit the operation of electric personal assistive mobility devices on any bicycle path or trail designated by the Department for such use.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
April 29, 2021 at 4:03 pm #1114236JuddParticipantBasically you can take a lane when it less than 14 feet. However, as Imacynic points out in a cynic fashion, interpretation bungles things up. Substandard width is defined, however several police agencies interpret that a cyclist can be passed legally within a three foot lane because they do not take into account shy distance, surface imperfections, width of the rider and general maneuverability space when doing lane width math.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.