kevindsingleton 

???

Paul Barnard

How do you define "impede?"

Paul Barnard

Does NJ DOT have it right, or do you?

Biking in New Jersey, Frequently Asked Questions, Commuter Information

The best approach is to position yourself several feet out into the lane where motorists will see you and not be invited to squeeze by in the same lane. On narrower lanes, ten feet or less, a bicyclist might actually "take the lane", i.e., position themselves at or near the center of the lane. This enables them to be seen by overtaking vehicles and gives the message that the overtaking vehicle must move left to pass when it is safe to do so.

coney462

Definition of impede

impeded; impeding
transitive verb
:to interfere with or slow the progress of

genec

Hey, that's quite a bit different from your earlier statement of:
Indeed, don't impede traffic, but bear in mind that you too are traffic... and there are plenty of reasons to avoid being trapped at the curb... and clearly your original statements were wrong... taking the lane is legal, when necessary.

rachel120

While your definition is correct, that same definition would apply to quite a few motor vehicles too. School buses, city buses, student drivers, the stereotypical Sunday drivers, anyone who won't drive faster than the speed limit, vehicles carrying compressed gases, people with a truck bed full of furniture or mattresses strapped to the roof of their vehicles, farm vehicles, mopeds...the list is endless. And even the typical driver can impede traffic if someone is Speedy Gonzalez.

So of all those, do you tell them to all ride on the shoulder? Or do you accept that there will be vehicle traffic going far slower than you and not single out any particular class of vehicle? Or do you be a hypocrite and single out a particular class and ignore that farm vehicles and mopeds go about the same speed as bicycles and school buses and city buses have so many darn stops that the end time of your trip is the same or even later than being caught behind a bicycle?

Paul Barnard

By that definition, if someone has to lift their foot off the gas, they have been impeded. I am as respectful of and accommodating of other road users as you will find in a cyclist, but I am not going to get too worked up if someone has to lift off the gas on my account.

dh024

I also think there is a difference between impeding the FLOW OF TRAFFIC, which is what most laws are aimed at, versus impeding the fast and convenient travel of individual cars.

Regardless, most states and provinces have legislation that prohibits impeding traffic if it is SAFE for slower moving vehicles to move over and let traffic pass, but not otherwise.

coney462

Paul you ask a very good question. My original quote was from NJ DOT 39:4-14.2, 39:4-10.11 Operating Regulations.
So it seems that NJ DOT gives advise (as per your quote) that is not in agreement with my quote

dh024

Good example of an interpretation here by legal experts:
https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/impeding-traffic/

coney462

I didn't say that anyone, bicycle or otherwise should ride on the shoulder. Just to stay as far right in the lane as practicable, when it is safe to do so

Paul Barnard

I don't see the DOT tip as being at odds with the law, but rather it helps explain legally how "practicable" may play out.

AlmostTrick

" 169.15 Impeding traffic.
No person shall drive a motor vehicle... "


^^^Doesn't apply to human powered bikes.


From what I've understood in the past, as long as a bicycle is traveling at a reasonable speed for a bike, it cannot be in violation of impeding traffic. Of course the cyclist is still required to follow all other laws, such as AFRAP and pull off when safe to do so if a specified number of vehicles queue up behind him/her. (as applicable)

dh024

Good point - many jurisdictions may have "impeding traffic" rules that don't even apply to bicycles! But even if they did, they are often worded just like this.

welshTerrier2

Even here on BF, among very experienced cyclists, we get into debates about what "practicable" means or about what "impedes" means. As advocates, we should be pushing to change our laws to give cyclists and motorists the explicit, unmistakable message that cyclists have a right to take the lane when there is not adequate space for a passing vehicle to share the lane with them.

Instead, in the cited NJ law for example, we get all these examples of trash or grates in the gutter or wording about preparing for a left turn.

As most laws exist today, we rely on the interpretation of the courts or in the fine print tucked away in some driver's handbook. Neither of these mechanisms does much to educate the public. Most drivers have no clue about what safe cycling requires and, unfortunately, many casual cyclists don't either. Let's make the law more explicit and do some public education on what safe cycling means.

rachel120

One of the best ways to educate the public on bicycle laws will never be done. Partially inertia, partially funding, partially politics, partially Mommy Wars.

Part A would be a requirement for bicycle education in all elementary schools, somewhere around grade 5 or 6. Even if getting a bicycle is beyond a family's budget or there are physical restrictions, having that education will be a good foundation for building on when the kids are old enough to drive or have the ability to get a bicycle.

Note: I remember studying very basic traffic laws in second grade, which included what the yellow lines that separated direction of travel meant depending on if they were solid or dotted. So yeah, little kids can retain stuff that abstract.

Part B would be a requirement for driver's education in all high schools, passing said class a requirement for graduation, and a requirement that the course material thoroughly cover bicycle laws and sharing the road with bicycles. That would familiarize all the future adults with the knowledge of where bicycles should be and how to safely share the road. Plus having standardized state provided course materials would certainly minimize the legal gray areas we on the forum debate regularly.

Part C would be harder written exams. Exams that would require a thorough knowledge of driving laws and would include several questions on sharing the road.

Note: I've had to take a driver's test twice. The first time when I was a teen. The second time when I was out of state military and my purse was stolen and I had no proof that I had a license. I had thought the easy second test was because they maybe confirmed I was already licensed, but I recently asked family in the second state about their test experience and I was shocked to find they all had the same test. My first test was 100 questions, random out of hundreds and several covered bicycle laws. (The practical part was a tour through downtown.) The other state's test was 15 or 20 questions, on a photocopied piece of paper, so basic that I really do know a guy who took it and passed without studying. (The practical part was going around the block in a residential area.)

Part D would be community policing and local government education. Run public service ads on the radio and TV and local news websites about state and applicable local laws. If sidewalk riding is illegal, point it out, flat out say get in the road. If sidewalk riding is legal but not encouraged due to pedestrian safety, do what they did for drunk driving and run commercials on badly injured or killed pedestrians.

Note: I recently dropped off candy to the local police station as a thank you for their patience in me being on the road and my suspicion that they are doing something to encourage my safety and reduce the harassment. The woman accepting the candy said "X road? Yeah, I think I've gotten calls about you." So however they are responding to the non-emergency calls, they are clearly doing a teaching moment, and that shows the power of community policing.

drlogik 

A statement in the law that reads, "...or other hazardous conditions on the right...", could cover a hazardous condition on the right caused by current traffic conditions. A stretch but you could claim that you had to ride in the center of the lane to avoid hazardous conditions on the right (no shoulder) because of heavy traffic and the likelihood of running off the road.

Personally I try not to ever ride in the center of the lane but certain situations do make it necessary. Yours is probably one of them.

As far as the other cyclist, I'd ignore the person and pay strict attention to your own safety. It appears you did it right but that's a judgement call on your part.

welshTerrier2

Excellent education campaign. I'm sorry to see you're so skeptical that any of it is possible.

I was a presenter at a statewide trails conference this past Saturday and one of the other presenters, in a session I attended, was the Bicycle Director (or some such title) for MassDOT (the Massachusetts Department of Transportation). He strongly supports the need for more cycling education for drivers, cyclists and everyone else. Perhaps you're right and it will never happen; I prefer to remain a bit more optimistic.

One other mechanism for public education that you didn't mention is signage. Even this can become controversial. At least for key roads, perhaps it would be helpful where lanes are too narrow to be shared to have signage that says something like: "Cyclists are encouraged to ride in the center of the lane". Depending on drivers' ed and public school safety classes is fine but signage is much more "immediate".

BTW, earlier in this thread you referred to lanes less than 14-feet wide as sub-standard. I'm not sure why. In this link, the standard travel lane width according to the Federal Highway Administration and the AASHTO guidelines seems to be 12 feet (excluding curbs and shoulders).

Assuming a road with no shoulder, the following metrics could reasonably apply to determine whether the right-hand travel lane is wide enough to share:
minimum 2-foot bailout area to the right of a cyclist, 2-foot width of cyclist and bike, 3-foot minimum safe passing distance for cars.

That means a cyclist requires a minimum of 7 feet of space. Assuming an average car width between 5.5 and 6 feet, with trucks and SUV's being much wider, one could reasonably suggest that there is not sufficient space in most standard travel lanes, unless there's a usable shoulder, to share the lane. It should be noted that, at least in Massachusetts, it is at least technically unlawful for a driver to cross a double yellow centerline and in some cases even a single yellow centerline.

What do we then advocate? Should cyclists just permanently take the lane in such situations? MassBike is pushing to change the centerline restriction. Unless we're going to widen the roads to make more room for cyclists, the centerline restriction has to go.

And one last thing ... In her book, Street Fight, former NYC Traffic Commissioner Janette Sadik-Kahn made more room for bicycles on many NYC streets by converting a "travel lane" into cycling infrastructure space (e.g. separated bike lanes). She gave numerous examples where losing a car travel lane did not cause a reduction in "car throughput".

genec

A cyclist in San Diego did just that... traffic on this particular day was slow and arduous... and the particular road was 2 lanes in either direction... when the right lane crawled slower than he could pedal, he took off and split the lanes (lane splitting is NOT illegal in CA) and rode to the left of the right lane. A cop saw him and pulled him over (not sure of the mechanics there, in slog traffic, but whatever...) The cyclist was awarded a ticket. He went to court and the judge sided with the cop... citing "as far right as possible..." A court official heard of the case and superseded... and had the ticket pulled. The official indicated the judge misinterpreted the law, and due to the exceptions in the law, held that the cyclist was doing nothing illegal.

I don't recall enough specific details to pull up the news article on this... so you'll just have to take my word for it.

rachel120

There's a huge difference between state traffic laws and federal transportation standards. State laws involving traffic laws define a road as a sub-standard lane if it is not wide enough for a car to safely pass a bicycle (or moped) while both are still occupying the same lane. That distance is often specified by states as 14 feet.

Chris0516

I was going by what it says in the BC Motor vehicle Act, not that sign. So, Either the law is wrong, or the sign is wrong.

Leebo

Trying to be a victim? Lets start with my laws in MA. Bike are vehicles and can use the full lane when needed. Same rules, same rights, same laws. One of the exceptions being a limited access road( like a hiway) My one road going to my house is very narrow, like 8' in some spots, limited sight lines, with blind corners. The whole of it is signed 20 or 25 mph. We New Englanders call it a cow path. I'm always in the right tire track or center or the lane, not going to get squeezed out or off the road. Controlling the lane is safer for me and not having cars passing on blind corners. Many safe places to pass with good sight lines. Drivers should leave enough time to deal with traffic, do you? There is no place on the whole road for a car and a bike to ride side by side. Bikes are traffic, take your lawful place. Some areas of the country are not quite up to modern times about sharing the road.

elocs

What's interesting is how many cyclists want to quote chapter and verse of traffic laws when it suits them or they want it their way but then when there are laws they don't like much they feel free to disregard them.

CB HI

So you are saying many cyclist behave similar to motorist and cops.

At least the cyclist know the laws and when they are violating them, unlike so many motorist and cops.

elocs

No, you are saying it.