sggoodri

More information, including the proposed law's text, is here.

The legislation would require cyclists to ride single file whenever a car approaches behind. The bill sponsor is from a rural area where, like most of NC, the state roads have travel lanes less than 11 feet wide, and no paved shoulders.

The bill sponsor shares his sentiments in the video linked below:

- Rep. E. Nelson Cole, co-chair of the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee in an interview with NBC17 after introducing his bicycle "safety" legislation 5/11/10.

https://news.mync.com/site/news/video...g_Regulations/

Cyclists across the state are contacting their legislators to stop the bill, since it undermines our current right to control the travel lane, increases the length of the pack under narrow-lane conditions where drivers must change lanes to pass, reduces throughput at intersections, and complicates legal issues if a cyclist who is not riding single file is struck by another driver.

Note that many cyclists like myself who encourage single file operation where it is safe to do so and makes a significant difference in delay for drivers are still strongly against this bill.

noisebeam

There is also the possibility of not knowing if one cyclist is passing another or riding astride.

Bekologist

this anti-cycling reactionism is one growing in america. we need to watch out as this type of anti-cycling sentiment is percolating out there.

Locally in the NW, there is a provincial noveau riche island locally here trying to pass local ordinanaces that not only require bikes to ride single file but groups would have to pull off the roadway if a car approached from behind.

its interesting, steve, but the local friction here is from large groups of team/recreational, weekend cyclists. not the single transportation and commuting cyclists. i wonder if the issue in your state is more about recreational groups of bicyclists versus SOBs.... singly operating bicyclists. I highly doubt there's many narrow rural type roads with a critical mass of commuting bicyclists clogging em up peloton style.....

this tact about 'licensing' is a venomous stinger from those that have forgotten that driving is a public hazard and wreak hell on roads. Motor vehicles and motorists are licensed for several very compelling reasons. additionally, bicyclists travel at our prevailing speed as traffic and thereby help establish the normal speed of traffic. we do not impede traffic, we are traffic.

njkayaker

https://www.bicyclelaw.com/road-right...hts-two-by-two

Seattle Forrest

... and one with a lot of clout, as it's the last single occupancy vehicle exit on the expressway. I'm curious to see how this turns out, although to be honest, most of the riding I do on MI is on the I-90 trail. But between Mercer Island, this thread, and the Florida law requiring bikes to ride in the bike lane when one is present, things aren't looking ideal.

... that they claim to hate 'Big Government?' If bikes should have to "be more considerate" because they don't pay hated taxes?

I saw on Wikipedia that this particular representative is a former car dealer.

phoebeisis

Car drivers get angry when bike riders "intentionally" inconvenience them.
There are 100x more serious car drivers than there are serious bike riders.
We will be restricted, if we piss off the VAST MAJORITY.
Taking a lane is probably fine in big cities with lots of bike riders(voters).
It is poison in rural areas-and maybe poison in affluent suburbs.

It just numbers-we don't have them.
We-adult bicycle riders-are viewed as an eccentric minority because we are an eccentric minority.
We should go on a charm offensive; be ostentatiously polite-a counter to CM (which doesn't make any friends-just enemies all over the country)

kevingoorijan

Oh yes, drivers do get angry easily. There was this one time when I almost got hit, and the driver shouted badwords at me.

Thats why, I prefer having bike lanes to avoid giving inconvenience to motorists.

phoebeisis

Admirable attitude displayed below, Kevingoorgian, but I must have been a bit unclear on the exact why.

"Oh yes, drivers do get angry easily. There was this one time when I almost got hit, and the driver shouted badwords at me.

Thats why, I prefer having bike lanes to avoid giving inconvenience to motorists. "

You are mainly right- but there are 2 whys to the bike lanes

1) It isn't strictly because you don't want to piss off drivers(though there is nothing wrong with that), it is because you don't want to piss this vast majority off so much that they get motivated enough to pass laws restricting bicycle use. Which they most certainly will do. Like the law being discussed in this thread.
2) Most bike riders prefer bike lanes-especially less experienced riders and the riders we hope to recruit. It isn't a safety issue as much as it is a perceived safety/comfort issue. Most riders would prefer cars stay well away from them-lanes do this.

$10-$12 gasoline would change everything in respect to bicycle use.We would then have numbers(voters) and not just in big cities.

chipcom 

The fact that you wallflowers would rather condone bad behavior than punish it is troubling. Using your logic, if your kid was beating up other kids for their lunch money, you'd probably recommend that kids not eat lunch rather than punishing your kid for his bad behavior.

A bicycle is no more inconvenient to motorists than any other slow moving vehicle. Are we going to get all those other SMVs off the road and build separate facilities for them too? Should the Amish just stay home rather than venture anywhere where there is not a dedicated buggy path? Is it the fault of the Amish that their buggies inconvenience some impatient motorist?

This surrender monkey attitude is why bad behavior is becoming more and more the norm, not the solution to the problem.

chipcom 

nice catch.

phoebeisis

chipcom- your analogy would be just fine, if I thought we were actually being beaten up for our lunch money.

I don't see pushing bike lanes as any sort of defeat/beating.

Besides the other slow moving vehicles are being operated by folks who have numbers or political power on their side-lotta' Amish where they are-lotta' farmers in rural areas. The majority in those areas accepts that the common good is served by allowing these slop pokes.They-the vast majority accept the minor inconvenience as a net good thing.

It is rarely a question of who is Right or Wrong. You might think that is how things are decided, but it just isn't so-not in this world.

The Supreme Court codified separate but equal-made it the law of the land. Was this the Right Decision?

The Law of the land was women,Blacks, and to some extent non land owners couldn't vote.

Muslim women have very few rights by our reckoning.

Of course these groups are/were WAAAAY MORE WRONGED than bicycle riders.

Why did they eventually get their rights??

Just what are our rights?

We have to convince the vast majority that we are a net good thing.

Do you think CM rallys do this?

Does taking a lane do this?

Rights don't necessarily have anything to do with right and wrong/fair unfair.

"Catch more flies with Honey than Vinegar "-Corny but usually true.

Being polite and overly accommodating while pushing for bike lanes is a better strategy than your "I demand a lane" strategy.

Now, if we get $10-$15 gasoline-we'll have the numbers to demand lanes. Bike riding will increase 10X overnight!

It is all numbers-not right or wrong or Rights no Rights.

I'm not trying to pick a nasty fight-no name calling or insults. Just a strong difference of opinion. "Surrender Monkey Attitude" kinda' funny and not out of bounds. Just what is the derivation of that?? Surrender monkey?? Not kidding-just curious.

Mr IGH

Florida, North Carolina, Texas...surrender monkeys in our ranks...we are sooo screwed. With more riders on the road, I expect more of this. The reaction to rising gas prices will be more anger towards us, not less. I'm just going to keep riding, protect myself as best I can and try to steer clear of Johnny Law. When the po-po figures out how much judges and juries hate cyclists, it gonna get real bad.

Chicago Al 

phoebeisis: 'Surrender monkeys' was a term some right-winger came up with in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The French government expressed concern over the 'rush' to invade and wanted to let the UN weapons inspectors finish their job. Those in whole-hearted support of invading Iraq dismissed those concerns as it was 'obvious' that Saddam had WMD. Someone coined the phrase 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' to mock the French and their supposed cowardice. It was soon all over the blogosphere and talk radio.

However, the 'surrender monkeys' turned out to be right about Saddam's supposed WMD.

Mr IGH

Didn't know Willie on the Simpson's is a right winger...more proof the right wingers are running things!

I-Like-To-Bike

This is the most overheated rhetoric in a whole thread chock full of silly bombast. The proposal is obviously limited to the activities of club cyclists on their weekend/evening rides in the suburbs and out into the more rural areas. Bike lanes are not an issue where this proposal would have any effect, nor is restricting the rights of cyclists to use the road.

For those who play the cyclists are vehicle drivers card what other vehicle operators are permitted to "drive" much slower than prevailing traffic three abreast in a traffic lane, or feel they need legal exceptions to permit them to do so? The excuses and rationale offered by the North Carolina Active Transportation Alliance are lame and a stretch.

Mr IGH

There are no bike lanes and a single MUP for 1/2 mile of my 6 mile commute...and the road rage is heating up. We don't all live in nice states with un-corrupted cops and judges and basic civil decency.

I-Like-To-Bike

Note the law proposal prohibits MORE than two abreast. One cyclist passing or riding astride of another would not be affected at all.

I-Like-To-Bike

So what does that have to do with the proposal in N.C.?

Mr IGH

I lived in CR and IC for over ten years, very friendly towards bikes. Come ride your bike in the NW suburbs during rush hour, it's a little different than Burlington With rising gas prices, as more people ride bikes, more restrictive laws will be passed like the laws in FL and NC that force riders to ride in an un-safe manner. I'm no Chipseal or Rosa Parks, I'll pass on the cop beat down and kangaroo court.

Chicago Al 

Mr IGH, you're obviously right about Groundskeeper Willie. How could I have forgotten that, esp as my kids watch the Simpsons seemingly every day after school?

But the term did get appropriated by the right wing noise machine in re the Iraq run up.

FWIW I don't spend much time in the NW burbs, though I am going to Barrington tonight. (If I get to the Wisconsin border, that's too far, right?) While there are nice roads for riding out there, the main thoroughfares like Rand Road are nowhere I'd want to take a bike. Or a car for that matter!

Mr IGH

LOL, spoken like a big city dweller! I have to cross Euclid, Algonquin, Golf and Woodfield to get to my place of work. Last mile is in an Industrial Park...I'm starting to lose my nerve. Was riding downtown with an old friend last week, what a difference. The bike lanes were packed on a nice warm weeknight, pizza, beer and young lassies were nice too

phoebeisis

Chicago Al Mr IGH- thanks for the info. So it was that oddball character on the Simpsons and then the Right Wingers grabbed it because they liked the sound of it??
Now it is used as a mild insult- Surrender Monkey -hmmm, doesn't really roll off the tongue.

The French get a bad rap.Yes, they were dead right on the WMDS. Their 20th century war absolute casualty numbers are second only to the Rooskies in Europe (Chinese had spectacular WW2 numbers).

Mr. IGH- I don't picture it getting any way near that bad.Beside our cops-NOLA- are probably indifferent to mode of transport when handing out beat downs.

I really think $10 gasoline would benefit bike riders-get us more bike lanes.I love bike lanes. Once you get older/slower you will also.

sggoodri

Since most of the rural NC travel lanes in question are much too narrow for same-lane overtaking, drivers will still need to change lanes to pass. Drivers aren't going to be any less covenienced by cyclists staying single file on such roads.

In a two-abreast group the length of the group is shorter and drivers have a clearer visual indication that the lane width is fully occupied (from farther away) than if they stay single file.

I know that a lot of parts of the country have 12' lanes and wide paved shoulders on rural roads, and single-file group cycling works well. That's not the case here in NC. Yet, crash rates for two abreast groups in NC are very low, and nearly all of the run-off-road and passing-too-closely/sideswipe incidents involve cyclists riding on the rightmost edge of the lane. This is why most of the cycling clubs want to continue to have the legal option to stay two abreast, especially in narrow lanes.

phoebeisis

Looking at it from a car driver's point of view,I think I would prefer to pass a line of two single bikes than two bikes riding side by side.

If the single bikes were at the 5' mark in a 13 foot lane, I could keep the right side of my car at the 9 foot mark and just be extending 3 feet or so into the oncoming lane.

Worst case, if I misjudged the pass the oncoming car should be able to miss me while still remaining in his lane.

On the other hand If a driver really goofs on a full width pass of two bikes abreast the cars drivers will either run off the road, hit one another head on,- or steer directly into the bicycles. If they can't run off the road(trees/ditch)-they will steer into the bicycle riders.

Car drivers aren't highly trained, highly motivated pilots. They are run of the mill people who fool with cell phones, makeup, radios whatever while driving. This is why the run straight into huge groups of bicycle riders(and why the regularly rear end other cars etc).

This is also why I favor dedicated bicycle lanes. The less time I have to share a lane with a distracted drivers-the better.

I-Like-To-Bike

In other words, your club cycling pals want to maintain their legal two abreast peloton "training" formations regardless of road/traffic conditions or such tactics' effect on other road users. Sorry no big crocodile tears from me, this is an insignificant cycling safety/legal issue except for a tiny band of inconsiderate "high mileage enthusiasts."