Sorry if this is a repost or whatever, but I cannot in good conscience let this slide without alerting anyone else who may be affected. We need to call out legislators and let them know how explicitly wrong this is. Below is the original email I recieved…
Matt’s mention of the Tuesday ride prompts me to note that fans of
that ride, as well as the P ride or just about any group ride should
have their eye on a piece of legislation that just got proposed in the
NC house. You can read the text of the proposed amendment here:
This law would kill most group rides. It makes it illegal for cyclists to:
ride more than two abreast, even temporarily (like dropping off the
front) and even if the road is totally empty
ride more than one abreast when there is faster car traffic on the
road. If you’re on the front, you’re there for good, and if fast
cyclists encounter slow cyclists, they can’t pass, so that cars can
“impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic,” thereby
letting us know what the bill’s authors think of bike traffic – we’re
unnormal and unreasonable
For the first time ever in NC vehicle law, the amendment would:
create a special sub-class of vehicle users, namely cyclists, with
more limited rights than other classes. The rest of the vehicle code
treats all road users the same, with the same rights and
responsibilities.
revoke cyclists’ rights to the full lane when needed, with no
qualifications mentioned for safety, lane conditions, whether we’re
about to take a left turn, or any of the other nuances in similar
parts of the vehicle code.
place the responsibility to ensure that a pass is safe on the
overtaken vehicle (the cyclist) rather than the overtaking one
penalize vehicle operators (cyclists) for their behavior as a group
rather than individuals: cars aren’t required to make sure that other
cars follow the speed limits, but cyclists would be required to make
sure that other riders move over, or the entire group is punished
Some of the things the amendment outlines are, indeed, examples of
good road courtesy on the part of cyclists, but there’s a reason we
don’t usually try to legislate courtesy – legislation is too
heavy-handed a tool for this application. What we’re really seeing,
it seems to me, is an ignorance on behalf of the bill’s author (a
retired auto dealer) to acknowledge that two- or even three-abreast
often is the safest and easiest way – for cars as well as cyclists
– to co-exist on the road. Instead of trying to understand that by
entering into the cyclists’ position on the road, they’re trying to
legislate us off the road.
Here’s a bit more information, including the names of all committe members:
All,
The amendment made it out of committee as written as far as I can tell per Greir Martin.
"Thank you very much for your email and telephone call. I’ve got serious concerns about this legislation, also. The committee voted today to move it forward, but I got the sense that many members also have concerns. I hope that the bill in its current form will not become law.
Please continue to let me know what’s on your mind."
Since it’s not called out explicitly, I assume the existing statutes apply
with regard to lane markings. That is to say that, a vehicle could only pass
the cyclist (two abreast or single file) in a passing zone. To my reading of
the NC vehicle codes, passing another vehicle (bicycle included) in a no
passing zone is illegal.
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:14 PM, bcarpent <bcarpent@…> wrote:
Cycling advocates:
This bill is a potential disaster for cycling in groups if this becomes
law. Unfortunately, I don’t see any representation for Durham Co. on this
transportation committee, but there are three from Wake county. I may be in
the minority, but I can’t stand to see our rights to the road eroded for any
reason. This bill is particularly bad, as it assumes bicycles are
subordinate to cars, simply because we can be passed by other vehicles
without regard to safety, speed, distance available to pass, room to pass,
road conditions, traffic conditions etc.
“Operation of bicycles on streets and highways. Bicyclists riding bicycles
upon a street or highway shall not ride more than two abreast, except on
paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.”
–>Is there any reason, study, or purpose of this? Has this been
empirically shown to aid the speed of traffic? Also, in the event you are
passing two side-by-side cyclists, and you get hit by a car, all cyclist
have basically waived their rights and can be found negligent and without
ability to recover damages with this law.
“Persons riding two abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable
movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single
lane.”
–>Notice no limitation due to road or traffic conditions here.
Persons riding two abreast shall move into a single file formation as
quickly as is practicable when being overtaken from the rear by a faster
moving vehicle…"
–>Again, if you pass another cyclist and get hit when a vehicle is
passing, you’re likely to be at fault, and will not be able to recover
damages.
So, if you like to ride your bicycle for transportation, and you might ride
with or next to someone in the future, please contact these members (I’ve
included the email addresses for the Wake Co. reps below).
Members
Co-Chairs
Rep. E. Nelson Cole (Co-Chair) House Appointment
Sen. Steve Goss (Co-Chair) Senate Appointment
Legislative Members
Rep. Kelly M. Alexander, Jr. House Appointment
Rep. Becky Carney House Appointment
Rep. Lorene Thomason Coates House Appointment
Rep. James Walker Crawford, Jr. House Appointment
Rep. William A. Current, Sr. House Appointment
Rep. Robert Mitchell Gillespie House Appointment
Rep. Grier Martin House Appointment
Rep. Daniel Francis McComas House Appointment
Sen. Philip Edward Berger Senate Appointment
Sen. David W. Hoyle Senate Appointment
Sen. Neal Hunt Senate Appointment
Sen. Samuel Clark Jenkins Senate Appointment
Sen. John J. Snow, Jr. Senate Appointment
Sen. Richard Yates Stevens Senate Appointment
Advisory Members
Rep. Arthur J. Williams House Appointment
I’ll be asking for discussion of this by the NC Active Transportation
Alliance board of directors tonight. The bill is a pre-session draft
right now, and another legislator (an active cyclist) hopes to working
with the sponsor to revise it. The first item (more width in
resurfacings) is unlikely to get “horse-traded” in this short session.
It’s been a goal of cycling activists for a while. Others on this list
in local and state government can better explain (or more politely
explain) the operational basis for what we get right now.
On the second (Complete Streets) issue, requiring municipalities to
have complete streets ordinances is almost irrelevant to most highway
improvements, because almost any road of commuting significance in
North Carolina is a state facility. NCDOT has a diverse set of folks
working on a complete streets policy through the course of this
calendar year. That’s where the progress can be made.
Ed Harrison
On May 9, 2010, at 3:57 PM, cycleadvocate wrote:
It was reported in the N&O today that there is legislation which is
going to be introduced in the short session that prohibits cyclists
from riding more than two abreast and also that when approached by a
car from the rear the cyclists must ride single file. Regardless of
your take on this position, it might be an opportune time to get
some bike friendly legislation in a horse trade. Wouldn’t it be nice
for the DOT to be required to have at least 2 feet to the left of
the fog line on all resurfacings or new road construction? Wouldn’t
be great if all cities were required to have complete streets
legislation before they could any highway improvements?
SECTION 1. Chapter 20 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:
"§ 20-171.3. Operation of bicycles on streets and highways. Bicyclists riding bicycles upon a street or highway shall 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 shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane. **Persons riding two abreast shall move into a single file formation as quickly as is practicable when being overtaken from the rear by a faster moving vehicle… **
Based on a sample of 1:
I was visiting by brother a few weeks ago in Raleigh and on Friday during rush hour we got “suck” behind a group of riders taking up the entire lane for over a mile. We turned off, they did not let us by and there was a long line of cars behind us. It was a 55 MPH road, so its not like they were going the speed limit. They easily could gave gone single file to let traffic by, but chose not to. Seems like the above sections of the law is good in your state. I’ve not seen this type of behavior anyplace else. Perhaps the rest of the NC riders have courtasy, but this group sure didn’t.
Hope the riders and legislators come to a mutual law that benefits all parties and most importantly keeps people safe on the roads.
Good luck fighting this. I assume that NC - like the rest of the country - is full of fat lazy people who think that, when they’re in a car, they own the whole road.
The problem, of course, is that there are sooooo many of them.
That is a huge bummer. My team goes to Western NC each fall for a training camp around Roan Mountain. Great roads, people, etc. Of course, there is no traffic to deal with so probably a moot point around there. What cars (well, trucks usually down there) just wave and give us a wide berth. Southern cities aren’t likely any different than any other with regards to cyclists unfortunately. Mostly just worried about “precedence” for other states!
SECTION 1. Chapter 20 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:
"§ 20-171.3. Operation of bicycles on streets and highways. Bicyclists riding bicycles upon a street or highway shall 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 shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane. Persons riding two abreast shall move into a single file formation as quickly as is practicable when being overtaken from the rear by a faster moving vehicle…
Based on a sample of 1:
I was visiting by brother a few weeks ago in Raleigh and on Friday during rush hour we got “suck” behind a group of riders taking up the entire lane for over a mile. We turned off, they did not let us by and there was a long line of cars behind us. It was a 55 MPH road, so its not like they were going the speed limit. They easily could gave gone single file to let traffic by, but chose not to. Seems like the above sections of the law is good in your state. I’ve not seen this type of behavior anyplace else. Perhaps the rest of the NC riders have courtasy, but this group sure didn’t.
Hope the riders and legislators come to a mutual law that benefits all parties and most importantly keeps people safe on the roads.
That seems very reasonable to me, too. If so many cyclists didn’t behave like such a-holes this wouldn’t be happening. If we won’t behave in a courteous manner consistent with “sharing the road” then it’s reasonable to expect it to be legislated upon us. I hope some of the a-holes who are oblivious and who pay no attention when you yell “car back” start getting ticketed. It’ll serve them right.
they did not let us by and there was a long line of cars behind us. It was a 55 MPH road, so its not like they were going the speed limit. They easily could gave gone single file to let traffic by, but chose not to.
This happens around Charlotte all the time and even though I’ve been an avid cyclist since the early '80s, I get pissed when stuck behind these arrogant riders.
Being a NC Cyclist I knee jerkily react to any cycling legislation in our state. That being said I do see two parts of this proposed bill, and of those two parts I agree with one, and strongly disagree with the other.
Riding more than two abreast is unsafe on any busy roads in my opinion. Three people riding side by side on any busy road is just foolish and immediately cause cars to jam behind you pissing off the driving community, making people late, causing unnecessary anger. Two people riding side by side is fine and on narrow sections they should use common sense and ride single file till cars can pass…if the road is 55 mph, I wouldn’t dare ride side by side with another cyclist for longer than a few feet. How do you push cyclists into not riding 55 mph sections as a mob of 5 abreast gaggles? I don’t know, but it seems that when you do ride in busy areas with three + people across, you’re tempting car/truck drivers with their patience, eventually they get together and make bills and pass laws.
I’m not talking about like your side streets, but I’m talking about busy, heavy trafficed, street lights and cars zipping by every few seconds places that you shouldn’t ride three plus in. If you see a group of riders 5 abreast anywhere stopping traffic for miles and miles, I really don’t know what you’d do. I think local police might need to step in perhaps? Most group rides I do, modifiy their size and get down to two abreast on the right side of the road making it easy for cars to pass when safe, I think that’s pretty standard.
This doesn’t striike me as terribly unreasonable. I hate asshole cyclists as much as any driver. They make the road more dangerous and inhospitable for the rest of us who ride and trigger legislation like this.
I don’t think the no more than two abreast rule is at all unreasonable. What I don’t like is the language on overtaking - cyclists should be allowed to pass slower cyclists so long as it’s safe. Obviously whoever wrote the legislation doesn’t understand that it is neither safe nor practical for a pack of cyclists traveling at 25+ mph to sit behind some guy out on a 12mph stroll on a hybrid for 10 miles.
I don’t see how this creates a special subclass of vehicles. Cars and
motorcycles can’t ride more than two abreast either.
Then again I almost never go on group rides, so I can’t empathize quite as much. Roadies don’t like it when I drop their asses
I don’t see how you can draw all of those conclusions from the actual text of the law. If it was my state, I would support that bill the way it’s written. The only things they require are that you ride with common sense and courtesy. We have a right to share the road, not own it.
While I agree there are only a few really egregious problems in this proposal (as reported) we should all be concerned that it is the thin edge of the wedge. CYclists are traffic and have all the rights and responsibilities of other types of traffic. If some cyclists choose to waive their responsibilities then they can be given tickets or be found contributorily negligent if the worst happens and they get hit. It’s unfortunate (but natural) that the actions of a few affect public perception of all cyclists but it is a legislature’s job not to pander to the mob and continue to recognize the rights of law-abiding cyclists. IMO they should refrain from any special legislation that distinguishes cyclists from motorists in any way.
For the reasons given above I have very mixed feelings about the push to develop bike lanes throughout NYC. On the one hand they are undoubtedly safer and may encourage more people to ride. On the other hand I suspect they encourage motorists to view the road as the place for cars and bike lanes - even if they’re a few streets away and less convenient to the cyclist - as the place for bikes.
On a more granular level here’s one specific issue - I have been riding 9W this week and with the wind have been hard pressed to hear all but the largest trucks approach me from behind. Would I be allowed to pass a slower cyclist in this scenario without knowing that there is no motor traffic andwhere in the vicinity?
EDIT - or another issue: the legislation makes it clear that it regards groups of cyclists as acting in concert and responsible for each others actions. THis is pretty unusual and could get very unfair. Again on 9W I often catch up with and ride a few miles with teams or groups out on training rides. They or I will often peel off to take another route and given the size of the road doing this safely (and according to the road markings), often requires the peeling off group to change lanes and ride parallel to the straight ahead group for a couple of hundred meters until the turn. Is that now illegal (in NC)? Are they supposed to veer accross the road at the last minute instead? If it is illegal who’s liable? All of us?
The more I read it I have real issues with the drafting as well as the precedent.
I actually read this as an *expansion *of cyclist’s right in terms of group riding in NC…
As law states now, cyclists are afforded all the rights and legal obligations of other vehicles…In that context, pacelining is already illegal (unless you are in a duly lined passing zone)…
This proposition affords cyclists the opportunity to ride in a single, rotating paceline (2 abreast), as long as it is within a single lane and it is not impeding the reasonable flow of traffic (a very vague and open to interpretation phrase for sure)
Does this restrict the ability to double paceline and eschelon? Yep…but, it is the rare group ride that I have been in that can do either safely…
Our Tuesday night “World Championships” group ride in Asheville is a barn burner…It is split into 4 groups of up to 25 riders…with group A being Cat2 or faster travelling well in excess of 30mph…you will normally see a number of domestic pros in the group…The ride has 4 sprints and is on a designated scenic byway along the river.
This law will only affect our ride in the sprint zones (and truthfully, I doubt anyone will pay attention)…Right now, the sprint zones are in passing zone straight-aways along the river (except for the finishing climb) and they end up as complete gutter-to-gutter free-for-alls at 40+ mph, with about 8 across both lanes…This proposal would make that not only stupid, but illegal…The rest of the ride would continue to be one long, tougue-in-the-spokes suffer-fest as normal.
The other affect this law will have is on the social chatter group rides…The groups that bunch up 4 and 5 across to talk and chit chat during a ride…I’ve been there and these rides have their place and time (way out on little country roads with no traffic)…When these chit chat rides bunch up into a group that blocks busy streets (something I have seen and bitched about while riding in them) that’s when you see legislation like this…and deservedly so.
the sprint zones are in passing zone straight-aways…and they end up as complete gutter-to-gutter free-for-alls at 40+ mph, with about 8 across both lanes…This proposal would make that not only stupid, but illegal…The rest of the ride would continue to be one long, tougue-in-the-spokes suffer-fest as normal.
One could argue that this is already stupid if there is traffic around. I’m all for group riding, but not for stupid group riding where you are taking up both lanes etc.
the sprint zones are in passing zone straight-aways…and they end up as complete gutter-to-gutter free-for-alls at 40+ mph, with about 8 across both lanes…This proposal would make that not only stupid, but illegal…The rest of the ride would continue to be one long, tougue-in-the-spokes suffer-fest as normal.
One could argue that this is already stupid if there is traffic around. I’m all for group riding, but not for stupid group riding where you are taking up both lanes etc.
that’s why I said “not only stupid, but illegal”…they are pretty dumb…and I have seen a few horrendous crashes over the last 15-20 years…fortunately, none involving cars…
Put 25 really fast guys (and their egos), all trying to make a living by riding their bikes, together in one place and tell 'em to race to that county line sign over there…and that’s what you get…complete idocy…As the token tri-geek with little-to-no fast twitch genetics, I lead out and then stay out of the fray…although, I have been known to attack during the re-group
Right … there about 25 guys that actually can “make a living” bike racing in the U.S. …
Look, our local Cat 1/2 hammerfest/World Champs has designated sprint zones as well, but we never fan out across the other lane. Actually, since we all ride so much, most are very good stewards for cyclists with red lights, traffic control, etc. We are typically not the worst offenders except out in the countryside with the odd 4 way stop sign blast
I was visiting by brother a few weeks ago in Raleigh and on Friday during rush hour we got “suck” behind a group of riders taking up the entire lane for over a mile. We turned off, they did not let us by and there was a long line of cars behind us. It was a 55 MPH road, so its not like they were going the speed limit. They easily could gave gone single file to let traffic by, but chose not to. Seems like the above sections of the law is good in your state. I’ve not seen this type of behavior anyplace else. Perhaps the rest of the NC riders have courtasy, but this group sure didn’t.
Hope the riders and legislators come to a mutual law that benefits all parties and most importantly keeps people safe on the roads.
That seems very reasonable to me, too. If so many cyclists didn’t behave like such a-holes this wouldn’t be happening. If we won’t behave in a courteous manner consistent with “sharing the road” then it’s reasonable to expect it to be legislated upon us. I hope some of the a-holes who are oblivious and who pay no attention when you yell “car back” start getting ticketed. It’ll serve them right.
psycholist,
With due respect, I completely disagree. It is unfortunate that a group of cyclists would insist on taking up a full lane of traffic when it’s not necessary, but obviously that story could be answered with a thousand more stories of motorist/cyclist encounters that illustrate the opposite point – cyclists run off the road, cut off, yelled at, or hit, because they had the audacity to ride their bike right where the motorist was going to drive. Cyclists need more rights on the road, not less. Even the a-holes.
I’m a fellow North Carolinian, and the problem is we all start from the premise that driving where and as fast as you want is a native right, and even allowing cyclists on the roads is a sign of our great generosity. I reject that premise and have virtually no tolerance left for anyone who wants to make it more difficult for people to ride their bicycles around the city.
Right … there about 25 guys that actually can “make a living” bike racing in the U.S. …
Look, our local Cat 1/2 hammerfest/World Champs has designated sprint zones as well, but we never fan out across the other lane. Actually, since we all ride so much, most are very good stewards for cyclists with red lights, traffic control, etc. We are typically not the worst offenders except out in the countryside with the odd 4 way stop sign blast
Touchy subject for sure…on all sides…
In my experience, there is a sense of entitlement and superiority among bike racers…and I’m talking Cat3 and up…that is a bit pervasive. The really top level guys are just as bad…I’ve had the chance to ride with a lot of really fast guys…and a few out-and-out stars…Pretty much all of them have the same condescending “The fat redneck behind the wheel couldn’t possibly understand what it is like to do what I do.” kind of mentality that leads to a justification of riding wherever and however they please…and I’ve witnessed this same thing in group rides all over the country…Atlanta, Birmingham, Chattanooga, Boulder, San Diego, Portland…you name it…it isn’t limited to our little slice of the training world here in Asheville.
The real stewards of cycling advocacy, frankly, are the cookie riders…The one’s that could care less about speed and place. They are the ones that sit on the transportation board committees, organize the cycling lane cleaning days, put on school bike clinics and generally perform the role of cycling advocacy…the racers, in general, are too busy analyzing their latest powermeter file…
A bit of a rant I know…but, legislation like the OP’s example is a time for a real gut-check on how everyone that rides can both act on their own and influence others in a positive way to advance cycling.
