Sec. 551.103. Operation on Roadway.
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:
(1) the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;
(2) the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway; or
(3) a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway.
(4) the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:(A) less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or
(B) too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.
Ladies and gentlemen, that makes bike lanes mandatory. If there is one, you may not use the travel lane, but must use the gutter lane.
I just returned from a weekend in a Texas city renowned for its bike lanes and "bicycle-friendly" reputation. The weather was beautiful. As usual, I saw no one in the bike lanes away from the downtown/campus area (big institution of "higher" education). I did see one cyclist straddling the outside stripe of a bike lane, and two runners jogging against traffic in a bike lane.
But what I did see (but my family wouldn't let me get out and collect specimens of and/or document... "Don't do that! You might get arrested for mocking their bike lanes!") was a three foot wide "bike lane", including a one foot gutter pan, making it a two foot wide bike lane. The "lane" was filled with straw, glass, car parts, and torn down signs. The road was a fairly narrow, heavily trafficked (by cars and trucks) six lane divided thoroughfare, named something like "Massacre Road". It was posted 40 and 45 MPH. Where it was 45, it narrowed to two 11' lanes, with no bike lane. Cyclists appeared to be expected to use the sidewalk (and I did see one casual cyclist on the sidewalk).
BFMA (Bike Friendly, My Arse).
7 comments:
Sounds like you were on Slaughter Lane in South Austin. This town really likes to get high on how a lot of people like to cycle here and then kinda drop the ball on the law and administration side. According to my parents, in the late 70s and early to mid 80s this town was an absolute dream for cycling. Half the size and no suburbs. Many of the older bike lanes date to the 70s and since the population was less, the traffic congestion was effectively nonexistent. This city is currently an example of how bad suburban and exurban development control can really screw you over in the long haul.
A said...
"Sounds like you were on Slaughter Lane in South Austin."
It pains me call that area "South Austin".
I was in Austin in the mid '70s when the first bike lanes were installed. Killed two cyclists the first year because cars were allowed to park in them.
Say "Hi!" to your folks for me. Tell 'em I managed Dobie Screens at the time. The Shakey's Pizza on Guadalupe had a sign out that said, "Wed. Nite All-U-Can Eat! (except bicyclists)". Wasn't really all that bike-friendly then, either.
You pinpoint the problem I've been fighting since the late '80s with people like Andy Clarke, that location-specific solutions (i.e. bicycle control devices) are divorced from general reality in a broader context. I used to struggle with that until I fell upon (literally?) Forester's Dictum.
I can't believe you saw through my clever subterfuge about Slaughter Lane. ;)
Read the entire law that you quoted. It's not quite so bad.
If some hazard makes riding next to the curb or edge of the roadway dangerous, you don't have to. Gravel in the bike lane? That counts.
`Too narrow for a bicycle and motor vehicle to safely travel side by side' ... if the bike lane is too narrow (Slaughter creek should qualify!) then you can take the lane.
Really, 551.103.a3 and 4[ab] gives you a lot of leeway to make judgement calls. If you can't find something in a3, 4a or 4b that indicates that you can take the lane, perhaps you should go ahead and take the bike lane.
dougmc said...
"Read the entire law that you quoted. It's not quite so bad."
Believe me, I have.
When a police officer pulls you over, he will stop at (A). A Judge may or may not decide that the "roadway" refers to bike lanes (historically, they haven't). The leeway you describe resides with the officer's interpretation, not with the cyclist. 551.103.a.4.A can be seen to stand alone, with the exceptions listed under a.1-3 being excluded.
I have never found laws that are "vague and/or open to interpretation" to side with bicyclists in cases like this. As they say, "You can beat the rap, but not the walk." YMMV (and I hope it does).
We work to interpret the law in our favor... and provide that interpretation to law enforcement
But that's only a stop-gap. Cyclist advocates really need to work to have the far-right bicycle laws removed. It has been done in Pennsylvania and will soon be done in Ohio. The basic law for all slow-moving vehicles is sufficient, the bicycle-specific version is a discriminatory redundancy written for the purpose of getting us out of the way.
Keri said...
"Cyclist advocates really need to work to have the far-right bicycle laws removed."
Personally, I think that would have a far more beneficial impact than the "3-feet Passing Clearance" law they have been pushing for. Does the proposed 3-feet law law apply to cyclists as well (cyclists can't pass other cyclists with less than 3' clearance)? If not, then it's another justification for the belief that bicycles aren't really vehicles, but road-going toys and sports equipment.
Yeah, the 3ft law is another redundancy. The overtaking law (in the UVC) already provides for safe passing clearance when overtaking another vehicle (it might even recommend 3 ft, I don't remember). Codifying 3ft as a minimum is idiotic. I don't want tractor trailer to pass me with only 3ft of clearance. Nor a Honda Civic going 70mph. But I may allow a motorist to slither past at slow speed with a little less than 3ft, if conditions warrant.
That said, I know the crash investigators and expert witnesses like it because it gives them a "tool" to use against motorists who claim a cyclist "swerved" in front of them.
But otherwise, it's another thing for gutter-bunnies to whine about. No law is going to stop the mindless squeeze-through that happens when a cyclist rides too far right. Motorists cannot resist that. There is no thought-process involved, it's just impulse.
Post a Comment