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.

Sondra asked:  What would be the proper position for a cyclist when she approaches traffic on a busy street?  Can she continue on the right edge (and pass the automobiles) until she reaches the intersection and go ahead if the signal permits?

Answer:

Please see the two related August 21 posts in the archives.

Although the laws seem to permit passing on the right if there is room for two lines of traffic, along with other conditions, it usually isn’t recommended at intersections. You can set yourself up for a right hook at the intersection.

You should determine the safest time to leave the right side of the roadway and position yourself in the travel lane.  In that position you are more visible and motorists are not encouraged to try to pass.  Drivers should move as far to the right on the roadway as is practicable to prepare for the right turn, as is required by the statutes.

Although it isn’t specified in the statutes, since the preponderance of crashes occur at intersections and a number of statutes are directed at drivers entering intersections, an intersection would seem to be one of the “any unsafe conditions” that allow cyclists to leave the right side of the roadway.  One example is:

FS 316.183 – Special Hazards

The fact that the speed of a vehicle is lower than the prescribed limits shall not relieve the driver from the duty to decrease speed when approaching and crossing an intersection …. and speed shall be decreased as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance ….

After you fall in behind other traffic entering the intersection and move through the intersection past the danger point of right-turning vehicles, you can then return to the right side of the roadway if it is otherwise appropriate.

Cecelia asked:  I need further clarification on F.S. 316.2065(5)(a)(1). I understand that the statute states a bicyclist may leave the right-most portion of the road when passing, as well as in the other given situations. However, my question is exactly where is the bicyclist supposed to ride when exercising this right? The statute does not seem to address this.

Answer:

You are correct that the statute does not say where in the lane a cyclist can and should ride when not required to keep right.

FS 316.2065 –Bicycle Regulations

(1) Every person propelling a vehicle by human power has all the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under this chapter, except as to special regulations in this chapter, and except as to provisions in this chapter which by their nature can have no application.

(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 as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

1.  When overtaking and passing another bicycle or 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 any condition, including, but not limited to, a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, animal, surface hazard, or substandard-width lane, that makes it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge.  For the purpose of this subsection, 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 issue is normally cyclists impeding other traffic.

Although not specifically stated, the primary purpose of this section seems to be to require the cyclist to allow efficient traffic flow as long as the cyclist can do so in safety.  It appears to give the cyclist the discretion to react to situations that might be hazardous.

Note that the statute uses the term “reasonably necessary”, and not absolutely necessary.

Since the statute does not place any further restrictions on the lane position of the cyclist, the apparent intent is to allow the cyclist to use as much of the lane as is required to assure safety.  It does not address the impact on other traffic, and does not prohibit impeding other traffic.

In fact, other than the provision in the Bicycle Regulations, paragraph (6), that mentions cyclists impeding traffic when riding abreast, there is no statutory limitation on bicyclists impeding traffic when otherwise riding legally.

The only other statute that mentions vehicles impeding traffic applies only to “motor vehicles”, the statutory definition of which specifically excludes bicycles.

FS 316.183 – Unlawful Speed

(5) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

Note that a slow-moving motor vehicle can legally impede other traffic when necessary for safe operation.  That is the same stipulation that allows cyclists to leave the right side of the roadway, thereby impeding other traffic in some cases, when otherwise operating legally.  Safety clearly is paramount, with traffic flow secondary.

There is no restriction in the statutes on the lane position of a cyclist when not required to keep right.

There is a good discussion of cyclists legally impeding traffic in a training program for officers published by the National Highway Transportation Administration.  To order a copy of the video on CD-ROM, FAX your request to: 301-386-2194.

Since it is a national program, it does not discuss detailed state law.  The FBA Bicycle Law Enforcement Program will do that.  The first part should be available in early 2010.