NE2 asked:  Why is 14 feet the accepted minimum for a “substandard-width” lane.  Florida Statute 316.515(1) says that a vehicle may be 102 inches (8.5 feet) wide, not including safety devices (e.g. mirrors). I don’t know how far mirrors are allowed to stick out, but I would assume at least 6 inches on each side. With a 3 foot passing clearance, that leaves only 1.5 feet for the bike in a 14-foot lane, certainly not enough for safe operation.

Answer

You have correctly cited the applicable statute.

s. 316.515 – Maximum Width, Height, Length

(1) Width Limitation – The total outside width of any vehicle or the load thereon may not exceed 102 inches, exclusive of safety devices determined by the department to be necessary for the safe and efficient operation of motor vehicles.

Vehicles that are even wider may be encountered on the roadways.  It is not realistic to try to define a substandard-width lane based on the widest vehicle that could possibly be on the road.  Rather, it is defined based on the safety of the roadway users.

We must look at this question from the different perspectives of the cyclist and the overtaking driver.

A substandard width lane is defined in the bicycle regulations, and is one of the many conditions and circumstances that gives the cyclist the right to leave the right-most curb or edge of the roadway. I believe the intent of that provision is to allow a cyclist to control the lane and discourage unsafe passing within narrow lanes. Note that the statute does not specify the actual width of a substandard-width lane.

s.  316.2065 – Bicycle Regulations

(5)(a) 3. For the purposes of this subsection, a “substandard-width lane” is a lane too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

Without regard to the width of the lane, the burden for safety when overtaking and passing a bicyclist lies entirely with the overtaking driver if the cyclist is otherwise obeying the law.  The driver must pass at a safe distance, and no less than 3 feet.

s.  316.083 – Overtaking and Passing A Vehicle

(1) …. 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.

The driver of the overtaking vehicle must make the determination that it is safe before passing.  The driver of a Smart Car may be able to safely pass within a 12-foot wide lane if the cyclist is to the right.  The driver of the vehicle you describe in the question will have to wait until it is safe to change lanes to pass a cyclist in a lane that is 14 feet or even wider.

The width of 14 feet is derived from Florida Department of Transportation planning and design guidelines.  Note that they also indicate the 14 feet is the width that allows MOST motor vehicles to safely pass a cyclist while remaining within the lane.  Drivers of wider vehicles must change lanes to pass.

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.

Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance for Streets and Highways (Florida Greenbook)

Chapter 9 – Bicycle Facilities

B.3  Curb Lanes

Fourteen feet is the recommended lane width for shared use in a wide curb lane, and is the minimum width that will allow passenger cars to safely pass bicyclists within a single lane.

More detail of the various rights and responsibilities of roadway users can be found in the post on Substandard-Width Lanes.

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.

Colby Asked:  Concerning the Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs, is this actually Florida law as stated on the street signs? I am familiar with the MUTCD but not these particular signs.  If so, I am unclear on how the 3-foot passing law correlates with a “full lane” for passing.

Answer

The Jan. 2009 revision of the MUTCD includes the Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs, as well as Sharrows, which are road markings that encourage sharing the lane.  They were not in the 2003 version.  It will be formally adopted by FDOT on Jan.1, 2011.  In the meantime, they are revising their documents to reflect the changes.  When the BMUFL signs are posted, the statute that requires compliance relates to the requirement to obey all traffic control devices.

FS 316.074 - Obedience to and Required Traffic Control Device

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

The 3-foot statute is not linked in any way to the use of the full lane.  It is always the absolute minimum safe passing distance, no matter what the lane width might be.  We shouldn’t rely too much on that, since most motorists will already give more than that if we ride correctly.

FS 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, and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle. 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.

The use of the full lane is predicated on lane width.  Narrow lanes which are not wide enough for a motor vehicle and a bicycle to safely travel side by side within the lane are substandard-width lanes, and are unsafe conditions that allow cyclists to leave the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.  There is a full discussion of that at Substandard-Width Lanes.

It was similar to another citation about a year ago in another jurisdiction.  Both cases were nearly identical in the circumstances and the evidence presented by the bicyclists to the court.

The cases are notable because one cyclist was found guilty and the other the case was dismissed.  There were some differences in the situations.

Both cyclists were advised to write to the department, retain counsel, and file a motion to dismiss before the court date.  The cyclist who was found guilty chose to proceed without counsel.

The other retained counsel and filed a motion to dismiss, which was decided in his favor before the court date.

I believe that the time and proper setting of a pre-trial motion will enable full exploration of the circumstances, facilitating a better decision.   The environment in traffic court is not conducive to thorough examination of the laws and circumstances of a case.

In the upheld case, there was an allegation of rude and disrespectful conduct on the part of the cyclist. Although the cyclist denies such behavior, my uninformed opinion is that those allegations affected both the decision to award the citation and the court case. We should know that is not a positive way to impress an officer or the court, and should never be a part of our roadway interactions.

There were some minor differences in the circumstances.  One was a multi-lane roadway and the other was a roadway with one lane in each direction, which should have no bearing.  Both lanes were less than 12 feet wide.   Both met the substandard-width lane, unsafe condition exception to the “keep right” provisions of FS 316.2065 (5)(a)3.

Some of the statements allegedly made by officers in both cases stress the need for education about the laws.  The statements were reported by the cyclists and I have no way of verifying some of them. My guess is that they were accurate since I have heard other such reports that I know to be true.

In both cases, the officer indicated that the cyclist could not impede traffic.  The statute that generally addresses impeding traffic applies only to motor vehicles.  (In each of these cases, the cyclist was riding alone.  There is another statute that discusses impeding traffic while riding two abreast.  Please see the July 13, 2009 post in the archives.)

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

In the case in which the cyclist was found guilty, the officer indicated in court that there was a sidewalk that the cyclist could have been using, indicating ignorance of the rights of cyclists as operators of vehicles and the additional hazards of cyclists riding on sidewalks.

The cyclist read the substandard-width provision in the statutes, and a quote from the Department of Transportation about a wide curb lane being a minimum of 14 feet wide with narrower lanes being not wide enough for a motor vehicle to safely pass a bicycle within the same lane.

The officer stated that virtually all lanes in that city are less than 14 feet wide and cyclists would be able to ride in the center of the lane everywhere, which seems to imply that since that community has narrow roadways, Florida law does not apply.

About 90% (My estimate) of Florida roadways have lanes that are less than 14 feet wide.  I believe that was the intent of the “unsafe conditions” language in the Bicycle Regulations that allows a cyclist to leave the right side of the roadway and become more visible, thereby encouraging safe and legal overtaking and passing by motorists.

The statutes reflect and should encourage safe cycling practices.  In both cases, there is a lack of understanding of the principles of safe cycling, and that riding far right in a narrow lane encourages motorists to illegally and dangerously attempt to pass within the lane with oncoming traffic or conflicting traffic in the adjacent lane.

It is troubling that such similar cases could be decided so differently.  That does not bode well for education and enforcement of the laws about bicycling.

This is the second such case in that community that has resulted in a guilty verdict.  In neither case did the judge state how narrow a lane must be to be substandard-width, and therefore entitled to treatment as an unsafe condition under that provision of FS 316.2065, nor recognize cyclists’ discretion to do as the statutes say, avoid unsafe conditions.

Florida is among those states with the very highest casualties and some communities, including that with the upheld citations, have been repeatedly identified as those with “Mean Streets” in 2004 and more recently, “Dangerous By Design”.  We know from studying crash reports that a significant numbers of crashes result from cyclists riding too far right when they are not required to do so by law.  Cyclists need law enforcement and the courts to support their legal right to protect themselves from common crashes.

If the image of Florida as having the most dangerous communities in the U.S. is to change, we must begin by concern for safety over traffic flow.

The uniform understanding and application of the laws about bicycling in Florida will come from implementation of FBA’s Bicycle Law Enforcement Program.

SO, in essence, are we allowed to take any and all lanes (ride in the center) that are “substandard”, either single or double abreast?

Answer

See the January 19, 2010 post, “Substandard-Width Lanes (Updated).

The use of the terms “in essence” and “any and all” can almost always point to a negative answer to that question.  When you are taking a test and the question has the word “always” or “never” in it, what does that tell you?

The same applies here.

Please keep in mind that the stated purpose of this provision in the statute is to allow the cyclist to avoid unsafe conditions.  Complying with one statute that allows us to avoid one unsafe condition does not mean that we are immune to other conditions that might also be unsafe.

The use of the roadways by any user is a delicate balance between what is permitted and what is best for our safety and that of others.  The purpose of the language about “substandard-width lanes” allows cyclists to leave the right-most curb or edge of the roadway to avoid an unsafe condition.  It obviously would not be in the best interests of safety to avoid one hazard and subject ourselves or others to another unsafe condition.

The reality of the roadway is that all users are not always going to be in strict compliance with all statutes at all times.  We must factor that into our decisions when using one section of one statute that we think might benefit us.  We must balance the benefit derived from the act with the possible negative outcomes.

One example is a high speed roadway with a substandard-width lane, many large trucks and a good paved shoulder.  Simply because use the shoulder is not required, the cyclist may still want to consider all the options and follow the practices that will give the best chances of remaining safe.

Another factor we must consider is that we are sharing the roadway with others.  Just because a statute allows something does not mean it is necessarily the right thing to do.

If we must legally impede other traffic by leaving the right side of the roadway to remind overtaking drivers of their responsibilities and insure our safety, we may want to consider the inconvenience to others. One option we may want to consider is to pull off the roadway when it is safe to do so to allow traffic to proceed.  There is no Florida statute that requires that, but there are states that require cyclists to yield to backed up traffic under certain circumstances.

When your legal actions do cause others inconvenience, you may want to give a friendly wave as you move into a position that allows them to proceed, thanking them for their patience.

With reference to the two-abreast issue, please make sure you fully understand the statute.  All statutes are not perfect and do not fully address all possible circumstances.  That is addressed in the July 13, 2009 and July 15, 2009 posts in the archives.

What is a substandard-width lane, and what are the responsibilities of cyclists and motorists?

Answer:

This is a revision of the earlier post about substandard-width lanes.

I must admit, even after much study and discussion, I am only now becoming fully aware of the real implications of the provision in the Bicycle Regulations that allows a cyclist to leave the right edge of the roadway in a substandard-width lane.

The significance of the substandard-width lane provision in the statute is profound.  The majority of roadways in Florida are comprised of lanes that are less than 14 feet wide and as such are substandard-width lanes for most motor vehicles.

Some have indicated concern about the lack of clarity in the definition in the statutes.  I hope this helps.

As always, we welcome any formal legal opinions or case law, and comments and questions about any of the subjects.

Substandard-Width Lane

FS 316.2065 – Bicycle Regulations

(5)(a) 3. For the purposes of this subsection, a “substandard-width lane” is a lane too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

Since it is in Bicycle Regulations section, some assume it is only applicable to bicyclists.

Some also feel that the statute should state a finite measured width.

When the true intent of the statute is fully understood, it is easy to see why those are not correct.

There are no responsibilities imposed on the bicyclist by the substandard-width lane clause in statute.

There is however, great responsibility placed on motorists overtaking a bicyclist in a narrow lane.

The importance of substandard-width lanes does not apply to the lane position of a bicyclist.  It is simply the presence of the cyclist in the narrow lane that the motorist is overtaking, even if the cyclist is far to the right.  Whether the cyclist is far right, far left, or in the center of the lane, the requirements are the same.

The lane is too narrow for the motor vehicle to safely pass within the lane, the definition of substandard-width.

The motorist overtaking and passing a bicycle is responsible for insuring that it is safe, as when overtaking and passing any other vehicle.

In a lane that is NOT of substandard-width, that can be safely and legally accomplished while leaving the required safe distance of not less than three feet clearance.

FS 316.083 – Overtaking and Passing A Vehicle

(1) …. 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.

When passing a bicycle in a substandard-width lane, the motorist must at least partially change lanes to pass.

That cannot be done legally and safely if there is traffic in the adjacent lane.

On two-lane roadways, the opposite lane must be clear of on-coming traffic, and the overtaking motorists must be able to safely pass and return to the original before approaching within 200 feet of on-coming vehicles, including other bicycles.

FS 316.085 – Limitations on Overtaking, Passing, Changing Lanes and Changing Course

(1) No vehicle shall be driven to the left side of the center of the roadway in overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction …. unless such left side is clearly visible and free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance ahead to permit such overtaking and passing to be completely made without interfering with the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction of any vehicle overtaken.  In every event the overtaking vehicle must return to an authorized lane of travel as soon as practicable and, in the event the passing movement involves the use of a lane authorized for vehicles approaching from the opposite direction, before coming within 200 feet of any approaching vehicle.

On multi-lane roadways, that means they must insure the adjacent lane is clear of other traffic.

(2) No vehicle shall be driven from a direct course in any lane on any highway until the driver has determined that the vehicle is not being approached or passed by any other vehicle in the lane or on the side to which the driver desires to move and that the move can be made in complete safety and without interfering with the safe operation of any vehicle approaching from the same direction.

When the motorist is delayed due to the presence of a cyclist in a narrow lane, even if the cyclist is far to the right, the motorist’s progress is impeded.  That is not unlawful. (See separate topic on impeding traffic)

The only application of this section to a bicyclist is their need to insure their safety.   When confronted with any unsafe condition, a bicyclist is not required to keep right.

The presence of a substandard-width lane is specified as one of those unsafe conditions.

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

3. When reasonably necessary to avoid any condition, including, …. substandard-width lane …. that makes it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge.

The unsafe condition of substandard-width lanes is that drivers may unlawfully and dangerously attempt to pass within the lane or use the adjacent lane when there is conflicting traffic.   Although that practice subjects the overtaking motorist and the on-coming motorist to some danger, the bicyclist is the one most likely to suffer harm in those circumstances.

The provision in the Bicycle Regulations allows bicyclists to protect their space for their own safety.

The way they do that is to control the lane.  They are not required to keep right.  It is legal and it is the safest cycling practice under many circumstances.

Cyclists hugging the edge of the roadway are communicating to overtaking drivers that,

“There might be room to pass, even though it is unlawful and dangerous, but let’s give it a try and see how it works out.”

Too often, it doesn’t work out well for the bicyclist, the overtaking driver and a driver in the adjacent lane.

Moving into the center of the lane communicates to the overtaking driver,

“There is not room in this lane for you to safely pass within the lane.  Please wait until the adjacent lane is clear and change lanes to pass.”

It is simply a reminder to the overtaking motorist that they must fulfill the responsibilities that exist in the law to insure the adjacent lane is clear of other traffic before attempting to pass, and when passing, insure the required safe passing distance.

The statutes do not define the width of a substandard-width lane as a measurement.  Overtaking motorists are responsible for insuring there is adequate room when passing.  They must know the width of their own vehicles, the three-foot MINIMUM safe passing distance, and that cyclists require some physical space to safely operate.

The burden is on the overtaking motorist to insure that the pass can be safely accomplished.

The driver of very small motor vehicle may be able to pass safely within a 12-foot wide lane.  A truck with a wide load could require a lane that is 15 or more feet width to safely pass within the lane.

One way to determine the width of a lane that can be safely shared by a bicyclist and MOST motor vehicles is as follows:

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) states that 40 inches to five feet is the essential or desired operating space for a bicycle.

Chapter 1 Planning

The Bicycle

Bicyclists require at least 1.0 m (40 inches) of essential operating space based solely on their profile. An operating space of 1.2 m (4 feet) is assumed as the minimum width for any facility designed for exclusive or preferential use by bicyclists. Where motor vehicle traffic volumes, motor vehicle or bicyclist speed, and the mix of truck and bus traffic increase, a more comfortable operating space of 1.5 m (5 feet) or more is desirable.

Bicycle lanes are typically a minimum of 4-5 feet wide.

Most motor vehicles are 6-8 feet wide.

Allowing the MINIMUM 3.3 feet of safe operating space and MINIMUM 3 foot safe passing distance gives us about 14 feet, which is the MINIMUM width of a lane that is wide enough for MOST motor vehicles to safely pass a bicycle within the lane.

6-8 Feet + 3 Feet +3.5 Feet = Approximately 14 Feet

That does not consider that some additional width must be allocated to account for the fact that the motorist will not travel exactly on the centerline if there is on-coming traffic.

The Florida Department of Transportation recognizes the importance of lane width in the safety of all roadway users and has established standards that reflect the figures above.  The standard for all new construction on state roadways is to install 4-5 foot MINIMUM width bicycle lanes.  Wide curb lanes of 14 feet in width are only allowed for repaving projects where bicycle lanes are not practical.

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. Wide curb lanes do not meet Departmental requirements for bicycle facilities on new construction or reconstruction projects.  However, in some conditions, such as RRR projects, they may be the only practical option for a bicycle facility.

Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance for Streets and Highways (Florida Greenbook)

Chapter 9 – Bicycle Facilities

B.3            Curb Lanes

In restricted urban conditions, where it is not possible to include bike lanes or paved shoulders or on lower volume collector streets, an outside lane wider than 12 feet can help accommodate both bicycles and motor vehicles in the same lane. Fourteen feet is the recommended lane width for shared use in a wide curb lane, and is the minimum width that will allow passenger cars to safely pass bicyclists within a single lane.

The Florida Department of Transportation does not use the term “substandard-width lane”, but uses similar language to describe lane width, safe passing of a bicyclist within the lane.

It is noteworthy that FDOT standards consider MOST vehicles.  It is unrealistic to expect the roadways to be built to accommodate the optimum desires of all users.  The expense would be too great.

It is also unrealistic to expect the statutes to be written to include a measured lane width that would provide for all circumstances.  In the case of the definition of substandard-width lanes, if there were to be a measured width of a lane that would be wide enough to permit ALL vehicles to safely travel side-by side with a bicycle, the lane would have to be wide enough for busses and large trucks, for which the design standard width is 8.5 feet.

FS 316.515 – Maximum Width, Height, Length

(1) Width Limitation – The total outside width of any vehicle or the load thereon may not exceed 102 inches, exclusive of safety devices …. The total outside width of a noncommercial travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, or private coach …. may be more than 102 inches ….

8.5+3+ 3.5 = 15 Feet MINIMUM WIDTH

Trucks with permits for wide loads could require even greater lane width, and that is not determined.  Along with the added necessary distance from the centerline, that would certainly mean a lane of 16 feet or more.  Virtually all lanes can be substandard-width lanes under certain circumstances.

If a bicyclist is traveling in a 14-15 foot wide curb lane and observes a very wide truck approaching from behind, the safest thing to do may be to move to the center of the lane to remind the driver of the legal responsibility to wait until it is safe to pass.

What is important?

• The burden for safety in passing bicycles lies entirely on the motor vehicle operator, as is the case with all passing situations with other vehicles.

• The motorist is responsible for knowing that their vehicle and a bicycle can safely travel within a lane, and if not change lanes to pass.

• Drivers cannot pass a bicyclist within the lane if it is unsafe and they cannot provide the minimum of three feet.

• If the adjacent lane is not clear, they must wait.

• Bicyclists can leave the right side of the roadway to avoid any unsafe condition.

• Substandard-width lanes are specified in the statutes as unsafe conditions.

• Experienced and educated bicyclists are not going to intentionally place themselves in positions that would endanger them.

• Educated and experienced bicyclists know that riding far right encourages unsafe and illegal passing within the substandard-width lane.

The significance of the substandard-width lane provision in the statute is profound.  The majority of roadways in Florida are comprised of lanes that are less than 14 feet wide and as such are substandard-width lanes for most, but not all, motor vehicles.

The statute recognizes the facts of life; that all roadways cannot be built to accommodate unrestricted use by all users under all conditions.  Some restrictions on some users are inevitable.  Slower moving traffic may legally impede other traffic under certain circumstances.  Motor vehicle operators who attempt to pass within a substandard-width lane endanger bicyclists, themselves and others.

Bicyclists who stay far to the right in such lanes give the false impression that there is room to attempt to pass and encourage illegal and dangerous passing.  The laws allow the cyclist to move away from the right side of the lane to control the lane and the situation, become more visible, and encourage the motorist to wait for a safe opportunity to move into the adjacent lane to pass.

The statute does not specify the responsibility of the motorist, but it is clear that a driver overtaking and passing a bicyclist in a substandard-width lane must at least partially use the adjacent lane.  If there is on-coming traffic in a two-lane roadway, or if there is other traffic that would be impacted in a multi-lane roadway, the motorist must wait.

The desired progress of the motorist in this case is impeded, but legally so.

There is no statute that gives roadway users the right to travel at the speed they desire at all times.

There is also no statute that allows unsafe passing.  Passing a bicyclist within a substandard-width lane is unsafe and illegal.