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.

Frank asked:  In Florida, weren’t they SUPPOSED to put out Bicycles May Use Full Lanes signs EVERYWHERE in 2011 that had roads that have “substandard-width” lanes, meaning too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side in the same lane?  They actually had that information on TV in 2010!  Whatever happened to that?  I would love to know where I can go to suggest that they actually do that!

Answer

The BMUFL signs and Sharrows roadway markings were adopted by the FDOT in January 2011 and as far as I know have been installed in three locations in FL.  I am not aware of an announcement that they would be installed in all locations in which there are substandard-width lanes, which according to FDOT, are less than 14 feet wide (and do not have marked bike lanes.)

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.

About 95% (My estimate) of roadways without bike lanes in FL have single or outside lanes that are less than 14 feet wide.  Paved shoulders are not part of the roadway in the statutes, and bicyclists may use them but are not required to do so.

s. 316.003 – Definitions

(42) Roadway – That portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder.

Anyone interested in such signs and roadway markings in other locations should contact their local municipality, county or FDOT roadway representatives, or their local county Bicycle/Pedestrians Advisory Committee.

This is an announcement that was made by FDOT regarding Sharrows that were installed on the Bridge of Lions in St. Augustine.  BMUFL signs were also installed.

February 17, 2012

New pavement marking to promote bicycle awareness to be placed on State Road A1A in St. Augustine

“Shared Lane Pavement Marking” to be installed on the Bridge of Lions

St. Augustine –The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) will be installing a new traffic control feature known as the “Sharrow” or “Shared Lane Pavement Marking” on State Road A1A in St. Augustine on the Bridge of Lions to bring awareness to expect bicycle riders.

Sharrows are used on narrow roadways where a full bike lane will not fit and there is not enough room for a car to pass a bicycle with the required 3-foot passing width. In this case, it is necessary for a bicyclist to “take the lane” and ride in front of motorists, rather than beside them.  Bicyclists who are uncomfortable riding in traffic can still ride on the bridge sidewalk, as long as they yield to pedestrians.

The Sharrow:

• Enhances the safe travel of bicycles and motor vehicles in the same traffic lane.
• Helps position bicyclists on narrow lanes, where cars and bikes cannot travel side-by-side safely.
• Alerts motorists to where bicycles may use the full lane, as Florida law allows.
• Tells bicyclists where to safely ride and alerts motorists where to expect bicycles.
• Guides bicyclists to a safe position next to parking lanes, outside the “door zone,” where a parked car’s opened door may hit bicyclists.
• Encourages safe passing.
• Reduces wrong-way bicycling.

The FDOT, along with the City of St. Augustine and the North Florida Transportation Planning Organization, promotes the use of Sharrows to enhance safe bicycling and to bring awareness of bicyclists’ right to ride in the road.

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/

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.)

s. 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.