Comments on: Is a Bikelane part of the Roadway? http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bikelane-roadway/ Cycling, traffic safety and legal topics; energy, transit and transportion economics Thu, 17 May 2012 18:20:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: M. Sanders http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bikelane-roadway/comment-page-1/#comment-15068 M. Sanders Sat, 14 Apr 2012 15:56:39 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bikelane-roadway/#comment-15068 In a message I received from Florida bicycle program manager, Dwight Kingsbury: I think California may be the only state that explicitly clarifies that a motorist may enter a bike lane to comply with the basic requirement (included in most state codes) that “Both the approach for a right-hand turn and a right-hand turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway” (CVC 22100, http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22100.htm ). The clarification is made in CVC 21209 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21209.htm ): “ (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in a bicycle lane established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207 except as follows: […] (2) To enter or leave the roadway. (3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection.” Consistent with this, California MUTCD 9C.04 (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/pdf/camutcd2012/Part9.pdf ) recommends (P19) that “Where there is no right turn only lane and right turns are permitted, the solid stripe should terminate 100 feet to 200 feet prior to the intersection.” Option (P20) allows BL to be dashed up to or “near” the intersection, instead of being terminated. Most other state codes simply set forth the basic rule for making a right turn, as quoted by Michael Sanders (see below), and mention no exception where a bike lane is marked. By implication, then, a right-turning motorist is to enter a bike lane marked on intersection approach, as necessary to comply with the basic rule. Reasons for the basic rule are several: (1) helps indicate motorist’s intention to turn right, even if they neglect to signal, thereby reducing risk of right-hook crash with cyclist or rear-end collision with an overtaking motorist; (2) moves turning motorist a little out of the through traffic stream, making it easier for a closely following motorist to pass with less risk of rear-ending or sideswiping the turning motorist; (3) requires turning motorist to choose an appropriate point to enter bike lane in advance of the intersection, rather than proceed directly to the intersection and then try to sort out, at the last moment, whether any approaching cyclist is sufficiently distant that it would be safe to turn right (or, alternatively, simply come to a dead stop in the intersection, wait for cyclist to pass, and risk being rear-ended). ********************************************** In Arizona, "Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway" http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/00751.htm. When right-turning vehicles merge, it minimizes or eliminates the risk of the "right hook" crash. Refer to our “Share the Road” guide (http://www.azbikeped.org/images/adot%20STR061208.pdf, pp. 32 & 48). In a message I received from Florida bicycle program manager, Dwight Kingsbury:

I think California may be the only state that explicitly clarifies that a motorist may enter a bike lane to comply with the basic requirement (included in most state codes) that “Both the approach for a right-hand turn and a right-hand turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway” (CVC 22100, http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22100.htm ). The clarification is made in CVC 21209 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21209.htm ):

“ (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in a bicycle lane established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207 except as follows:

[…]

(2) To enter or leave the roadway.

(3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection.”

Consistent with this, California MUTCD 9C.04 (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/pdf/camutcd2012/Part9.pdf ) recommends (P19) that “Where there is no right turn only lane and right turns are permitted, the solid stripe should terminate 100 feet to 200 feet prior to the intersection.” Option (P20) allows BL to be dashed up to or “near” the intersection, instead of being terminated.

Most other state codes simply set forth the basic rule for making a right turn, as quoted by Michael Sanders (see below), and mention no exception where a bike lane is marked. By implication, then, a right-turning motorist is to enter a bike lane marked on intersection approach, as necessary to comply with the basic rule.

Reasons for the basic rule are several:

(1) helps indicate motorist’s intention to turn right, even if they neglect to signal, thereby reducing risk of right-hook crash with cyclist or rear-end collision with an overtaking motorist;

(2) moves turning motorist a little out of the through traffic stream, making it easier for a closely following motorist to pass with less risk of rear-ending or sideswiping the turning motorist;

(3) requires turning motorist to choose an appropriate point to enter bike lane in advance of the intersection, rather than proceed directly to the intersection and then try to sort out, at the last moment, whether any approaching cyclist is sufficiently distant that it would be safe to turn right (or, alternatively, simply come to a dead stop in the intersection, wait for cyclist to pass, and risk being rear-ended).

**********************************************

In Arizona, “Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway” http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/00751.htm. When right-turning vehicles merge, it minimizes or eliminates the risk of the “right hook” crash. Refer to our “Share the Road” guide (http://www.azbikeped.org/images/adot%20STR061208.pdf, pp. 32 & 48).

]]> By: azbikelaw http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bikelane-roadway/comment-page-1/#comment-11983 azbikelaw Wed, 28 Dec 2011 00:36:01 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bikelane-roadway/#comment-11983 Derek -- I think you've identified a conflict for right-turning motorists between those two laws. Perhaps the reason is that the generic method of turning law (<a href="http://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00751.htm" rel="nofollow">28-751</a>) is presumably as old as the hills and pre-dated any bike-lane specific laws... and that it simply has never been reconciled. By the way, in Phoenix, they tend to simply discontinue the bike lane stripe the last 50 feet (which really isn't enough room for usual car-speeds) at each intersection. And in any case, the solid line continues past driveways; leaving drivers in right-turn merge limbo. Appaerntly the traffic folks call this a "broken" line... Here is some general deifintions about what white lines versus broken lines mean from <a href="http://azbikelaw.org/blog/the-mutcd-and-a-r-s/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">MUTCD</a> <a href="http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part3/part3b.htm#section3B04 " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">3b.04</a> The broken line detail is clearly shown in the <a href="http://azbikelaw.org/blog/aashto-guide-for-the-development-of-bicycle-facilities/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">AASHTO bike design guide</a>. Also interesting is the draft guide (also at that link) has a useful shout-out about dashed line and state laws. Derek — I think you’ve identified a conflict for right-turning motorists between those two laws. Perhaps the reason is that the generic method of turning law (28-751) is presumably as old as the hills and pre-dated any bike-lane specific laws… and that it simply has never been reconciled.

By the way, in Phoenix, they tend to simply discontinue the bike lane stripe the last 50 feet (which really isn’t enough room for usual car-speeds) at each intersection. And in any case, the solid line continues past driveways; leaving drivers in right-turn merge limbo.

Appaerntly the traffic folks call this a “broken” line…
Here is some general deifintions about what white lines versus broken lines mean from MUTCD 3b.04
The broken line detail is clearly shown in the AASHTO bike design guide. Also interesting is the draft guide (also at that link) has a useful shout-out about dashed line and state laws.

]]> By: Derek http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bikelane-roadway/comment-page-1/#comment-11980 Derek Tue, 27 Dec 2011 22:55:58 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bikelane-roadway/#comment-11980 M. Sanders quoted ARS 28-751 that says right turns should be made from the right edge of the roadway, but ARS 28-815 says motorists can't drive in the bike lane. I'm told a motorist is legally allowed to enter the bike lane when the white stripe is broken, or that it's no longer a bike lane when the white stripe is broken. This last definition, if true, is the only one I can think of that would prevent 28-751 and 28-815 from conflicting. But I don't have a definitive source for this definition. (Anyone care to help?) However, merging into the bike lane in such a short distance (the length of the broken white line) creates a very dangerous situation for bicyclists. M. Sanders quoted ARS 28-751 that says right turns should be made from the right edge of the roadway, but ARS 28-815 says motorists can’t drive in the bike lane. I’m told a motorist is legally allowed to enter the bike lane when the white stripe is broken, or that it’s no longer a bike lane when the white stripe is broken. This last definition, if true, is the only one I can think of that would prevent 28-751 and 28-815 from conflicting. But I don’t have a definitive source for this definition. (Anyone care to help?)

However, merging into the bike lane in such a short distance (the length of the broken white line) creates a very dangerous situation for bicyclists.

]]> By: Dan Gutierrez http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bikelane-roadway/comment-page-1/#comment-11055 Dan Gutierrez Fri, 04 Nov 2011 04:40:05 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bikelane-roadway/#comment-11055 In the beginning of the post above the following statement was made: "In Arizona, on the other hand, bicycles are clearly not vehicles and so bike lanes are clearly not “designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel” — vehicles are banned from them! [§28-815(D) ]. Thus the “plain meaning” of Arizona’s statutes indicate that bike lanes are not part of the roadway." I disagree. The plain meaning of vehicular travel is the requiremnt of the operator to follow normal driver (AKA vehicluar) rules. What matters is not so much the conveyance as the rules the operator must follow, and since bicyclists have the rights and duties of drivers, they are engaging in "vehicular travel" when operating in preferential use roadways lanes, such as bike lanes, which are a part of the roadway in the MUTCD and the laws of every state in the US, except Oregon. It is interesting that AZ has done a poor job of defining a bicycle lane as part of the roadway in the vehicle code, and does a similarly poor job of making it clear that when vehicle drivers must only entr bike lanes to cross them or turn, it does not specify the roadway. Part of the difficulty is the awkwardness of using the word construction "path or lane" in 28-815. The real problem is not whether a bike lane is or is not a part of the roadway, instead the problem is the FTR law [ARS 28-815 (A)]. Repeal it, and bike lanes will be optional, just like other preferential use lanes (HOV lanes, Bus lanes, etc.). In the beginning of the post above the following statement was made: “In Arizona, on the other hand, bicycles are clearly not vehicles and so bike lanes are clearly not “designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel” — vehicles are banned from them! [§28-815(D) ]. Thus the “plain meaning” of Arizona’s statutes indicate that bike lanes are not part of the roadway.”

I disagree. The plain meaning of vehicular travel is the requiremnt of the operator to follow normal driver (AKA vehicluar) rules. What matters is not so much the conveyance as the rules the operator must follow, and since bicyclists have the rights and duties of drivers, they are engaging in “vehicular travel” when operating in preferential use roadways lanes, such as bike lanes, which are a part of the roadway in the MUTCD and the laws of every state in the US, except Oregon.

It is interesting that AZ has done a poor job of defining a bicycle lane as part of the roadway in the vehicle code, and does a similarly poor job of making it clear that when vehicle drivers must only entr bike lanes to cross them or turn, it does not specify the roadway. Part of the difficulty is the awkwardness of using the word construction “path or lane” in 28-815.

The real problem is not whether a bike lane is or is not a part of the roadway, instead the problem is the FTR law [ARS 28-815 (A)]. Repeal it, and bike lanes will be optional, just like other preferential use lanes (HOV lanes, Bus lanes, etc.).

]]> By: azbikelaw http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bikelane-roadway/comment-page-1/#comment-11053 azbikelaw Fri, 04 Nov 2011 03:37:23 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bikelane-roadway/#comment-11053 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Dan Gutierrez <alpha.wolf.lci@hotmail.com> To: LCI <lci-group@googlegroups.com> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 10:15 AM Subject: [LCI Group] Parsing FTR law logic in states with NO explicit MBL law To all, A straight English parsing of the logic of laws that are constructed as conditional restrictions with exceptions, as is the case with FTR laws and other bicyclist specific restrictions like MBL and MSU laws (FTR = Far To Right, MBL = Mandatory Bike Lane, MSU = Mandatory Shoulder Use, and please read this American Bicyclist article for more details: http://www.bikeleague.org/images/equality_article_nov-dec_07.pdf ), as applied to the Texas FTR law that is being discussed (which is interesting because it has an unusual logical structure in its 4th exception which bounds the exception as others have noted) still has the drawback that it serves as a de-facto MBL law because Texas has no explicit MBL law. This situation has nothing to do with the particualr structure of the 4th exception in the Texas FTR law! ************************************** Conclusion: In states with a far to right (FTR) law and no mandatory bike lane (MBL) law, the FTR restriction applies to bike lanes because bike lanes are part of the roadway, and thus the FTR law serves as a de-facto MBL law that is potentially more restrictive than an explicit de-jure MBL law. ************************************** Why potentially more restrictive? The road edge restriction in the FTR law applies to the roadway, so in any state with a FTR law and no MBL law, if there is a bike lane, which is part of the roadway, then a bicyclist is still required to ride per the restriction, which often reads “as close as practicable to the curb or edge of the roadway”, which is probably moot for a cyclist operating in a narrow (5’) bike lane (especially if it has a two foot gutter), since the cyclist anywhere in the bike lane is likely as close as practicable to the curb or edge, But what about a wider bike lane? If the bike lane is say 8 feet wide, is a lone cyclist (to avoid two-abreast law complications) riding 6 feet from the curb when none of the other exceptions apply, riding as close as practicable to the curb or edge? Depending on how the police and courts want to apply it, the TX FTR law could serve as a greater restriction than an explicit MBL law. In a state with an explicit mandatory bike lane use provision, such provisions only require a cyclist ride within the bike lane, thus taking precedence over the more restrictive wording of general FTR law. Note: One principle of law, particularly traffic law, is that more specific laws take precedence over less specific laws, so a MBL which is bike lane specific, takes precedence over a more general roadway positioning laws like a FTR law. If OTOH, bike lanes were defined like shoulders, as non-roadway parts of the highway (which is only true in Oregon, but they have a MBL law that requires bike lane use anyway), and there is no MBL law, then the FTR law would NOT serve as a de-facto MBL law, and the bike lanes would be optional, like shoulders are in most US states. - Dan “Alpha Wolf” Gutierrez - —– Forwarded Message —–
From: Dan Gutierrez
To: LCI
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 10:15 AM
Subject: [LCI Group] Parsing FTR law logic in states with NO explicit MBL law

To all,
A straight English parsing of the logic of laws that are constructed as conditional restrictions with exceptions, as is the case with FTR laws and other bicyclist specific restrictions like MBL and MSU laws (FTR = Far To Right, MBL = Mandatory Bike Lane, MSU = Mandatory Shoulder Use, and please read this American Bicyclist article for more details: http://www.bikeleague.org/images/equality_article_nov-dec_07.pdf ), as applied to the Texas FTR law that is being discussed (which is interesting because it has an unusual logical structure in its 4th exception which bounds the exception as others have noted) still has the drawback that it serves as a de-facto MBL law because Texas has no explicit MBL law. This situation has nothing to do with the particualr structure of the 4th exception in the Texas FTR law!

**************************************
Conclusion: In states with a far to right (FTR) law and no mandatory bike lane (MBL) law, the FTR restriction applies to bike lanes because bike lanes are part of the roadway, and thus the FTR law serves as a de-facto MBL law that is potentially more restrictive than an explicit de-jure MBL law.
**************************************

Why potentially more restrictive?

The road edge restriction in the FTR law applies to the roadway, so in any state with a FTR law and no MBL law, if there is a bike lane, which is part of the roadway, then a bicyclist is still required to ride per the restriction, which often reads “as close as practicable to the curb or edge of the roadway”, which is probably moot for a cyclist operating in a narrow (5’) bike lane (especially if it has a two foot gutter), since the cyclist anywhere in the bike lane is likely as close as practicable to the curb or edge, But what about a wider bike lane? If the bike lane is say 8 feet wide, is a lone cyclist (to avoid two-abreast law complications) riding 6 feet from the curb when none of the other exceptions apply, riding as close as practicable to the curb or edge? Depending on how the police and courts want to apply it, the TX FTR law could serve as a greater restriction than an explicit MBL law.

In a state with an explicit mandatory bike lane use provision, such provisions only require a cyclist ride within the bike lane, thus taking precedence over the more restrictive wording of general FTR law. Note: One principle of law, particularly traffic law, is that more specific laws take precedence over less specific laws, so a MBL which is bike lane specific, takes precedence over a more general roadway positioning laws like a FTR law.

If OTOH, bike lanes were defined like shoulders, as non-roadway parts of the highway (which is only true in Oregon, but they have a MBL law that requires bike lane use anyway), and there is no MBL law, then the FTR law would NOT serve as a de-facto MBL law, and the bike lanes would be optional, like shoulders are in most US states.

- Dan “Alpha Wolf” Gutierrez -

]]> By: Mark Wilkerson http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bikelane-roadway/comment-page-1/#comment-10932 Mark Wilkerson Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:02:54 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bikelane-roadway/#comment-10932 Sir, I received a call this morning from a gentelman saying that he was "slapped in the face" by a weeping willow type tree branch hanging over my sidewalk. I severely trimmed the tree so there is no side walk overhang. My question is are bikes supposed to be ridden on sidewalks if they abut a perfectly good residential street in a gated retirement comunnity? Peace, Mark Sir,
I received a call this morning from a gentelman saying that he was “slapped in the face” by a weeping willow type tree branch hanging over my sidewalk. I severely trimmed the tree so there is no side walk overhang.

My question is are bikes supposed to be ridden on sidewalks if they abut a perfectly good residential street in a gated retirement comunnity?
Peace,
Mark

]]> By: azbikelaw http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bikelane-roadway/comment-page-1/#comment-5356 azbikelaw Sun, 07 Nov 2010 18:23:02 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bikelane-roadway/#comment-5356 The MUTCD defines "Bicycle Lane-a portion of a roadway that has been designated by signs and pavement markings for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists", see <a href="http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2009/part1/part1a.htm#section1A13" rel="nofollow">part 9a, definitions</a> [italics added]. Also, <a href="http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2009/part9/part9c.htm#section9C04" rel="nofollow">Section 9C.04</a> Markings For Bicycle Lanes Guidance: Longitudinal pavement markings should be used to define bicycle lanes. Support: Pavement markings designate that portion of the roadway for preferential use by bicyclists. Markings inform all road users of the restricted nature of the bicycle lane" [italics added] See <em><a href="http://azbikelaw.org/blog/the-mutcd-and-a-r-s/" rel="nofollow">The MUTCD and A.R.S.</a></em> for background on why this matters. The MUTCD defines “Bicycle Lane-a portion of a roadway that has been designated by signs and pavement markings for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists”, see part 9a, definitions [italics added].

Also, Section 9C.04 Markings For Bicycle Lanes Guidance:
Longitudinal pavement markings should be used to define bicycle lanes.
Support:
Pavement markings designate that portion of the roadway for preferential use
by bicyclists. Markings inform all road users of the restricted nature of
the bicycle lane” [italics added]

See The MUTCD and A.R.S. for background on why this matters.

]]> By: Conner Wilson http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bikelane-roadway/comment-page-1/#comment-3996 Conner Wilson Sun, 05 Sep 2010 21:42:27 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bikelane-roadway/#comment-3996 Hi there, I find this discussion particularly intriguing, since I'm in alleged violation of this statute. I live in Tucson, and I'm a motorcyclist. A few weeks ago, I was cited for using the bike lane, but I was intending to turn right. The only caveat was that the intended street I planned to turn into was about a hundred feet away. Since traffic was dense and not moving, I proceeded to use the bike lane with intent of turning right, and got cited with ARS 28-815D. I intend to fight it using the statutes discussed in this article. My only question is this: how far is a "reasonably practical distance" (<a href="http://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00751.htm" rel="nofollow">ARS 28-751</a>) in using the bike lane (part of roadway) to turn right intentionally from it? Thanks a bunch, C. Wilson Hi there,

I find this discussion particularly intriguing, since I’m in alleged violation of this statute. I live in Tucson, and I’m a motorcyclist. A few weeks ago, I was cited for using the bike lane, but I was intending to turn right. The only caveat was that the intended street I planned to turn into was about a hundred feet away. Since traffic was dense and not moving, I proceeded to use the bike lane with intent of turning right, and got cited with ARS 28-815D. I intend to fight it using the statutes discussed in this article.

My only question is this: how far is a “reasonably practical distance” (ARS 28-751) in using the bike lane (part of roadway) to turn right intentionally from it?

Thanks a bunch,
C. Wilson

]]> By: M. Sanders http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bikelane-roadway/comment-page-1/#comment-2416 M. Sanders Sat, 09 Jan 2010 15:22:33 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bikelane-roadway/#comment-2416 ARS 28-751 says that for driver of a vehicle intending to turn right, "Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway (http://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00751.htm)." This means that, if a bike lane is present, then a motorist should merge into that bike lane in advance of turning, correct? So, in this situation, isn't the bike lane part of the roadway? Refer to drawing here http://www.cyclistview.com/inclusivepdintro/slide05.htm for clarification (I think CA law similar to AZ, e.g. a shoulder is not part of roadway). ARS 28-751 says that for driver of a vehicle intending to turn right, “Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway (http://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00751.htm).” This means that, if a bike lane is present, then a motorist should merge into that bike lane in advance of turning, correct? So, in this situation, isn’t the bike lane part of the roadway? Refer to drawing here http://www.cyclistview.com/inclusivepdintro/slide05.htm for clarification (I think CA law similar to AZ, e.g. a shoulder is not part of roadway).

]]> By: Arizona Bike Law Blog » Blog Archive » Two abreastness http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bikelane-roadway/comment-page-1/#comment-647 Arizona Bike Law Blog » Blog Archive » Two abreastness Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:19:52 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bikelane-roadway/#comment-647 [...] Other gray areas of abreastness: how does one cyclist pass a pair of cyclists riding two abreast? Does riding two abreast in the roadway, abreast of a third cyclist on the shoulder equate to three-abreast? What about a bicycle lane — is a bicycle lane part of the roadway? [...] [...] Other gray areas of abreastness: how does one cyclist pass a pair of cyclists riding two abreast? Does riding two abreast in the roadway, abreast of a third cyclist on the shoulder equate to three-abreast? What about a bicycle lane — is a bicycle lane part of the roadway? [...]

]]>