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.

In reference to the substandard-width lane:  As you know, I work on A1A which is a substandard-width lane roadway. The speed limit is 35 miles per hour and there is a no passing zone. If a bike rider was riding single or double and not maintaining the normal flow of traffic would this be a violation?
If not, could you please explain where you are getting your legal opinion for this statute?

Answer:

I will address this in three separate posts.

1. Is this a violation? In this post.
2. No passing zone.
3. Legal basis for this site.

It appears that we have crossed messages and you haven’t seen the previous post about bicyclists riding abreast and impeding traffic.  I believe that answers most of the question, but I will add the following:

There doesn’t seem to be any question about the single cyclist taking the lane in a substandard-width lane.  The statute is quite clear that in that case the cyclist is not required to keep right, even if other traffic is impeded.

If two cyclists are impeding traffic while riding abreast in a wide outside lane (14 feet minimum width), it is a violation and they should keep right and single up.

Now imagine a single cyclist taking the lane in a narrow lane and a second cyclist riding ten feet behind or ten feet ahead, but not exactly abreast, or one behind the other.  They are not riding abreast, and may be legally impeding traffic.  If they move alongside each other they are now riding abreast, and impeding traffic exactly as they were before.  If the phrase in the statute is taken out of context, and the intent of the statute is not considered, some might conclude that a violation has occurred.  Common sense would dictate otherwise.

Two cyclists riding abreast in a narrow lane are impeding traffic, but no more than the single cyclist taking the lane.

This is an example of the statutes being written without clearly considering and accounting for all possible circumstances.  I believe this is one that needs to be clarified.

Writing citations that are based on such a tenuous interpretation of one phrase the statute and disregarding the intent of the statute would not seem to be an effective use of an officer’s valuable time.  There are plenty of opportunities to cite illegal acts that might result in cyclists and motorists being endangered.  Illegal passing is one of the most common and most dangerous on narrow roadways.

The lane is not wide enough for two vehicles (bike and car) and a cyclist takes the lane.  Since the cyclist takes the whole lane, can cyclists now ride double without being in violation of impeding traffic?

Answer:

That’s a great question, and one that is easily misunderstood.  Your question is short, but to adequately answer is lengthy, so please bear with me.  One part of the statute can be taken out of context, and applied literally, without considering the intent of the statute.  The appropriate paragraph is:

FS 316.2065 (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.

Good work on your assessment of the first part.  A substandard-width lane, which is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side-by-side, a minimum width of 14 feet, is one of the specific exceptions to the “keep right” provisions in FS 316.2065, Bicycle Regulations.

A single cyclist impeding traffic in a narrow lane, and many other circumstances, may be entirely legal.   In many situations is also the safest option for cyclists.  “Taking the lane” in substandard-width lanes discourages motor vehicle operators from attempting to pass in an unsafe and illegal manner.  The farther a cyclist is to the right in narrow lanes, the closer and more dangerous the pass by motor vehicles.  Impatient and illegal unsafe passing endangers not only the cyclist, but possibly the overtaking driver and oncoming traffic.

OPD Officer, Bill Edgar, rides two-abreast with Mighk Wilson on Robinson St in downtown Orlando.

The purpose of the statute is to safely facilitate traffic flow.  If cyclists riding two-abreast are not impeding traffic, they are in compliance with the law.  That can happen in a number of ways.

Note that cyclists in a bike lane may ride two, three, or more abreast.

The statute specifies “traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic”, so if the cyclists riding abreast are traveling at the “normal speed of traffic” or faster, they are within the law.

Obviously, if there is no other traffic, they are not impeding anyone.

If they are on a multi-lane roadway in either a narrow lane or a wide outside lane, and traffic can easily change lanes to pass, they are ok also.  They are not impeding traffic.

Even if the roadway is a single wide lane in each direction, if there is no on-coming traffic, two cyclists riding double are not impeding traffic, since overtaking traffic can easily move to the on-coming lane to pass.

The statute does not clearly state it, but if one cyclist is legally impeding traffic in a narrow lane, and a second cyclist is riding alongside, the two of them are not impeding traffic more than the single cyclist.  They are complying with the intent of the law.

To strictly meet the letter of the law, they would single up and ride one behind the other while taking the lane.

So does it matter if the are riding two-abreast or singled up and taking the lane in that situation?  They are riding safely.  The impact on traffic is the same.  Other drivers must wait until a safe and legal opportunity to pass.

The only situation in which the “impeding traffic” part of this statute is truly violated when cyclists are riding two-abreast is when:

• they are in a lane which is 14 feet wide, and
• traveling slower than the “normal speed of traffic”, and
• there is no means of easily overtaking and passing by changing lanes.

In that case, the cyclists should single up and “keep right”

Officers should insure they are fully versed in the statute and understand all of the possible combinations above and exercise their discretion to insure that the statutory intent of safe and reasonable traffic flow is fulfilled.

One last point:  Note that the statute says “Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway”.  The paved shoulder is not part of the roadway by statutory definition, so that must be taken into consideration when evaluating this situation.