2010-02-06 Proposal for law changes to Utah Code
HB0424 Operation of Bicycles and Mopeds on Roadways
Current Location: Legislative Review | Leg Tracking | | Bill Text
Background Material and Detailed Explanations (pdf draft)
Common Motorist Questions (pdf)
Please send comments to
Dan
Comments
References
Link to Stop Sign Bill (2010 HB091)
2000 Transportation Interim Committee Minutes (last major revision of the bicycle laws in Utah)
2001 Bill Tracking Page (State of Utah)
Voting Records on Bicycle Bills
Underline = Insert
Strikeout = Remove
Plain = Existing
Current Utah Code Section 1105 to amend:
http://www.safe-route.org/laws/ (other cycling related laws)
41-6a-1105 - State of Utah
Operation of bicycle or moped on and use of roadway |
(1) A person operating a bicycle or a moped on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as near as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway except when:
(a) overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction;
(b) preparing to make a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway;
(c) traveling straight through an intersection that has a right-turn only lane that is in conflict with the straight through movement; or
(d) reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand edge of the roadway including:
(i) fixed or moving objects;
(ii) parked or moving vehicles;
(iii) bicycles;
(iv) pedestrians;
(v) animals;
(vi) surface hazards; or
(vii) a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(2) A person operating a bicycle or moped on a highway shall operate in the designated direction of traffic.
(3) (a) A person riding a bicycle or moped on a roadway may not ride more than two abreast with another person except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.
(b) If allowed under Subsection (3)(a), a person riding two abreast with another person may not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and shall ride within a single lane.
(4) If a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, a bicycle rider may be directed by a traffic-control device to use the path and not the roadway. |
|
Other Comments
Right to the roadway in general
The cyclist has the "has all the rights and is subject to the provisions of this chapter applicable to the operator of any other vehicle" 41-6a-1102. Under this assumption, a cyclist is a DRIVER of a vehicle on the roadway. As such has the same right to the lane as any other vehicle. No other class of vehicles are REQUIRED to share their lane. Motorcyclist "may" share their lane however.
Although there are different licensing and insurance requirements for various classes of vehicles, no other vehicles are called out by the vehicle class when it comes to traffic movement rules (vehicles with trailers are sometimes restricted from the general purpose lanes, and bicycles are prohibited on urban freeways, but not how the movement of vehicle traffic is treated in general). There are already on the books traffic laws which deal with "slower" vehicles and the lane positioning:
41-6a-701. In subsection (3) it discusses how vehicles travelling slower should act. The "curb or edge" language dates back to when roadways were not usually marked and is in need of updating to reflect current traffic behavior and expectations.
The suggested update of "sharing when safe" is only a concession that when it is safe and practicable to do so in the cyclists view, that they should for the overall greater good and getting along with other roadway users share the lane, but should not trump the cyclist's right to the use of the roadway as any other vehicle. The reason that it must be the cyclists reasonable opinion is that they have the most to loose. Due to their slower speed and better view of the roadway hazards they are in a better position at any given place and time to make that decision than a driver of up-coming vehicles, law enforcement arriving later or the judicial system some time later.
The cyclist must be constantly riding in a "situational awareness" mode while riding, even on routes they ride daily, their fitness, weather, road conditions and other factors not only change daily, but on a moment-to-moment basis. Threats such as dogs, children playing, cross traffic and the like may not be present even minutes after the cyclist encounters them to be evaluated by others at a later point in time (either a few minutes by a LEO, or by a Judge. The only caveat here is that a cyclist should reasonably apply the law and traffic behavior.
Passing on the Right
The original or the changes do not prohibit or specifically sanction the passing on the right. This is covered under 41-6a-705 Passing upon right -- When permissible. The law should not encourage passing stopped traffic on the right unless in a separate lane "or line of traffic" as stated in 705.
Taking the Lane
This law does NOT require a ride take the lane, it only "allows" them to, they still may ride in the shoulder, sidewalk etc if they still choose to do so.
This change only clarifies the CURRENT law which provides for the same rights, but is worded from the point of view of having to justify why one is not riding to the right, rather than the other way around.
In practice though, after having these laws on the books in many states is that Law Enforcement Officers (LEO's), the judicial system and the public at large (both motorists and cyclists) don't understand and miss interpret the law. The most important section is the "if the lane is to narrow, you may take the lane" statement which is at the end of the list of other exceptions. Most people (including myself self the first few times I read it), stopped reading the exceptions as they started with what you would expect to see in there of debris and objects.
Taking a Wide Lane on 4 lane highways
In Utah we have a LOT of roads with wide outside lanes with more than 2 lanes or with a suicide lane. When determining if the outside lane is wide enough to share, it should not matter how many other lanes there are. Likewise if it is to narrow, it should not matter that there are only 2 lanes in our positioning. I'm suggesting that the lane we are travel in needs to speak for it self, and if that means share, you share, if that means control and people have to wait to pass, then so be it. I'd have a hard time politically trying to make the argument to control a sharable lane just because there are 4 lanes.
Colorado Language
There was a comment that the original language I wrote up Friday was liked better, before I replaced with the Colorado version. Theirs made more sense to me, and since they already passed it, it creates a precedent which may be helpful in getting something passed here in Utah.
2-abreast
I
added in clarifications that if the lane is to narrow to share, it doesn't matter. Although clarified that the single LANE as it currently reads, should be defined as above.
Drafting
There was another comment about drafting as it relates to 41-6a-711, Following another vehicle:
(1) The operator of a vehicle:
(a) may not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having regard for the:
(i) speed of the vehicles;
(ii) traffic upon the highway; and
(iii) condition of the highway; and
(b) shall follow at a distance so that at least two seconds elapse before reaching the location of the vehicle directly in front of the operator's vehicle.
I think we are covered there under "reasonable and prudent", but may be something we tackle later? We should research other states on that one.
Vulnerable Vehicle Acts
The Vulnerable roadways user/3' law is a whole thing by it self. The problem with that in general is it further differentiates us as not vehicle drivers. The above doesn't so much, but recognizes us as slower vehicles and the duty for us to make reasonable accommodations to share the road when moving slower.
Conceding to the Vulnerable user, makes it harder to argue for our rights for the roadway (politically at least) as we want to be treated differently when hit, but want to be treated the same for the use of the roadway. (Same roads/same rules).
I do agree though that if the operator of a MV does something to "target" a pedestrian, bicyclists or motorcyclist, there should be stiffer penalties, but this is a different topic than I am trying to address this year.
No Passing Zones
Addressed the complaint that one needs to cross the double yellow to pass and give 3'. This has been addressed in other states, and brought up by local law enforcement and DA's, included language to update that as well.
Coordination with other agencies etc
That is the next step after we have our wishes worked out. Will be sent to Legislative Review early in the week. Will work to get feedback from AAA (who was supportive of us for the 3' law) and law enforcement etc.
References & Laws
Rights to the Roadway Cases
Oregon 3' Law Info
League Equality Statement (pdf)
League on Rights to the Roadway (pdf)
Utah Bicycle Laws
Colorado (2009)
Washington DC: 2201.2 Upon all roadways, any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand plane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road, driveway, or alley.
Ohio Proposed
AZ Dept of Highway Safety Note
Take the lane blog
Dan G's FRAP Research (2008-Excel)
Ohio's Law Enforcement Guide |
