Eric commented:  Every once in a while people like to argue about why lane splitting or filtering should be legal. In my experience, people that make a habit of passing cars on the right, whether in a designated bicycle lane or not, have many “interesting” stories about how dangerous bicycling is. So, when I arrive at a line of stopped cars, I get in line behind them. This, of course “wastes time”, but I can assure you that the small amount of time I waste waiting for the light to change is nothing compared to the time this man will be wasting.  Hazard a guess as to which statute they charged this fellow with?

http://www.news-press.com/article/20120415/NEWS0102/120416001/Naples-bicyclist-injured-February-crash-ruled-fault

Answer

It is difficult to understand the exact circumstances from the article.  Depending on the circumstances, que-jumping or lane splitting can be safe and legal, usually due to lane width.  Cyclists regularly do it in other circumstances which are not legal or safe.  See these posts and the article on CommuteOrlando.com

http://flbikelaw.org/2012/02/passing-on-the-right/

http://flbikelaw.org/2011/06/queue-jumping-bicyclists/

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2008/09/08/cue-jumping/

Nathan asked: You’ve said that FDOT no longer uses undesignated bike lanes. Is this why I’ve been recently seeing bike lanes that exist only to the left of right-turn lanes, and revert to shoulder before and after (forcing a cyclist to use the shoulder after the intersection, since it’s illegal to change lanes in an intersection)? I’ve seen these both at new right-turn lane installations on existing roads: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=29.777816,-81.641454&spn=0.008325,0.016512&gl=us&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=29.777492,-81.641273&panoid=krMJ6TrqfD7Owavx0C42MQ&cbp=12,335.97,,0,8.36

and on recent widenings of rural highways: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=30.605358,-86.950672&spn=0.008255,0.016512&gl=us&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=30.605241,-86.950558&panoid=X4-X3CdhvVO_ptMWbvB8SA&cbp=12,330.83,,0,9.24

Answer

The intersection you show is the correct installation of bike lanes to the left of the right turn only lane.

FDOT Plans Preparation Manual

8.4.1 – Bicycle Lanes

At intersections with right turn lanes, the bicycle lane shall continue adjacent to the through lane; between the through lane and the right turn lane, and shall be 5 feet in width for new construction and reconstruction projects.

This configuration usually provides for a continuous bike lane through the intersection and minimizes the conflict with right-turning vehicles.  It does require moving from the paved shoulder bike lane to the next lane before entering the intersection.

If the paved shoulder is not marked for the use of bicycles, bicyclists are not required to use it.

Scott asked:  Last week I was stopped by a LEO in Palm Springs, FL while riding my bike on a 25mph 10′ wide lane on a residential street.  My lane position was slightly left of the right tire track.  The LEO insisted first that I must ride 3 feet from the road edge, then after reviewing the statute he insisted all the way to the road edge.  He threatened to cite me if I didn’t comply. What is the correct lane position on such a road and am I required to move over for traffic wishing to travel at a higher rate of speed. Or are they required to pass when it is safe to do so?

Answer

Please see:

http://flbikelaw.org/2010/01/substandard-width-lanes-even-more/

For other posts about this topic click on “substandard-width lanes,” “narrow lanes” and “lane position” in the tag cloud on the intro page.

I suggest that you provide this information to the police department and ask them to inform their officers.  This is another post that might be helpful to them.

http://flbikelaw.org/2010/04/a-department-bulletin-to-help-officers-understand-cyclist-safety-and-lane-use/

David also asked: Yesterday (Sunday, April 1) on the Rickenbacker Causeway in Miami, a police officer was getting all upset about a group of about 50 – 100 cyclists taking up a whole lane of the road. He was screaming out of his window for us to “keep right.” The Rickenbacker causeway also has a bike lane painted on it. Could you please discuss the legal status of a group of cyclists taking an entire lane in a double-lane road? From reading your site, I believe a) that we are not impeding traffic because there is still another lane for vehicles to pass. b) we are indeed violating the “two abreast” rule.  c) We are not obligated to be in the bike lane because we are passing a steady stream of slower cyclists who are in the bike lane. d) If (hypothetically speaking) the bike lane was empty, we’d still spill over into the road lane, this time violating the statute. So, what rights does a large group of cyclists have to cycle as a group in the road?

Answer

Short answer:  None.

A cycling group is not a defined entity in the statutes.  Rather, each cyclist is operating a vehicle and has the same rights and duties as other drivers while in the roadway.  A bicycle lane is part of the roadway.

Cyclists do have some advantages not applicable to drivers of motor vehicles, such as no requirement to have a driver’s license, no points for a violation of traffic laws and  legally impeding traffic under some circumstances.  On the other hand, they are also required to “keep right” and in the bike lane under some circumstances.  There are many other posts on this site about the exceptions to the “keep right” rules and impeding traffic.

The premise of your question is already answered in your statement, “We are indeed violating the ‘two abreast’ rule.”  If you are admittedly operating unlawfully, how can we devise a statutory justification?

The provisions in the statutes that apply are:

s. 316.2065 – Bicycle Regulations

(1) Every person propelling a vehicle by human power has all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under this chapter

Let’s not conveniently forget the part about “all the duties” of other drivers.

One of those duties is to comply with the provision that cyclists

(6) …. may not ride more than two abreast at any time except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

Another is the requirement to ride within a single lane.  A bicycle lane is a lane.

(6) (Cont.) Persons riding two abreast may not impede traffic when traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing and shall ride within a single lane.

Cyclists when traveling in a group do not have any special privileges.  In fact, they have a greater responsibility to ride lawfully since their presence creates problems for others.  I am aware of numerous situations throughout the state in which cyclists traveling in large groups routinely run lights and unlawfully take up a full lane and overflow into the adjacent lane, even the lane for on-coming traffic.   Among other locations, I have heard the complaint about Rickenbacker Causeway that groups sometimes overflow into both main travel lanes.  Some groups seem to feel that the roadway is their own personal racing venue, and that the laws do not apply to them.

I fully understand the fact that some cyclists travel in groups for a feeling of security that is not necessarily provided by a respect for the laws and cycling rights by others and full and fair enforcement of the laws that should protect cyclists.

Another consideration that is not addressed in the statutes is that when large groups of cyclists do ride legally, single file and taking the lane in substandard-width lanes, the line can be so long that it becomes virtually impossible for motorists to legally and safely overtake and pass.

I recommend joining organized cycling groups such as the Florida Bicycle Association, or in your area, the South Florida Cycling Coalition, to help them help you to resolve these problems and create a more cycling-friendly environment in Florida.

Herman also asked: Does the following apply even if the person riding a bicycle is the only traffic on the road?

s. 316.2065 – Bicycle Regulations

(5)(a) …. 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 ride in the lane marked for bicycle use or, if no lane is marked for bicycle use, as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway ….

Answer

The phrase “normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing” is not defined in the statutes and as far as I know, has not been the subject of case law or legal opinion that is applicable to bicycling.

Contrary to popular belief, bicyclists are vehicles and traffic.

s. 316.003 – Definitions

(2) Bicycle – Every vehicle propelled solely by human power

(75) Vehicle – Every device, in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway

(57) Traffic – Pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, and vehicles, streetcars, and other conveyances either singly or together while using any street or highway for purposes of travel.

The intent of the “keep right” provisions of the Bicycle Regulations” is clear.  Slower-moving bicyclists should not impede traffic under some circumstances.

A common sense reading of that phrase would indicate that the only existing traffic, the bicyclist, would be the normal speed of traffic at the time and therefore would not have to remain in the lane marked for bicycles or the right side of the roadway since there is no impediment to other traffic.

The statutes seem to dictate that bicyclists should use bike lanes when present, lacking cause. If there is a need to leave the bike lane or right side of a roadway without bike lanes to pass, prepare for a left turn, or avoid any unsafe condition, the statute is clear that it is legal to do so.

I am aware of one case in which it was argued that the normal speed of traffic is the posted speed limit.  I believe roadway agencies in some cases use 85% of the average motor vehicle speed as the posted speed limit, arguing that posted speeds lower than that encourage dangerous passing by frustrated drivers.  Is the “normal speed of traffic” actually higher than that posted?

The question could also be posed as one motorist traveling in the presence of a group of 100 bicyclists, or one bicyclist and one motorist.  What is the “normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing?”

As far as I know it is not definitively decided, but any reasonable approach to the question should reveal a common sense answer, that bicyclists that are not impeding other traffic are not violating this statute.

See also the other posts at this link.

http://flbikelaw.org/tag/impeding-traffic/

Alan asked: I do a lot of riding in downtown St Augustine. It’s close, cramped, and traffic is poorly regulated. These streets were laid hundreds of years ago and weren’t meant for heavy traffic. When I’m late for work, I “take the lane” and ride along with traffic because the speed limit is low enough that I can keep up. My question is this: There are intersections in town where there is a stop light, but one of the four intersecting streets is for pedestrians only. Therefore, traffic is never coming from or going to this street. Is it legal for me to move to the right side of the road, overtake a backed up line of cars at the red light, and pass through the red light with the entrance to the pedestrian street on my right? I am not crossing any avenues for traffic and am simply moving as a pedestrian would across the mouth of a pedestrian only street. Am I doing something illegal?

Answer

Good on you for using proper lane positioning.  I’m afraid that’s the end of the kudos though.  I suggest that you leave a few minutes early and drive your bicycle like other vehicle drivers.

If you are crossing the street within the roadway you are running the light, which is clearly unlawful.

If you are on the sidewalk for any part of this maneuver, you are violating a St. Augustine ordinance that prohibits bicyclists on sidewalks.  If vehicles are not permitted, the pedestrian street you mention is a sidewalk.

Sec. 24-107. – Riding on sidewalks prohibited.

No person shall ride or use any bicycle upon any sidewalk upon any of the streets or lanes within the corporate limits of the city.

If you are passing vehicles on the right when they are stopped for a crosswalk at the light, you may be violating this statute:

s. 316.130 – Pedestrians, Traffic Regulations

(9) Whenever any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass such stopped vehicle.

Passing should be accomplished on the left except when passing on the right is specifically allowed.

s. 316.083 – Overtaking and Passing a Vehicle

The following rules shall govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction, subject to those limitations, exceptions, and special rules hereinafter stated:

(1) The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction …. shall pass to the left thereof at a safe distance

s. 316.084 – When Overtaking on the Right is Permitted

(1) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass on the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:

(b) Upon a street or highway with unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving traffic in each direction;

(c) Upon a one-way street, or upon any roadway on which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement, where the roadway is free from obstructions and of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles.

If you are passing vehicles within the same lane, you are violating .083 and .084, since the lanes in St. Augustine are of substandard-width and not wide enough for “two lines of moving vehicles”.

s. 316.2065 – Bicycle Regulations

(5)(a)3 …. A “substandard-width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

The minimum width of a lane that allows “two lines of moving vehicles” is 14 feet.  The lanes in St. Augustine are not 14 feet wide, except on the west side of the Bridge of Lions and about 100 feet of the northbound wide curb lane on US 1 at San Carlos.  Maybe others, but most are less than 12 feet, particularly in old town.

FDOT Plans Preparation Manual

Chapter 8 – Bicycle Facilities

Section 8.4.3 Wide Curb Lanes

Wide outside curb lanes are through lanes which provide a minimum of 14 feet in width. This width allows most motor vehicles to pass cyclists within the travel lane, which is not possible in more typical 10-12 foot wide travel lanes.

If you are using another roadway to avoid the light, you are violating this statute:

s. 316.074 - Obedience to and Required Traffic Control Devices

(2) No person shall drive any vehicle from a roadway to another roadway to avoid obeying the indicated traffic control indicated by such traffic control device.

See also:

http://flbikelaw.org/2011/06/queue-jumping-bicyclists/

Gary asked: This is in regards to a column, Dr. Delay, in a newspaper.

The article states:

Who has right of way? Bicycle or car?

Reader wrote to the Doc about an incident she recently observed involving a bicycle and a car. She posed a question about right of way:

“Assume a bike and a car are traveling in the same direction in the same lane. As they approach an intersection, the traffic light is green. They reach the corner at the same time, with the bike on the outside of the car. The bike rider wants to continue on through the intersection, but the person driving the car wants to turn right. Who has the right of way? I saw this scenario this week. I don’t know if the car signaled, but the alert bike rider gave way for the car and then proceeded through the intersection. It scared me to think what could have happened. I have seen bikes approach a red light and not even stop. This is especially stupid if a car turns right on red. What is the correct thing to do?”

Doc’s answer:

The first problem with this scenario is the third sentence (“They reach the corner at the same time, with the bike on the outside of the car”). Cyclists are by law expected to behave in traffic as they would were they driving a car or motorcycle — they are not to be riding abreast of any vehicle in a single lane (bike or car or motorcycle, etc.). So because the cyclist should not have been next to the car in the same lane it was appropriate that he/she gave way but the point of “Share the Road” is to truly share the road and make the same sound decisions when traveling on two wheels one would make while operating on four. And if it’s not cool to run a red light in your car, the same holds true when you’re on a bike.

I believe she has done a disservice to cyclists by telling the public the cyclist was wrong, when in my interpretation of the law, the motorist was overtaking the cyclist and must give 3 feet, and since the cyclist was not turning, would have the right-of-way.

If she was wrong, may I quote your response in a letter I will write to her.

Answer

The Doc is wrong for a number of reasons, and you are welcome to quote verbatim anything in this article.

I must note that the Doc is correct that cyclists have the same rights and duties as other drivers and running red lights is not legal for any driver. However, “Share the Road” does not necessarily mean yielding to other drivers.  It means riding legally and safely.  When doing so, it may “delay” other traffic, but it is not unlawful.  The question is not whether cars or bicycles have the right of way.  Both must comply with their legal responsibilities.

This is the classic “right hook” situation.

First, the doc is wrong by answering a question without having all the facts.  Is this a substandard-width lane or a wide curb lane?  Who is overtaking whom?  It isn’t possible to accurately answer the question without that information.

Next, the Doc states,

“…. because the cyclist should not have been next to the car in the same lane…. they are not to be riding abreast of any vehicle in a single lane (bike or car or motorcycle, etc.).”

I don’t know where the Doc got that, but it is absolutely wrong.  Two bicyclists cannot ride abreast under certain circumstances, but riding abreast of other vehicles is perfectly legal and is done all the time.  The statute that applies is:

s. 316.2065 – Bicycle Regulations

(6) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway may not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast may not impede traffic when traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing and shall ride within a single lane.

Let’s discuss lane width.  If the lane is wide enough for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to travel safely side by side (Minimum 14 feet according to the Department of Transportation) there is no reason they can’t do so.  It is not unlawful.

The article does not indicate that one was overtaking the other, but it is unlikely that they were travelling at exactly the same speed as they approached the intersection. One or the other is overtaking and passing at some point.  The overtaking driver must insure it is safe to do so. Motorists are required to safely pass no closer than three feet from a cyclist. s. 316.083

If the lane is less than 14 feet wide, it is a substandard-width lane and if they are both within the lane and traveling side by side, the overtaking driver is violating the statute.

For a full discussion of substandard-width lanes, see this post:

http://flbikelaw.org/2010/01/substandard-width-lanes-updated/

Let’s disregard the lane width issue, and assume they were traveling side by side at the same speed as they approached the intersection.  What are their respective responsibilities?

The cyclist is apparently keeping right and riding legally unless passing on the right, which may or may not be legal, depending on the circumstances such as lane width.

The motorist is required to keep as far to the right as is practicable when preparing for a right turn.  If the motorist has left enough room to the right for a bicyclist, even one passing on the right, is the motorist as far right as is practicable?   If the motorist can’t safely move as far right as is practicable to prepare for the right turn because the cyclist is present, the motorist must slow and yield, then move right.  s. 316.151

The motorist shall not drive from a direct course unless it can be done safely and without interfering with the safe operation of any vehicle. s. 316.085

The motorist may not move right or left upon a highway unless such movement can be done with reasonable safety. s. 316.155

A full discussion of right turns at intersections and safe cycling practices is at this post:

http://flbikelaw.org/2009/08/138/

You may want to suggest that Doc read these posts and refer readers to Ask Geo for accurate information about cycling.

Dana asked:  As more bicycles and riders enter our roadways and ride in traffic with motor vehicles, I am concerned that certain bike riders that I encounter seem to display a righteous indignance about the “3 foot law” when they are being overtaken by a car, but the same riders do not seem to think this law applies when traffic comes to a halt at traffic signal or intersection. I’ll describe a certain aggravating situation I have dubbed: “leap-frogging.”

For example: Two or more bike riders are riding abreast in the right lane of traffic on a multilane roadway in heavy traffic. Cars behind the bikes are unable to change lanes and safely pass because of the speed differential of traffic created by the impediment of slow-moving bikes in the right lane, versus the rapidly moving cars in the left lane. When an opening in traffic allows a car following the bikes to change lanes and safely pass the group of bikes in the left lane, all is well again until traffic reaches the next intersection or signal.

At the intersection, the cars stop and maintain their positions in line, while the group of cyclists break their lane-controlling two-abreast formation to overtake the stopped vehicles by narrowly passing between the cars to set themselves up at the head of the line of traffic waiting for the signal to change. They have now successfully, but illegally, leap-frogged the vehicle(s) that had safely and patiently overtaken them prior.

In other posts on your site, you have encouraged cyclists to get the license plate number of motor vehicles that have violated the 3 foot law, and to report that information to law enforcement (presumably so that the offender might receive a citation, and/or fine). However, in the leap-frogging situation, it is nearly impossible to identify the violating cyclist(s), because they do not display any identification or registration. Cyclists operate with nearly complete anonymity, and because of this, some cyclists extend this notion to being able to operate their vehicles on the roadway with impunity because they cannot be readily identified or reported to law enforcement for any alleged violations of the uniform traffic laws. Even if they are caught in the illegal act by law enforcement, and receive a citation, they do not suffer the same consequences as a motorist cited with a moving violation, that carries with it the consequences of “points” and/or increased insurance costs, etc.

My Question Is: How can laws be equally enforced against motorists and bicyclists when this unequal identification loophole for bikes exists, and where cyclists have no real fear of being identified by other vehicles, thus avoiding possible citation or punishment?

In my opinion, if cyclists have all of the rights and duties applicable to other drivers (i.e. pursuant to s. 316.2065 Fla. Stat.), then they should be burdened with the same duty to display a registration, as do other low-speed vehicles (See by analogy: s. 316.2122 Fla. Stat., which applies to low-speed motor vehicles). Allowing this double-standard under the law to endure, and the illegal behavior that it promotes with the leap-frogging members of the cycling population, will only serve to continue to increase the friction between the motoring and cycling communities, because of actual and perceived inequities.

I would encourage you to consider that the issue raised in my question falls squarely within one of your quoted maxims on your site:  ”Creating a safer and more hospitable environment for cycling requires law enforcement equity.”

Answer

Some of your comments have been cut for the sake of brevity.  I don’t believe they affect the main theme of your question.

Another name for this is queue-jumping, a common occurrence.  Under some circumstances, it may be unlawful.

s. 316.083 – Overtaking and Passing a Vehicle

(1) The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction …. shall pass to the left thereof at a safe distance.

s. 316.089 – Driving on Roadways Laned for Traffic - Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic, the following rules, in addition to all others consistent herewith, shall apply:

(1) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane

However, the “three foot “ law does not apply to bicyclists overtaking motor vehicles, only to other drivers (Including bicyclists) overtaking bicycles.

s. 316.083 continues:

The driver of a vehicle overtaking a bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle must pass the bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle at a safe distance of not less than 3 feet between the vehicle and the bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle.

Cyclists overtaking and passing on the right is not unlawful under certain circumstances, such as when the lane is wide enough to allow two lines of traffic.  That is not defined any further, indicating the problems with some of the statutes.

s. 316.084 – When Overtaking on the Right is Permitted

(1) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass on the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:

(b) Upon a street or highway with unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving traffic in each direction.

Cyclists may use a paved shoulder.  Drivers of motor vehicles may not.

Let’s assume this is a substandard-width lane with a curb and no paved shoulder.

Whether the cyclists are riding two abreast or single file in a substandard-width lane is inconsequential.  Motorists must change lanes to pass.  See Substandard-Width Lanes.

I certainly agree that this behavior is rude and unsafe.  It also is illogical.  Even if t is done within the laws, these cyclists have just passed and ticked off the drivers who will again be trying to pass them when the light changes.  Instead of using the normal traffic patterns of ebb and flow to their advantage by waiting until the traffic abates or waiting in line behind other drivers, they are endangering themselves and irritating the people who will be trying to pass them.

Obtaining information and reporting unlawful actions is encouraged for both cyclists and motorists.  Unfortunately, in many instances, cyclists claim their reports to law enforcement about non-criminal traffic violations are met with “Since we didn’t observe it, we can’t take action”.  Even recording a plate number does not help in many cases.  Having a license plate on a bicycle could be the same.

We encourage officers to cite violations by cyclists.  If all law enforcement would take violations of the laws about bicycling seriously and accurately cite all cyclists and motorists for infractions, we could make a big change to the roadway environment and greatly reduce the conflict, crashes, deaths and injuries.

The deaths and injuries of cyclists are frequently the result of their own illegal actions.

Continued reporting of violations can make law enforcement and other government officials aware of a chronic problem, which will eventually get attention and the locations that present problems can be identified.  Reporting violations is recommended for all roadway users.  Cycling groups usually ride the same routes on the same days.  Have you called the police when these incidents occur?

As you said, our purpose is “Creating a safer and more hospitable environment for cycling requires law enforcement equity.”  We do that by making information about the laws available for everyone to use for education and enforcement.

You are proposing a change to the laws, which may result from better education about the problems with the laws as they are written, but that is not the mission of this site.  We can only help educate users of this site about existing laws.

Licensing of bicyclists has been discussed for many years.  The Florida Bicycle Association has a legislative agenda to propose changes to the laws.  I will separately forward your suggestion to them for their consideration.  I will ask them to address it directly with you.

Rachel asked:  I was riding north on the southbound side of the bridge.  I feel safer because I can see the cars coming towards me.  I got stopped and was told I had to ride on the northbound.  What is the law on which side of the road to ride?

Answer

Cyclists are operating vehicles and are required to travel in the same direction as other drivers when in the roadway.

s. 316.2065 – Bicycle Regulations

(1) Every person propelling a vehicle by human power has all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle….

s. 316.081 Driving on Right Side of Roadway; Exceptions

(1) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway….

There are many reasons for the laws as they are written.  It has been well documented that it is much safer to be traveling in the same direction as other traffic.  Drivers do not expect to see vehicles coming toward them on the right and do not have as much time to react.  Riding against traffic is particularly dangerous at intersections and driveways.  Signs and signals may not be visible.  Drivers preparing to enter the roadway frequently do not look to the right.

The relative closure rate for a bicyclist traveling at 15 mph and a motor vehicle at 35 mph in the same direction is 20 mph.  If traveling in opposite directions, the closure rate is 50 mph.

Even though cyclists on sidewalks are not required to ride in the same direction as roadway traffic , the same hazards (And many others) are present.

Empty parking lane on Corrine Drive in Orlando

KC Asked: It seems clear to me that cyclists are not required to ride in an empty parking lane, but how is that defined in terms of as far right as practicable?

Answer

If the lane is not marked as a parking space, it would be part of the roadway and the normal rules about the roadway apply.

There is no statute that says, “Vehicle operators shall not drive in a marked parking space”.  However, the statutes do discuss traffic control devices.

The traffic control devices that have been adopted for use by the Department of Transportation are those of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).  A parking space marking is a traffic control device.

MUTCD

Section 3B.19 – Parking Space Markings

Marking of parking space boundaries encourages more orderly and efficient use of parking spaces where turnover is substantial.  Parking space markings tend to prevent encroachment into fire hydrant zones, bus stops, loading zones, approaches to intersections, curb ramps, and clearance spaces for islands and other zones where parking is restricted.

Drivers are required to obey any traffic control device.

FS 316.074 – Obedience to and Required Traffic Control Devices

(1) The driver of any vehicle shall obey the instructions of any official traffic control device ….

In some cases, the statutes are specific about the required actions, such as that directing the use of a marked lane for its designated purpose.  This statute directs drivers to use lanes designated for a particular direction, a right-turn only lane for example.

FS 316.089 – Driving on Roadways Laned for Traffic

(3) Official traffic control devices may be erected directing specified traffic to use a designated lane or designating lanes to be used by traffic moving in a particular direction ….

Another statute tells drivers of slower vehicles where they are required to drive.

FS 316.081 – Driving on Right Side of Roadway; Exceptions

(2) Upon all roadways, any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic …. 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.

A fact that a lane is marked for parking indicates its purpose and that it is not a “lane then available for traffic”.

Although the parking lane might be part of the roadway, we are still required to obey all traffic control devices.  We are prohibited from using a right-turn-only lane for through traffic.  Similarly, we are prohibited from using a parking lane as a lane then available for traffic.

We would not expect a motor vehicle operator to drive in a parking lane.  There should be no expectation that any other driver, such as a bicyclist with all the rights and duties of other drivers, would do so.